HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #301  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2017, 7:34 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 30,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Landfill is almost impossible in the modern day. There have been countless proposals for extending Manhattan into the Hudson and East River in recent decades, and there are too many environmental and regulatory hurdles.
we still do modest amounts of lakefill here in chicago from time to time to create new parkland along the lakefront.

~6 acres of lake michigan were filled in a couple of years ago at fullerton to create new parkland and to help stabilize an old eroding shorline.

but regs for filling in ocean may be much more stringent than doing lakefill in lake michigan.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a marvelous middle ground for many middle class families.
     
     
  #302  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2017, 7:38 PM
ThePhun1 ThePhun1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Houston/Galveston
Posts: 1,870
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
It is not the same. The New York region is the largest concentration of population in the U.S. This was true when NYC consolidated. New York did not consolidate in order to artificially trying to boost its stature.

A stunt would be if Detroit were to merge with it's three surrounding counties in order to create the nation's second largest city.
Didn't Brooklyn fight annexation? Never-the-less, Queens was sparsely populated back then IIRC and no matter which way you slice it, Richmond/Staten Island is a relatively far flung suburb far removed from the heart of the city. What does it add other than just fluff to add numbers?

If New York didn't consolidate for that reason, then why? Regional planning may be a reason but isn't all.
     
     
  #303  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2017, 7:45 PM
ThePhun1 ThePhun1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Houston/Galveston
Posts: 1,870
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
NYC has very small physical city limits relative to urbanity. They haven't added an inch of land since the 19th century.
NYC has relatively small physical limits. It's half the size of Houston, so it's hardly a tiny place. Not annexing land any time recently doesn't change that.
     
     
  #304  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2017, 7:52 PM
Crawford Crawford is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 34,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePhun1 View Post
NYC has relatively small physical limits. It's half the size of Houston, so it's hardly a tiny place. Not annexing land any time recently doesn't change that.
NYC has small city limits relative to its overall urbanity.

Excepting Boston, there is no other major U.S. metro where such a huge chunk of the pre-auto urbanity isn't in the city proper.

You have millions of people in Northern NJ alone who live in what most Americans would describe as a "city" environment. And unlike most major cities, there aren't many NYC residents living in neighborhoods built up since WW2.
     
     
  #305  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2017, 7:55 PM
SteveD's Avatar
SteveD SteveD is offline
Back on the road again
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Atlanta Village
Posts: 3,098
I'm not saying Atlanta is densely settled, obviously it's not, similar to most comparable sunbelt metros. I'm saying that looking at Atlanta's roughly 500,000 population in its city limits is kind of silly given that so many comparatively sized metros have far larger core city land area: square miles:

San Fran: 47
Miami: 55
DC: 68
Boston: 90
Atlanta: 134
Philly: 141
Detroit: 143
Chicago: 234
New York: 305
Dallas: 386
LA: 503
Phoenix: 517
Houston: 627

If Atlanta were "scaled up" to many of these other city sizes it would be over a million in short order. Among Atlanta's "peer" sunbelt metros, it's smallest, with the notable exception of Miami, which has a similar "small" core city population.
__________________
Maybe Martians could do better than we've done
     
     
  #306  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2017, 8:01 PM
ThePhun1 ThePhun1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Houston/Galveston
Posts: 1,870
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun Belt View Post
Yeah it's nearly impossible today, but who knows what future may bring in 25-50 years.

Had NY not filled in Manhattan, WTC would not exist and Boston would have remained a quaint New England hamlet had it not filled in their waterways.
I get your point but the WTC would exist, Battery Park City wouldn't, which was built upon the dirt excavated for the WTC basements.
     
     
  #307  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2017, 8:23 PM
dave8721 dave8721 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Miami
Posts: 4,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveD View Post
I'm not saying Atlanta is densely settled, obviously it's not, similar to most comparable sunbelt metros. I'm saying that looking at Atlanta's roughly 500,000 population in its city limits is kind of silly given that so many comparatively sized metros have far larger core city land area: square miles:

San Fran: 47
Miami: 55
DC: 68
Boston: 90
Atlanta: 134
Philly: 141
Detroit: 143
Chicago: 234
New York: 305
Dallas: 386
LA: 503
Phoenix: 517
Houston: 627

If Atlanta were "scaled up" to many of these other city sizes it would be over a million in short order. Among Atlanta's "peer" sunbelt metros, it's smallest, with the notable exception of Miami, which has a similar "small" core city population.
Miami is ~36 square miles (35.99 to be exact) and with Miami you can get to a million with about 90 square miles, no need to scale up to 300.

The "Big 4" Sun Belt core cities:

Miami 36 square miles: 453,579
Atlanta 133 square miles: 472,522
Dallas 341 square miles: 1,317,929
Houston 639 square miles: 2,099,451
     
     
  #308  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2017, 11:04 PM
ITB495 ITB495 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_denizen View Post
Atlanta has relevance to me...I tried to read 'a man in full' once..
What happened? Sounds as if you didn't make it through it. What about Wolfe's "Bonfire of the Vanities"? Did you attempt that?

These titles are not thrillers or mysteries, but, man, do they pack a punch and serve as a date stamp to the latter years of the 20th century in the United States.

"Bonfire of the Vanities" is considered by some a seminal work depicting the go-go NYC financial era of the 1980s, while "A Man in Full" shifts to the south, specifically Atlanta, painting a vivid tale involving real estate development, wealth and power, and race relations.
     
     
  #309  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2017, 12:38 AM
ITB495 ITB495 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 85
As others have noted, the main reason why Atlanta isn't in quite the same league as NYC and Chicago is population and population density. The city's population is a very modest 472,522 (per 2015 estimates/Wikipedia). Moreover, density is only 3,360/sq mile. That falls well short of other U.S. cities of similar size, such as Boston (13,903/sq mi), Washington, DC (11,158/sq mi), and Seattle (8,398/sq mi).

Now if the Atlanta metropolitan region is compared to that of NYC, LA, and Chicago, and their respective regions, the difference narrows somewhat. Still, to a large extent, it comes down to population size and density.

Greater population and greater density in cities generally leads to differentiation in neighborhoods, ethnic enclaves, more variety of goods and services offered, more amenities for the populace, which, in turn, tends to attract a tourist trade. Densely packed cities with large populations also tend to create that special "it" that draws people to them whether to live and work or to visit. A good example is Hong Kong, which owes its vibrancy to its dense-packed multitudes. People often want to visit for that reason alone.

By many standards, Atlanta isn't a world-class city, despite hosting the Olympics in 1996 and being the location of one of the world's principal airport hubs. Neither are most similarly sized U.S. cities, such as Portland, Minneapolis, Kansas City, Milwaukee, Baltimore or Indianapolis. It could be argued there are only four world-class cities in the United States: NYC, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Washington, DC (because it's the center of government). Others that may or may not be deemed worthy include San Francisco, Houston, Boston and Seattle. What do all these cities have in common? With the exception of LA and Houston, all have good population densities. And LA and Houston, despite their low density, possess very significant populations. Atlanta has neither the population nor the density.

One measure today of a world city is a population greater than one million. There's other factors, of course, but the million number is a good yardstick. San Francisco and Seattle are on track to cross the threshold by 2030 or 2040. Boston, Washington, DC, and Portland are steadily growing as well, but it will take a concerted push if any of the three is to reach a million by 2060. Atlanta first needs to cross 500,000.
     
     
  #310  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2017, 12:57 AM
cannedairspray cannedairspray is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 2,203
Quote:
Originally Posted by ITB495 View Post
One measure today of a world city is a population greater than one million. There's other factors, of course, but the million number is a good yardstick. San Francisco and Seattle are on track to cross the threshold by 2030 or 2040. Boston, Washington, DC, and Portland are steadily growing as well, but it will take a concerted push if any of the three is to reach a million by 2060. Atlanta first needs to cross 500,000.
The first four you mentioned have, for practical purposes, populations over a million. Tourists and most (but not all) people and businesses don't care much about political lines on a map. Their cultures and general activity are all of cities of over a million people, because their metro areas certainly are.
     
     
  #311  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2017, 1:27 AM
Shawn Shawn is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 6,084
Small correction: Boston has 48.4 sq miles of land. The 90 sq mile figure I've seen in this thread includes all of Boston Harbor. Of course, the 48.8 also includes Logan International and all of the unpopulated Boston Harbor Islands

So in reality, Boston only has about 1/3 the land area as Atlanta does.
     
     
  #312  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2017, 1:47 AM
dc_denizen's Avatar
dc_denizen dc_denizen is offline
Selfie-stick vendor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: New York Suburbs
Posts: 10,990
per the 2010 census, Atlanta is the 9th largest American city:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_urban_areas

1. NYC
2. LA
3. Chicago
4. SF+San Jose
5. Miami
6. Philly
7. Dallas
8. DC
9. Atlanta
10. Boston

Atlanta should aspire to be a better Boston (another low-density,multi-nodal metro) before we talk about Miami or Chicago.
__________________
Joined the bus on the 33rd seat
By the doo-doo room with the reek replete
     
     
  #313  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2017, 3:21 AM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 56,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePhun1 View Post
Didn't Brooklyn fight annexation? Never-the-less, Queens was sparsely populated back then IIRC and no matter which way you slice it, Richmond/Staten Island is a relatively far flung suburb far removed from the heart of the city. What does it add other than just fluff to add numbers?

If New York didn't consolidate for that reason, then why? Regional planning may be a reason but isn't all.

Well, it wasn't that. But here's a little on Brooklyn's history, from towns, to city, to New York City...

https://ny.curbed.com/2014/7/24/10069912/brooklyns-evolution-from-small-town-to-big-city-to-borough
__________________
NEW YORK is Back!

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
     
     
  #314  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2017, 3:30 AM
MolsonExport's Avatar
MolsonExport MolsonExport is online now
Pass me the Vomit Bag.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Otisburgh
Posts: 50,984
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePhun1 View Post
Didn't Brooklyn fight annexation? Never-the-less, Queens was sparsely populated back then IIRC and no matter which way you slice it, Richmond/Staten Island is a relatively far flung suburb far removed from the heart of the city. What does it add other than just fluff to add numbers?

If New York didn't consolidate for that reason, then why? Regional planning may be a reason but isn't all.
NYC amalgamation (1898):
NYC population: 3,400,000
Atlanta: 81,000

How about Jacksonville's skyline back in 1898?
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. (Bertrand Russell). Sweet Loretta fart thought she was a cleaner, but she was a frying pan. (John Lennon)
     
     
  #315  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2017, 3:49 AM
dktshb's Avatar
dktshb dktshb is offline
Environmental Sabotage
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Francisco/ Los Angeles/ Tahoe
Posts: 5,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by ITB495 View Post
It could be argued there are only four world-class cities in the United States: NYC, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Washington, DC (because it's the center of government). Others that may or may not be deemed worthy include San Francisco, Houston, Boston and Seattle. What do all these cities have in common? With the exception of LA and Houston, all have good population densities. And LA and Houston, despite their low density, possess very significant populations. Atlanta has neither the population nor the density.
Um you could not be more wrong. Los Angeles does not have low density. It is almost triple that of Houston and is actually right up there as one of America's densest cities. Certainly the densest metropolitan area in the county. It is a City of 502 sq. miles, which is a very large area to keep a high density. Wikipedia put the density of Los Angeles at 8,483 and Seattle, which you consider a high density city, at 8,398.

http://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/los-angeles-population/


Just for fun as I know all cities have land that is not developed but Los Angeles has the largest state park, Topanga State Park at 17 sq. miles entirely within its city boundaries and a total of 32 sq. miles designated in the Santa Monica Mountain Preserve at 0 people per sq. miles. Which is why the City of LA has a substantial mountain lion population that calls LA home... A few bears too in the norther parts of the city along the 210.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Los+An...254608f4!8m2!3d34.0522342!4d-118.2436849

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0864379,-118.4615509,12z
     
     
  #316  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2017, 3:54 AM
Docere Docere is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 8,692
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveD View Post
city land area: square miles:

San Fran: 47
Miami: 55
DC: 68
Boston: 90
Atlanta: 134
Philly: 141
Detroit: 143
Chicago: 234
New York: 305
Dallas: 386
LA: 503
Phoenix: 517
Houston: 627
So Atlanta and Detroit are pretty close in land area. Interesting that Detroit stil has about 200,000 more people in its city limits, even though its current population is about 35% of its population in 1950.
     
     
  #317  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2017, 4:06 AM
The North One's Avatar
The North One The North One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,888
35%? What on earth are you talking about?

you mean two thirds...
__________________
Spawn of questionable parentage!
     
     
  #318  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2017, 4:54 AM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 30,252
^ 673,000 / 1,850,000 = 36.4%
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a marvelous middle ground for many middle class families.
     
     
  #319  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2017, 5:11 AM
austlar1 austlar1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Austin
Posts: 3,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by dktshb View Post
Um you could not be more wrong. Los Angeles does not have low density. It is almost triple that of Houston and is actually right up there as one of America's densest cities. Certainly the densest metropolitan area in the county. It is a City of 502 sq. miles, which is a very large area to keep a high density. Wikipedia put the density of Los Angeles at 8,483 and Seattle, which you consider a high density city, at 8,398.

http://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/los-angeles-population/


Just for fun as I know all cities have land that is not developed but Los Angeles has the largest state park, Topanga State Park at 17 sq. miles entirely within its city boundaries and a total of 32 sq. miles designated in the Santa Monica Mountain Preserve at 0 people per sq. miles. Which is why the City of LA has a substantial mountain lion population that calls LA home... A few bears too in the norther parts of the city along the 210.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Los+An...254608f4!8m2!3d34.0522342!4d-118.2436849

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0864379,-118.4615509,12z
LA parks constitute over 7 percent of the land within the city. Here is a very interesting list of cities and their parkland.

http://cloud.tpl.org/pubs/ccpe_Acreage_and_Employees_Data_2010.pdf
     
     
  #320  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2017, 5:44 AM
The North One's Avatar
The North One The North One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,888
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
^ 673,000 / 1,850,000 = 36.4%
Oh yeah, one third. Not two.

Seeing percentages is weird, like how Chicago's is about 70% currently from peak and St. Louis is around 36% as well.
__________________
Spawn of questionable parentage!
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Closed Thread

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:37 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.