Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-11-2010, 03:23 PM
 
Location: The City
22,379 posts, read 38,708,457 times
Reputation: 7975

Advertisements

I stumbled upon this but thought it to be an interesting interpretation of a ranking/weighting of city urban area density. This seems to make a lot of sense and may be a way/proxy to quantify city feel on size and density.

Interested in your thoughts and here is the link to the overall info:

Austin Contrarian: Density calculations for U.S. urbanized areas, weighted by census tract

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-11-2010, 03:31 PM
 
Location: The City
22,379 posts, read 38,708,457 times
Reputation: 7975
I also find it interesting that CA could be argued as least sprawling in that it's major cities have potentially the greatest coninuity of density of any metros. Atlanta would evidence itself as most sprawled in terms of lower density continuity.


Also NY is by far the biggest outlier in the mix. This is based on a density gradiant index which indexes the areas to core population concentration. NY recieved a 6.22, the next closest was Boston at 3.32 and Philadelphia at 3. This index shows the relative change in population density from core to outlying urban areas or these city cores have the most density relative to urban area. Areas like LA and SF maintain high density in a much more uniform fashion.

Last edited by kidphilly; 06-11-2010 at 03:41 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2010, 03:32 PM
 
Location: Willowbend/Houston
13,384 posts, read 25,608,391 times
Reputation: 10585
I could believe, though I think some Atlanta dudes might take issue with it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2010, 03:34 PM
 
Location: Denver
6,625 posts, read 14,399,828 times
Reputation: 4191
Very cool! This is definitely a better way to look at densities of regions rather than just the classic: Take population, divide by square miles.

Would rep ya if I could...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2010, 03:41 PM
 
Location: Lower East Side, Milwaukee, WI
2,943 posts, read 5,046,376 times
Reputation: 1113
Wow, Milwaukee at #14!

I like this methodology better than just doing a straight up person per square mile comparison. Technically, LA is the densest metro area in the U.S., but anybody who's spent any amount of time there can tell you it isn't even close to being pedestrian friendly, with the exception of a handful of places like Venice Beach or Hollywood.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2010, 03:47 PM
 
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,468 posts, read 14,911,917 times
Reputation: 7263
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAnative10 View Post
I could believe, though I think some Atlanta dudes might take issue with it.
My only issue with it was this is based on 2000 census information. Dallas and Atlanta will have an extra 1 million+ in pretty much the same area when the 2010 census is released.

That and their math is a bit fuzzy and they don't show their calculations. But, whatever.

Last edited by waronxmas; 06-11-2010 at 03:55 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2010, 03:53 PM
 
Location: The City
22,379 posts, read 38,708,457 times
Reputation: 7975
Quote:
Originally Posted by waronxmas View Post
My only issue with it was this is based on 2000 census information. Dallas and Atlanta will have an extra 1 million+ in pretty much the same area when the 2010 census is released.

That is a fair point - with 2010 data Dallas and Atlanta would both increase

A quick estimate would put Dallas at ~5,200 on weighted Density and Atlanta at ~2,850 on weighted density with the population additions, though all areas would increase, just not at the same rate
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2010, 03:54 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 15,948,941 times
Reputation: 4047
Cool list, like someone else said, it's easier than the standard population/square miles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2010, 04:04 PM
 
14,256 posts, read 26,818,421 times
Reputation: 4560
Miami's density rating would also jump by the 2010 census estimates.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2010, 04:04 PM
 
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,468 posts, read 14,911,917 times
Reputation: 7263
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjacobeclark View Post
Wow, Milwaukee at #14!

I like this methodology better than just doing a straight up person per square mile comparison. Technically, LA is the densest metro area in the U.S., but anybody who's spent any amount of time there can tell you it isn't even close to being pedestrian friendly, with the exception of a handful of places like Venice Beach or Hollywood.
That's because a high population density does not equal "walkable". It's just a calculation of how many people live in a given area.

A great example of this is Manila. It has anywhere from twice to three times the population density of New York City, yet it is probably one of the least "walkable" cities on planet earth. Most retail is located at huge mega malls that make the Mall of America look like a flea market, they only have three light rail lines, and in Makati (the downtown of Metro Manila), many of the streets have huge steel girders that prevent pedestrians from the crossing the road where they please. That and the fact the generally the only people who walk for any significant length there are people who aren't rich enough to own a car or take a taxi.

When I worked there, the condo I stayed at was 4 blocks from my office so I just walked to work each day. Most people I knew thought I was mad.

On the other hand, density is a factor of "walkability" and the most walkable places are generally the most dense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top