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.
Could probably play with it to increase it, guess this method can find those more dense if you play with it.
That is impressive for DC though and would be the area of would have choosen to live based on my experience
I agree. It's crazy to think what this same area will be in 2015. There are over 10,000 apartments/condo's going up in this 1 mile radius. I could easily see this same area with a population of 120,000 by 2020.
Curious to see what's the highest you can get for number of households in a one-mile radius.
Looking at those you both posted, they're in the 50,500 range, with total population at about 100,000.
In Los Angeles, you may be able to find a 130,000 area for total population, but the households will be only about 50,000 (having to do with large household sizes). As Koreatown gentrifies, I expect that the population will decrease dramatically as the household count rises.
Actually, I found one with 52,326 households and 134,184 residents, centered on Wilshire and Catalina:
Latitude=34.061795 , Longitude=-118.295074
Still, though, these numbers depict a significantly larger average household size than Philly or DC.
As it gentrifies I would imagine it drops to something like 100,000 or so. Hollywood has gone through similar population decreases as it gentrifies. Anti-development trolls like to spin this as people "fleeing" a developing Hollywood. There are some who use this as evidence of Hollywood declining
As it gentrifies I would imagine it drops to something like 100,000 or so. Hollywood has gone through similar population decreases as it gentrifies. Anti-development trolls like to spin this as people "fleeing" a developing Hollywood. There are some who use this as evidence of Hollywood declining
I don't think that, but it does make you wonder whether gentrification is antagonistic to one of the chief goals of urbanism: increasing density. While the neighborhood gets nicer, there are ultimately fewer people living there (more singles and fewer families). But if other neighborhoods that are not so dense get denser, then I suppose it really doesn't matter.
I don't think that, but it does make you wonder whether gentrification is antagonistic to one of the chief goals of urbanism: increasing density. While the neighborhood gets nicer, there are ultimately fewer people living there (more singles and fewer families). But if other neighborhoods that are not so dense get denser, then I suppose it really doesn't matter.
You know, some of DC's most vibrant neighborhoods are in SE with low population density. It's because the culture is to hang out on the street. Lower income families tend to spend time outside their homes more on the stoop if you will. Population density really has nothing to do with it. This is a major reason you see so many people walking in Los Angeles. Our Langley Park Maryland as the same vibrancy as LA over 24 hours.
I don't think that, but it does make you wonder whether gentrification is antagonistic to one of the chief goals of urbanism: increasing density. While the neighborhood gets nicer, there are ultimately fewer people living there (more singles and fewer families). But if other neighborhoods that are not so dense get denser, then I suppose it really doesn't matter.
Well I think it has been made pretty clear that Los Angeles is plenty dense from a population standpoint. Part of the reason you see so much overcrowding in Los Angeles neighborhoods is there is a huge housing shortage (probably the same situation in the rest of these cities, maybe not Philly). I don't see Los Angeles getting significantly more dense, especially with the crappy economy here - it's unlikely the city will see a population boom like it saw last century.
I think you'll see places like Westlake and Koreatown slowly start to get lower in density while currently medium-density areas like the San Fernando Valley, Mid-City and South LA grow in density (through new apartments, new semi-detached SFH through the small lots ordinance, and 2nd dwellings in back yards), hopefully lowering the rental prices a little bit (but probably not, just slowing their increases). Also you will see an increase of population along the Boulevards, which are quite underpopulated right now and basically devoted to office / retail (tying into your lack of mixed-use in LA) - you don't meet many people that actually live on Hollywood, Sunset, Santa Monica, even Wilshire Blvd. That is changing dramatically, nearly all new residential development is on major commercial corridors, it's the only place left.
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.
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.
