2018 Population Estimates of US Cities

[cabasse]

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

So I'm seeing a few problems with this logic, but please feel free to correct my line of thought here. . . first observation is that Plano doesn't have a skyline - suburban or otherwise* - so I'm wondering where are all these high density (residential) buildings you're referencing would be. . . second observation tells me that (based upon a quick Google Earth flyover) that about 90-95% of Plano is already developed, with few remaining areas that are up for high-density development, and the areas that may still be under development appear to lower density housing:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Pl...!4d-96.6989136

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Pl...!4d-96.6989136

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Pl...!4d-96.6989136

The type of high-er density development appears to be in the form of apartment complexes not unlike what you would find in any suburb of any city in the US, so based upon my logic (flawed as it may be) Plano may actually not only have a density issue, but one where it will simply find future growth altogether. . .

*A simple Google image search for Plano, TX doesn't show any images of tall buildings one would associate with a "skyline", suburban or otherwise. . . but please feel free to post photos to correct my misunderstanding. . .

. . .

plano's skyline is along the dallas north tollway: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Pl...!4d-96.6988856 but there's also a semi-walkable town center-esque downtown just east of 75 with a highrise or two nearby along the freeway.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

That's... quite ridiculous. New York has one of the best harbors in the entire world and is geographically strategic. It may not have developed into such a predominant city, but it would have been top tier period.

The most critical feature for New York's hyper growth period is man made: the Erie Canal.

[Spocket]

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

So I'm seeing a few problems with this logic, but please feel free to correct my line of thought here. . . first observation is that Plano doesn't have a skyline - suburban or otherwise* - so I'm wondering where are all these high density (residential) buildings you're referencing would be. . . second observation tells me that (based upon a quick Google Earth flyover) that about 90-95% of Plano is already developed, with few remaining areas that are up for high-density development, and the areas that may still be under development appear to lower density housing:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Pl...!4d-96.6989136

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Pl...!4d-96.6989136

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Pl...!4d-96.6989136

The type of high-er density development appears to be in the form of apartment complexes not unlike what you would find in any suburb of any city in the US, so based upon my logic (flawed as it may be) Plano may actually not only have a density issue, but one where it will simply find future growth altogether. . .

*A simple Google image search for Plano, TX doesn't show any images of tall buildings one would associate with a "skyline", suburban or otherwise. . . but please feel free to post photos to correct my misunderstanding. . .

. . .

But why would a city need a skyline to be be densely populated? Most European cities don't have particularly notable skylines yet any glance at the figures reveals that their cities are much more densely populated than North America's.

[digitallagasse]

Originally Posted by Spocket

But why would a city need a skyline to be be densely populated? Most European cities don't have particularly notable skylines yet any glance at the figures reveals that their cities are much more densely populated than North America's.

Tower in the park buildings tend to be not all that dense. The other downside being a lack a walkabilty. Having structures cover most if not all of the lot is how things become dense.

That is how a Union City is more dense than Brickell in Miami. And also why so many European cities are dense and yet have little to no high rises. Tall buildings doesn't mean dense or traditional urban. It can mean higher than normal suburban dense.

Union City

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7771...4!8i8192?hl=en

Brickell - Miami

https://www.google.com/maps/@25.7628...4!8i8192?hl=en

[mhays]

Brickell's vertical bulk includes a ton of above-grade parking.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

The most critical feature for New York's hyper growth period is man made: the Erie Canal.

This is what propelled NYC into its predominant status. Even without the Erie Canal, their are other fundamentals that would still make New York City a major city. What size major city is debatable, but it would have been major nonetheless.

[digitallagasse]

I am curious as to why Plano is getting more dense on its western edge instead of the eastern edge. I was briefly looking to move to the area and was looking for places to live around the light rail. I had assumed this would have been the built up area. Was a bit confused when I didn't find high rises that I heard had been going up in Plano. The block near the light rail station had an old town charm to it. The downside being that it is only really just one block. If that built form extended for a few more blocks in each direction I would have given it a more serious consideration.

That said even this small block was far more inviting than the equivalent in the current city I live.

Plano

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.0196...4!8i8192?hl=en

Henderson

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0328...4!8i8192?hl=en

The city is trying to turn Water Street into something that looks closer to the street in Plano. Wow does it have a long way to go to even get to that point. This is the oldest part of town and as good as it gets built form wise.

Lake Las Vegas

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1019...2!8i6656?hl=en

The city does have a fake village in the Lake Las Vegas neighborhood. It is kind of nice to visit but but it is more Disney than true village. If only it was far larger in size.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Spocket

But why would a city need a skyline to be be densely populated? Most European cities don't have particularly notable skylines yet any glance at the figures reveals that their cities are much more densely populated than North America's.

Some other poster talked about Plano's skyline (which apparently looks like suburban office buildings everywhere...the same shitty designs exist in Silicon Valley, NJ, on Route 128, along I-88, etc.).

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by digitallagasse

I am curious as to why Plano is getting more dense on its western edge instead of the eastern edge. I was briefly looking to move to the area and was looking for places to live around the light rail. I had assumed this would have been the built up area. Was a bit confused when I didn't find high rises that I heard had been going up in Plano. The block near the light rail station had an old town charm to it. The downside being that it is only really just one block. If that built form extended for a few more blocks in each direction I would have given it a more serious consideration.

That said even this small block was far more inviting than the equivalent in the current city I live.

Plano

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.0196...4!8i8192?hl=en

Wow you're not kidding when you're saying that street in Plano is only one block. How can such a "large" city have such a shitty downtown? Even far-out 10x smaller (and less dense even) suburbs like Libertyville have better downtown commercial districts:

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2881...7i16384!8i8192

We really have forgotten how to build cities haven't we...

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Wow you're not kidding when you're saying that street in Plano is only one block. How can such a "large" city have such a shitty downtown? Even far-out 10x smaller (and less dense even) suburbs like Libertyville have better downtown commercial districts:

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2881...7i16384!8i8192

We really have forgotten how to build cities haven't we...

Yes, but a big difference between Plano and Libertyville is that while Plano's existing original downtown commercial street is only one block long, there are blocks worth of former industrial area that can be redeveloped surrounding it (of which some already have been). Libertyville's three block long existing original downtown commercial core is immediately abutted by existing single family homes that will likely never be redeveloped. Plano has more upside in the long-run, because it can be redeveloped structurally (the built form nearby is conducive to redevelopment) and because there are market forces necessary for redevelopment (Plano has population growth, while Libertyville is just holding steady).

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

So I'm seeing a few problems with this logic, but please feel free to correct my line of thought here. . . first observation is that Plano doesn't have a skyline - suburban or otherwise* - so I'm wondering where are all these high density (residential) buildings you're referencing would be. . . second observation tells me that (based upon a quick Google Earth flyover) that about 90-95% of Plano is already developed, with few remaining areas that are up for high-density development, and the areas that may still be under development appear to lower density housing:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Pl...!4d-96.6989136

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Pl...!4d-96.6989136

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Pl...!4d-96.6989136

The type of high-er density development appears to be in the form of apartment complexes not unlike what you would find in any suburb of any city in the US, so based upon my logic (flawed as it may be) Plano may actually not only have a density issue, but one where it will simply find future growth altogether. . .

*A simple Google image search for Plano, TX doesn't show any images of tall buildings one would associate with a "skyline", suburban or otherwise. . . but please feel free to post photos to correct my misunderstanding. . .

. . .

Seriously?

Comparing Plano - one of the fastest growing cities in one of the fastest growing MSAs - to Schaumburg is like comparing a 2 x 4 doused in gasoline and set on fire to a used wet match.

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Wow you're not kidding when you're saying that street in Plano is only one block. How can such a "large" city have such a shitty downtown? Even far-out 10x smaller (and less dense even) suburbs like Libertyville have better downtown commercial districts:

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2881...7i16384!8i8192

We really have forgotten how to build cities haven't we...

Dude, I get that you live in Chicagoland and as a result likely participate in the usual Chicago boosterism found on this board, but please tell me more about why Plano - a city of 300K that has grown 384%, 304%, 78%, 73%, 17% and 10% each decade over the last 50 years - should take notes / growth advice from Libertyville, a city of 20K that has experienced flat-to-no growth since 1980? Both cities were essentially the same size in 1970, but Plano has been adding 3 to 6 Libertyvilles every decade since.

Not suggesting downtown Plano has the energy of Manhattan or San Francisco but to call it shitty while suggesting Libertyville's downtown commercial district is somehow thriving and better is beyond ridiculous.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

Dude, I get that you live in Chicagoland and as a result likely participate in the usual Chicago boosterism found on this board, but please tell me more about why Plano - a city of 300K that has grown 384%, 304%, 78%, 73%, 17% and 10% each decade over the last 50 years - should take notes / growth advice from Libertyville, a city of 20K that has experienced flat-to-no growth since 1980? Both cities were essentially the same size in 1970, but Plano has been adding 3 to 6 Libertyvilles every decade since.

Not suggesting downtown Plano has the energy of Manhattan or San Francisco but to call it shitty while suggesting Libertyville's downtown commercial district is somehow thriving and better is beyond ridiculous.

I never mentioned growth... I'm only commenting on downtown commercial districts and how ridiculous it is that a city of nearly 300,000 has such a tiny downtown commerical strip, barely comparable to exurban towns more than 10 times smaller in other parts of the country.

Growth is not a useful proxy for urban amenities... is Salzburg less awesome because its growth is stagnant?

[JManc]

Plano may be big but it's still just a Dallas suburb.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

Dude, I get that you live in Chicagoland and as a result likely participate in the usual Chicago boosterism found on this board, but please tell me more about why Plano - a city of 300K that has grown 384%, 304%, 78%, 73%, 17% and 10% each decade over the last 50 years - should take notes / growth advice from Libertyville, a city of 20K that has experienced flat-to-no growth since 1980? Both cities were essentially the same size in 1970, but Plano has been adding 3 to 6 Libertyvilles every decade since.

Growth has nothing to do with anything. A city doesn't have better (or worse) urbanism if it's growing faster; it's like saying it has better urbanism because it has more Thai food or something. Totally unrelated.

Plano is your standard issue upper middle class Sunbelt sprawl suburb. It's not really remarkable in any way.

[dc_denizen]

Plano is interesting in that it’s adding lots of apartments, like most other Dallas suburbs, helping to create new density nodes

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Wow you're not kidding when you're saying that street in Plano is only one block. How can such a "large" city have such a shitty downtown? Even far-out 10x smaller (and less dense even) suburbs like Libertyville have better downtown commercial districts:

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2881...7i16384!8i8192

We really have forgotten how to build cities haven't we...

It could be that Libertyville was 2.6x larger than Plano in 1940. They have a large pre-war downtown/Main Street strip?

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Obadno

New York Harbor is one of the finest natural harbors in the world and the ocean access for a major navigable river that, with canals connects it to the great lake systems and the st. Lawrence river opening the interior of the the Northeast to ocean trade.

There is no alternate history where NYC doesnt become a major commercial hub.

I'd argue that in an alternate history where the U.S. won Canada - either in the Revolutionary War or the War of 1812 - it's entirely possible that the U.S. would decide that taking the northern route - completing the St. Lawrence Seaway early - was an easier first step. Something like the Erie Canal would likely be built eventually of course, and NYC is usable as a harbor even in the winter, which is a big bonus, but a lot of NYC's growth would have been swallowed up by Montreal instead.

[mhays]

A suburban main street doesn't serve the population of the whole suburb. If it had major office tenants it would get people from the whole metro. But as a shopping street, it probably serves people mostly from a far smaller radius than the 300,000.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Obadno

New York Harbor is one of the finest natural harbors in the world and the ocean access for a major navigable river that, with canals connects it to the great lake systems and the st. Lawrence river opening the interior of the the Northeast to ocean trade.

There is no alternate history where NYC doesnt become a major commercial hub.

Weather it would be as big as what we have here is another question but it certainly would be one of the largest cities in America in any situation.

I don't really disagree with this, but that was never my point. It being a natural harbor (as well as the construction of the Erie Canal) was far, far, far more important in becoming the catalyst toward building one of the world's most important cities in the 19th century than it is today. If NYC were built from scratch in 1950, it would look nothing like the NYC we know today, and it probably would never end up being nearly as dominant of a city as the one that we recognize.