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.
LA in the core 100 miles is actually pretty dense and maintained with continuity
Only NYC and Chicago maintain a 10K density over 200 sq miles (Philly come closest at about 9,400 at 200 miles)
Only NYC/LA/Chicago/Philly/Boston do so to 100 miles in real population; that I can quantify for you. SF would be close if you removed the water but would fall a little short (9,600). No other cities come close including DC at 100 miles and Miami would also miss 10K denisty more significantly utilizing the densest 100 miles. Menaing acyually how many REALLY do live in that space.
^^What is your methodology here? Because I've read numerous times that LA has the largest area of 10,000+ density in the new first world.
Oh... I'm starting to realize you must be doing it only by city boundaries. LA's densest areas include vast stretches to the south and southeast that aren't part of city boundaries.
Edit: nope.. you had Sf in there... I'll just wait.
But even that has its flaws. Urbanized areas must be continuous to be counted but they don't distinguish specifically among a variety of population densities. You'd have to look deeper into those numbers to see how much actual land supports the urban area. Then, you are right back to ranking based on density. It's a vicious circle, I need a cocktail! If my head's going to spin, I might as well make it worth my while.
Basically, yes. Total population divided by city area in square miles to get density. Density per square mile times 100 to get a net population for a specific city. I know I could've just used density, though, and it would've been the same.
so what is the point then, if this is just densities?
would probably be more interesting to pick a 5M radius and then average the densities in 5 or so census tracks in that area.
A list of densities is kinda out there though because very few areas have uniform density which makes for drastic errors in the list.
Houston is more Dense than Dallas from 1 Mile from the core to the outskirts of the city and it has a higher larger population
Calculated radius population; for select cities a census block build, well beyond the borders for places like Miami, DC and SF
Am positive it would not surpass in people within the footprint that exceeds 10K, that would be NYC
But LA maintains 10K plus density to just about 200 miles, if you got crafty with excluded undeveloped mountains etc you probably could find a continuous footprint for LA over 10K. I have only used radius calculations for the estimates; all places can show increases by cherry picking what is included and excluded in the accumulation. I did that for SF/DC/Miami because of the small city boundaries and the water for SF and Miami
Regardless LA is wildly mis-represented as not being dense, it is and over a huge footprint where it maintains this density
So one of the constant debates here in population is how some cities encompass larger areas so they contain more population but have a much lower density, so they are not truly as big as the numbers imply. So I went through and took the top 60 largest cities in population based on the 2000 Census (will update with 2010 numbers when they are all released) and worked out their densities based on their square miles. Then I put them all at exactly 100 square miles and came out with new figures on what the population would be and where cities would truly rank.
So here they are. This is the new ranking as well as their overall position change in the top 60.
Then what's to stop the list at 60? Was it to ensure some more CA cities in the list since two of the biggest gainers in the list are between 50 and 60? That was the first thing that jumped out at me when I saw this. I have never seen a list of top 60 "anything" previously.
If we keep going down the list of cities, you'll find that Miami Beach is even more densely populated than Miami. In fact, there are lots of very dense suburbs of major cities in the US. Doesn't NJ have some pretty densely populated burbs of NYC?
Regarding Miami, did you use the land area or the city limits? There's a tad bit under 36 square miles of land but about 55 square miles of city limits....it's just that the other 19 square miles are in Biscayne Bay.
I see some of you point but when I added up the municipalities to get to 100 miles Miami does fall short of 10K ppsm over 100 miles; it just isnt as dense as some other cities but is far denser than most areas, it is almost a smaller LA type development
and using your Miami beach logic the NJ Shore 120 mile long by ~ 1 mile wide gets 42 million visitors a year; would be the densest stretch in America
Yeah, I think you'd have to do a cherry-pick in order to really compare apples to apples.
Agree that LA is Dense and over a long way; and exceeds the Bay once you get past the small very dense portion in and around SF
the 6 largest are NYC/LA/Chicago/Boston/Philly/SF no matter how you slice it within the 200 or 100 contiguous sq miles; especially with help from cherry picking but I definatly see your point
Next are places like DC and Atlanta
expand further and the large Sunbelt citieds (Atlanta/Houston/DFW) all come into play
Guys, I think a lot of you are missing the point here. No two cities are going to be exactly alike, and people are going to argue the best way to guage this regardless of how you do it. All I did was make each city the same size in area, which means some cities gained in area while others lost some. If you want to say that central cores are different and there is not continuous density... yeah, I got that. I made the list assuming that the average density found within the populatioin divided by land area was equal throughout the 100 square miles. I know it's not going to be exact. If someone wants to find more accurate ways to measure this, go for it. I just thought it'd be interesting go throw some numbers together and see how they came up. All things being equal in regards to density, this is how they'd come up given the set standards I used.
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.
