Which cities in N.A. are urbanizing and transforming the most?

[bossabreezes]

Boston and SF seem to be doing the most in terms of filling in what was misused land previously. New York also does this (obviously), but it doesn't seem as striking because the city gobbles up any new development and makes it less impressive than it would be in the other two cities.

Neither SF or Boston have mega projects, but have built a ton of infill. SF specifically is going to morph drastically once all of the East Side docklands are finally redeveloped into the neighborhoods as planned.

Seattle deserves honorable mention.

[Bikemike]

Originally Posted by bossabreezes

Boston and SF seem to be doing the most in terms of filling in what was misused land previously. New York also does this (obviously), but it doesn't seem as striking because the city gobbles up any new development and makes it less impressive than it would be in the other two cities.

Neither SF or Boston have mega projects, but have built a ton of infill. SF specifically is going to morph drastically once all of the East Side docklands are finally redeveloped into the neighborhoods as planned.

Seattle deserves honorable mention.

Yes, for non-traditional cities, and with far to go yet, Seattle is probably the major city that has transformed the most, structurally speaking, in built form and transportation modality. No surprise, because the two go hand-in-hand. It is the city that has actively done the most to channel growth toward urbanization; toward car-free living, and it has done this through policy. It certainly helps to be liberal and educated. Liberal, to value these issues (environmentalism, carbon-reduction) and educated to understand the cause of and to address these issues (activism, ballot-box).

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by edale

Similarly, comparing SF (49 sq miles) with LA (500 sq miles, though some uninhabited mountains) is worthless. The entire city of SF would fit in to the area occupied by DTLA, Koreatown, Westlake, and Echo Park/Silverlake.

Actually even looking beyond SF, the supporting cities have good transit usage (for US standards). Overall, the SF MSA is at 18.9% usage.

US Cities by Percent of Workers Using Public Transportation, 2019
55.59% New York, NY
49.29% Jersey City, NJ
41.26% Union City, NJ
36.31% San Francisco, CA
34.15% Washington, DC
31.98% Boston, MA
29.95% Somerville, MA
29.76% Arlington, VA
29.09% Cambridge, MA
28.43% Berkeley, CA
28.37% Chicago, IL
26.95% Philadelphia, PA
25.73% Silver Spring, MD
25.55% Oakland, CA
25.49% Yonkers, NY
25.13% Seattle, WA
25.11% Quincy, MA
23.82% Alameda, CA
23.74% Daly City, CA
21.50% Newark, NJ
18.23% San Leandro, CA
17.93% Alexandria, VA
17.87% Passaic, NJ
17.31% Pittsburgh, PA
15.40% Baltimore, MD
14.95% Newton, MA
14.59% Portland, OR
14.33% Richmond, CA
13.08% Bellevue, WA
12.94% San Mateo, CA
12.50% Stamford, CT
12.17% Albany, NY
11.86% Iowa City, IA
11.86% Minneapolis, MN
11.58% Bridgeport, CT
11.40% Fremont, CA
11.28% Hartford, CT
11.26% New Haven, CT
11.21% Jersey City, NJ
11.10% Naperville, IL
10.99% Honolulu, HI
10.91% Paterson, NJ
10.89% East Los Angeles, CA
10.65% Schenectady, NY
10.59% Concord, CA
9.97% Atlanta, GA
9.73% Miami Beach, FL
9.61% Ann Arbor, MI
9.51% Madison, WI
9.28% Hayward, CA
9.03% St Paul, MN
8.85% Syracuse, NY
8.75% Los Angeles, CA

[Crawford]

Yeah, SF, and the Bay Area (or at least the SF MSA part) have very impressive transit share for pathetic U.S. standards.

To me, SF has worse transit infrastructure than the other cities in its transit "weight class" (Chi, DC, Bos, Philly), but it has higher overall transit share.

I feel Philly has the inverse issue. It has some of the best transit infrastructure and transit-friendly bones in North America, but ridership is rather disappointing. I don't if this is a race/culture thing (heavily black urban core and arguably intimidating-looking areas) a lack of congestion/ease of parking thing, not enough immigrants, etc.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Yeah, SF, and the Bay Area (or at least the SF MSA part) have very impressive transit share for pathetic U.S. standards.

To me, SF has worse transit infrastructure than the other cities in its transit "weight class" (Chi, DC, Bos, Philly), but it has higher overall transit share.

I feel Philly has the inverse issue. It has some of the best transit infrastructure and transit-friendly bones in North America, but ridership is rather disappointing. I don't if this is a race/culture thing (heavily black urban core and arguably intimidating-looking areas) a lack of congestion/ease of parking thing, not enough immigrants, etc.

I think it’s a SEPTA runs a terrible service even if it has all the physical infrastructure kind of problem.

Half hourly service at rush hour on the famed Main Line; service every two hours on weekends.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by Bikemike

The thing is, you keep on trying to focus your lens on LA's best 10 sq miles or 49 sq miles, but you're still being myopic about this.

Whether one pulls out and looks at ridership levels in Bay Area burbs (like San Mateo, Millbrae, Oakland, etc) or looks at the Bay Area as a whole, you see much higher transit-share than LA

There's more to urban living than riding transit. Outside of SF proper, the bay doesn't feel urban. At all. Its built form is more OC/IE than LA.

[dc_denizen]

In the US, it should be relatively simple to compare population growth and even multifamily permit growth within the core areas and the MSA as a whole

Boston+Cambridge+Somerville
2000 749,000
2018 913,000

Seattle
2000 564,000
2018 744,000

SF
2000 777,000
2018 883,000

Even in the sprawling cities like Atlanta and Dallas, the municipality itself is largely built out, and the multifamily there is largely infill.

In the chart below Richardson, Ft Worth, Farmers Branch, and Dallas are all central; only Frisco could be considered newer sprawl.




https://www.rentcafe.com/blog/rental...truction-2019/

[The North One]

Originally Posted by edale

A large portion of LA's urban renaissance has come from the renovation of beautiful old beaux arts buildings in the historic core. I suppose those don't count as urban substance?

I do agree that having a transit network is key for urbanization. Without that, cities are basically only able to build dense suburbia, and true urbanization doesn't really occur. New skyscrapers certainly should not be the primary metric for urbanization. Austin and Nashville are building a ton of new towers, but both are fairly pathetic in terms of urban heft outside of their downtowns. Austin transitions to unassuming ranch home suburbia remarkably quickly outside of downtown. I was shocked by this when I visited in January, and it made the booming downtown feel somewhat...fake in a way.

Agreed that there is different context and nuance to the situations. Downtown LA is definitely urban and has made fantastic progress and luckily it has the per-war bones to build on.

Places like Austin and Nashville look like they're doing some impressive urbanizing on paper but the reality is pretty far from it especially when anything that gets built in these cities sits on utterly massive parking podiums and haphazardly put together infrastructure. Vertical suburbia is painfully accurate.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by badrunner

There's more to urban living than riding transit. Outside of SF proper, the bay doesn't feel urban. At all. Its built form is more OC/IE than LA.

At all? You don't think this 'feels urban?'


source

Jeez, tough crowd!

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by badrunner

There's more to urban living than riding transit. Outside of SF proper, the bay doesn't feel urban. At all. Its built form is more OC/IE than LA.

Sounds like someone has never been to Oakland or Berkeley. Or Alameda or San Mateo or Palo Alto.

[badrunner]

Oakland and Berkeley are somewhat urban. The rest, not so much. San Jose looks like Irvine or Riverside.

I used to ride bart from the east bay to San Jose everyday, and it was a completely suburban experience and lifestyle. I also lived in Central LA with a car, rarely using transit, and it was a much more urban experience in a much more urban setting. So I don't put too much stock in those transit share numbers.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Oakland and Berkeley are somewhat urban. The rest, not so much. San Jose looks like Irvine or Riverside.

If you think Oakland is only 'somewhat urban' then we are not on the same page at all.

I used to ride bart from the east bay to San Jose everyday, and it was a completely suburban experience and lifestyle. I also lived in Central LA with a car, rarely using transit, and it was a much more urban experience in a much more urban setting. So I don't put too much stock in those transit share numbers.

BART didn't serve anyplace in San Jose until June 12th of this year.

[badrunner]

Transfers are a thing. I would also add that a high percentage of those transit riders in the bay have a car sitting at home. Outside of SF proper it's just as car oriented as any place in the sunbelt.

[craigs]

In my own experience and going by the data, the SF-Oakland part of the Bay Area is more transit-oriented than almost anyplace in the country. Now, the SJ part is complete and total autopia--but so is 99% of LA. I owned a car in every city I've lived, including Boston and San Francisco, but of all the big cities I've lived in, I only commuted to work by car in Los Angeles.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by Nite

So name me which major Canadian city has not seen a significant transformation in the last 10 years then?

Quebec City is the only one to me that stands out for not changing much.

What about St. Johns NF? That hasn't changed much. Still looks like when Lindbergh flew over in '27 on his way to Paree.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by craigs

In my own experience and going by the data, the SF-Oakland part of the Bay Area is more transit-oriented than almost anyplace in the country. Now, the SJ part is complete and total autopia--but so is 99% of LA. I owned a car in every city I've lived, including Boston and San Francisco, but of all the big cities I've lived in, I only commuted to work by car in Los Angeles.

L.A. has added a LOT of rail line miles in the last decade, so you might be surprised about how you can get around without a car. But unfortunately the covid has cut ridership a lot, as it has in most cities.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by homebucket

Actually even looking beyond SF, the supporting cities have good transit usage (for US standards). Overall, the SF MSA is at 18.9% usage.

US Cities by Percent of Workers Using Public Transportation, 2019
55.59% New York, NY
49.29% Jersey City, NJ
41.26% Union City, NJ
36.31% San Francisco, CA
34.15% Washington, DC
31.98% Boston, MA
29.95% Somerville, MA
29.76% Arlington, VA
29.09% Cambridge, MA
28.43% Berkeley, CA
28.37% Chicago, IL
26.95% Philadelphia, PA
25.73% Silver Spring, MD
25.55% Oakland, CA
25.49% Yonkers, NY
25.13% Seattle, WA
25.11% Quincy, MA
23.82% Alameda, CA
23.74% Daly City, CA
21.50% Newark, NJ
18.23% San Leandro, CA
17.93% Alexandria, VA
17.87% Passaic, NJ
17.31% Pittsburgh, PA
15.40% Baltimore, MD
14.95% Newton, MA
14.59% Portland, OR
14.33% Richmond, CA
13.08% Bellevue, WA
12.94% San Mateo, CA
12.50% Stamford, CT
12.17% Albany, NY
11.86% Iowa City, IA
11.86% Minneapolis, MN
11.58% Bridgeport, CT
11.40% Fremont, CA
11.28% Hartford, CT
11.26% New Haven, CT
11.21% Jersey City, NJ
11.10% Naperville, IL
10.99% Honolulu, HI
10.91% Paterson, NJ
10.89% East Los Angeles, CA
10.65% Schenectady, NY
10.59% Concord, CA
9.97% Atlanta, GA
9.73% Miami Beach, FL
9.61% Ann Arbor, MI
9.51% Madison, WI
9.28% Hayward, CA
9.03% St Paul, MN
8.85% Syracuse, NY
8.75% Los Angeles, CA

I bet nearly all these numbers are waaaay down due to covid. Any recent data?

[Nite]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

What about St. Johns NF? That hasn't changed much. Still looks like when Lindbergh flew over in '27 on his way to Paree.

I said Major Canadian city, St. John's isn't a major Canadian city, it's around the 25th largest metropolitan area in Canada. Halifax is the only major Canadian city east of Quebec City.

[ATXboom]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Austin feels like it's urbanizing to me in the right way. At least downtown Austin is. Austin a much better pedestrian experience than Dallas, and probably even better than Miami.

This... pre-covid Austin had a 24 hour downtown and tangent hoods. People on streets walking at all times, can get all your daily stuff done within walking distance.

[The North One]

Yeah Austin is in no way shape or form anywhere near Miami in terms of pedestrian experience. Even if you eliminate South Beach and just consider downtown, it's miles better.