Southern cities with a "big city" feel?

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by eschaton

New Orleans feels like a "big city" because it is so much older than any other southern city (discounting DC, and Baltimore, if you want to count those).

Yes, New Orleans' age, and specifically its age as being one of the big cities in the US (I think it was the 3rd largest by the mid-19th century), has a ton to do with its more urban feel. But it's also significantly due to its connections with the North, and its function like a Northern city.

Being the largest port in the South (2nd largest in the US after NY), and being on the Mississippi River, connected New Orleans tightly with Northern cities and Europe, and bestowed a more "cosmopolitan", international flavor early on. The city became an industrial manufacturing center like northern cities did by the 1840s, and attracted large groups of immigrants like northern cities did. Irish, Sicilian, German, Hispanic, and Jewish immigrants were much more prominent in New Orleans than in other cities of the South.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

both were built-out at the exact same period of time, and as products of that era, they're both also are very leafy and green and pleasant, but the latter is roughly 4x more densely populated than the former, and is thus much more urban in function.


typical street where i grew up (tract density: ~6,500 ppsm) - https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0700...7i16384!8i8192

typical street where i now live (tract density: ~25,700 ppsm) - https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9667...7i16384!8i8192

I love the look of those neighborhoods.

And I really wish Pittsburgh had tree-lined streets like that.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

and some cities, like chicago, we're building plenty of both in the early 20th century.

the suburban neighborhood i grew up in was primarily built out 1900 - 1920 with SFH homes on 50'x150' lots. it is very "streetcar suburbia" in look, if not in actual function (@ 14 miles north of the loop, it was too far for the street cars of the city to reach; instead, it had el train and commuter rail access to the loop).

the city neighborhood i now live in was also primarily built out 1900 - 1920, but with much higher density - 2-flats, 3-flats, 6-flats, courtyard & corner apartment buildings, etc., along with some bungalows and other SFH mixed in.

both were built-out at the exact same period of time, and as products of that era, they're both also are very leafy and green and pleasant, but the latter is roughly 4x more densely populated than the former, and is thus much more urban in function.


typical street where i grew up (tract density: ~6,500 ppsm) - https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0700...7i16384!8i8192

typical street where i now live (tract density: ~25,700 ppsm) - https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9667...7i16384!8i8192

I was aware that Chicago was one of the exceptions to the rule as well, being in the same category as NYC/Philly/San Francisco. DC, Boston, and Baltimore all also continued to build at higher densities than single-family detached through the interwar era. There's a reason why these cities are basically on a whole different level of urbanity to the rest of the country.

Still, the pre-1900 city wasn't just notable for its density, it was also notable for the chaos of the urban form. In days prior to zoning, large-scale planned developments, or developers building much more than a block at a time, you could end up with a wide variety of different forms, and even uses, on a given block. That is how ubiquitous "corner stores" ended up in largely residential neighborhoods, with some other non-residential buildings often mixed in mid-block. This was kinda lost even in the early 20th century, when industrial started getting segregated off in its own area, and even commercial tended to be concentrated along main streets rather than peppered about randomly. Basically the difference between a city which is built with the expectation of walking everywhere, and one that is built with the expectation of some sort of transit. Thus dense interwar neighborhoods are of course urban, but they're just a lot less interesting to wander, because there are less surprises as you turn the corner.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I was aware that Chicago was one of the exceptions to the rule as well, being in the same category as NYC/Philly/San Francisco. DC, Boston, and Baltimore all also continued to build at higher densities than single-family detached through the interwar era. There's a reason why these cities are basically on a whole different level of urbanity to the rest of the country.

right, i was just pointing out that street-car suburbia vs. continued urban development wasn't an either/or situation in the first 3 decades of the 20th century for all cities.

chicago (and i'm sure other large US cities as well) was simultaneously building plenty of both at that time.

Originally Posted by eschaton

Still, the pre-1900 city wasn't just notable for its density, it was also notable for the chaos of the urban form. In days prior to zoning, large-scale planned developments, or developers building much more than a block at a time, you could end up with a wide variety of different forms, and even uses, on a given block.

perhaps due to its rigidly gridded layout, i think chicago started organizing itself into a more ordered commercial main street/residential side street neighborhood hierarchy much earlier than 1900.

lincoln park was primarily built-out 1880-1900, and even there you still mainly find the commercial main street/residential side street pattern. occasionally you'll come across an old-school neighborhood tavern tucked away at some random side street intersection, but generally speaking, i'm not sure that 1900 is that magical of a split in typical development patterns in chicago's case.

"urban form chaos" has never really been chicago's strong suit. this town was highly planned, and built with nearly unparalleled speed (at the time), from the start.

[iheartthed]

I think the densest neighborhoods in U.S. major cities were probably created between 1900 - 1940. Even in NYC, the areas dominated with pre-20th century housing, like the West Village, are not the densest areas of the city.

https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/planning..._pl_p2_nta.pdf

[Crawford]

NY is an outlier, though.

NY is an apartment city. It's really the only apartment city in the U.S. As NY transitioned into the 20th century, rowhouses were replaced by apartment blocks, and virgin land near transit in the Outer Boroughs (mostly) became apartment blocks.

Also, the West Village is extremely wealthy, with large apartment sizes, has relatively small household sizes, and lots of non-residential institutional space (NYU, New School, Cooper, etc.) so isn't gonna be particularly high density. It's also a landmarked neighborhood, so basically impossible to add density.

[Plasticman]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

IMHO

Washington, D.C. (if anyone still considers that southern...)
Miami
Atlanta
Houston
Dallas
...
Austin-ish

Nowhere else.

The top part of your list is spot on. But then you included Austin (even in “ish” mode). If Austin merits honorable mention then you have to include Charlotte, Nashville, and Tampa.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

NY is an outlier, though.

NY is an apartment city. It's really the only apartment city in the U.S. As NY transitioned into the 20th century, rowhouses were replaced by apartment blocks, and virgin land near transit in the Outer Boroughs (mostly) became apartment blocks.

Also, the West Village is extremely wealthy, with large apartment sizes, has relatively small household sizes, and lots of non-residential institutional space (NYU, New School, Cooper, etc.) so isn't gonna be particularly high density. It's also a landmarked neighborhood, so basically impossible to add density.

These buildings, and the ghosts of their neighbors, were built between 1900 - 1920. This was one of the most densely populated neighborhoods that ever existed in Detroit, and these buildings replaced smaller single-family homes:

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Crawford

NY is an outlier, though.

NY is an apartment city. It's really the only apartment city in the U.S. As NY transitioned into the 20th century, rowhouses were replaced by apartment blocks, and virgin land near transit in the Outer Boroughs (mostly) became apartment blocks.

Also, the West Village is extremely wealthy, with large apartment sizes, has relatively small household sizes, and lots of non-residential institutional space (NYU, New School, Cooper, etc.) so isn't gonna be particularly high density. It's also a landmarked neighborhood, so basically impossible to add density.

It's worth remembering that the concept of an apartment building itself was essentially a 20th century housing typology in the U.S. Poorer neighborhoods in Manhattan and some portions of Boston and Cincinnati had tenement housing. But in most cities early multifamily was 2-6 unit structures, boarding houses, renting a room in a private home, or perhaps an SRO building. Of course rowhouses as well, but those are not strictly speaking multifamily, just attached.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

Please define. Because I've lived in San Francisco and didn't see anything but apartments there, either.

The Tenderloin is the only part of the SF that resembles what is being described as an "apartment city," with the dense midrise pre-war form.

Think this: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8382...7i16384!8i8192

As opposed to a place like Chicago whose equivalent is less-dense courtyard-style buildings.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

Please define. Because I've lived in San Francisco and didn't see anything but apartments there, either.

Something like half the residential units in NYC are in medium and large multifamily properties. In SF, only a small fraction of units are in these typologies. So SF isn't really an apartment city.

It isn't the "norm" to live in a 10-floor apartment block in SF; it is in NY.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

Since when does an apartment buildings total # of floors have anything to do with whether or not it is an apartment building?

I never said San Francisco was dominated by 10-floor apartments. I simply said San Francisco is dominated by apartments, and anyone whose been there knows that most of said apartments there are somewhere in the 3-5 story range.

We were obviously talking about large apartment buildings. That's why NY is an outlier.

Small multifamily are common everywhere and wouldn't account for higher 20th century built density (which was the original discussion). And SF isn't a multifamily-dominated city by really any definition. It has a much higher share of SFH than NY.

[edale]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

These buildings, and the ghosts of their neighbors, were built between 1900 - 1920. This was one of the most densely populated neighborhoods that ever existed in Detroit, and these buildings replaced smaller single-family homes:

The buildings on this block remind me of earlier versions of many of LA's apartment buildings. They're oriented perpendicular to the street and extend really far back- almost to the back property line. From the street level, these types of neighborhoods don't look exceptionally dense (especially when landscaping is added in) but they're remarkably efficient ways of accommodating density.

My general neighborhood has a lot of these types of buildings, though mostly from the 40s-60s. Single family homes are older, which most of these buildings replaced, generally date from about the 20s.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Lo...4d-118.2848199

[edale]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

Since when does an apartment buildings total # of floors have anything to do with whether or not it is an apartment building?

I never said San Francisco was dominated by 10-floor apartments. I simply said San Francisco is dominated by apartments, and anyone whose been there knows that most of said apartments there are somewhere in the 3-5 story range.

https://goo.gl/maps/Mn9iD7u6LqRmty9C7

^ not one single sfh in sight.

LOL you turn the camera just sliiiightly left and there's a (beautiful) SFH with a garage right there. Pick better examples.

It's pretty clear NYC's dominant housing typology is the large apartment building- especially in Manhattan. There are historic districts with townhouses and more low-scale multi-family, but the city has tons and tons of elevator buildings with hundreds of units, and that's a typology that is pretty unique in the US.

I would say there are parts of Chicago that are somewhat similar:

Gold Coast:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9016...7i16384!8i8192

South Loop:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8724...7i16384!8i8192


I can't think of similar types of built environments in SF. The Tenderloin is very dense, but the buildings are typically shorter than the typical NYC building. Pac Heights and surroundings have a number of beautiful old apartment buildings around 7-10 stories, but they're usually surrounded by more low-rise multi-family or single family:

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7940...7i13312!8i6656

[eschaton]

Overall San Francisco's unit mix is most similar to Boston and Chicago, although a bit more in the way of attached houses. A plurality of units appear to be in medium-scale (2-19 unit) apartments.

[eschaton]

One problem with using just basic housing count to determine "domination" is that multi-family takes up less space (for obvious reasons). So you could have a rowhouse neighborhood with some chopped-up larger historic homes a handful of large apartment buildings (say senior housing). This results in a census tract which has over 50% of units being in apartments. However, as it is experienced on the street, it's basically a rowhouse neighborhood.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Overall San Francisco's unit mix is most similar to Boston and Chicago, although a bit more in the way of attached houses. A plurality of units appear to be in medium-scale (2-19 unit) apartments.

Thank you for providing a very interesting and detailed graphic.

I didn't ask for it, but I find it very informative and useful.

Much appreciated (said with 100% sincerity).

[edale]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

I never said "San Francisco is dominated by large, tall apartment buildings 10 stories or higher". I simply said San Francisco is dominated by apartment buildings in response to Crawford's factually incorrect statement that "NYC is really the only apartment city in the U.S."

Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend?

It was pretty clear what Crawford meant in his original statement. Obviously NYC is not the only city in the US that has apartment-dominated neighborhoods. Every city has such places. If you took a second to actually think, it'd be clear that the large, tall building with a lot of units is the typology that is both 1) fairly unique in the US, and 2) extremely common in NYC.

The graphic that eschaton provided is awesome, and actually demonstrates the validity of Crawford's initial claim. It's pretty cool to see how SF and Boston have nearly identical housing compositions. Don't lash out at others for your inability to think critically and make meaningful contributions to this topic.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Thank you for providing a very interesting and detailed graphic.

I didn't ask for it, but I find it very informative and useful.

Much appreciated (said with 100% sincerity).

Sorry about the size. I remembered it from years ago, and it didn't look that big when I found it on Google Image search.

There is a smaller truncated version banging around, but it doesn't include San Francisco, which is why I didn't post it.

But yeah to summarize:

NYC - city of large apartments
Chicago, San Francisco, and Boston - cities of small apartments
Philly, Baltimore - cities of rowhouses
DC - close to an even split between rowhouses, small apartments, and large apartments.
Everywhere else - close to, or absolutely, SFH dominant.

[eschaton]

One caveat with the data in the graph is it comes from the census. I happen to know the census identifies "single-unit attached" as being a row of three or more attached houses. Semi-attached (called duplexes or half-doubles in some parts of the country) are for some reason classified as single-family housing by the Census, meaning the number of attached houses is actually under-reported by a bit.