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 03-01-2011, 09:53 PM
 
16,345 posts, read 17,932,577 times
Reputation: 7878

Advertisements

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.

1. New York: No change
2. San Francisco: +10
3. Chicago: No Change
4. Santa Ana, CA: +51
5. Boston: +15
6. Philadelphia: No Change
7. Miami: +35
8. Washington DC: +19
9. Long Beach, CA: +30
10. Baltimore: +11
11. Los Angeles: -9
12. Oakland: +32
13. Minneapolis: +35
14. Detroit: -3
15. Seattle: +8
16. Anaheim: +40
17. Milwaukee: +9
18. Cleveland: +25
19. St. Louis: +33
20. San Jose: -11
21. Cincinnati: +36
22. Las Vegas: +6
23. Sacramento: +15
24. Fresno: +12
25. Portland: +5
26. Toledo: +34
27. San Diego: -19
28. Denver: -4
29. Arlington, TX: +20
30. Dallas: -21
31. Columbus: -15
32. Omaha: +8
33. Houston: -29
34. Atlanta: -1
35. Mesa, AZ: +2
36. San Antonio: -29
37. Tampa: +17
38. New Orleans: +15
39. Austin: -24
40. Phoenix: -35
41. Witchita: +10
42. Tucson: -10
43. Albuquerque: -9
44. Raleigh: +1
45. Memphis: -26
46. El Paso: -24
47. Charlotte: -29
48. Bakersfield: +10
49. Indianapolis: -35
50. Tulsa: -3
51. Colorado Springs: -5
52. Aurora, CO: +7
53. Fort Worth: -36
54. Virginia Beach: -13
55. Louisville: -26
56. Kansas City: -21
57. Nashville: -32
58. Jacksonville: -45
59. Oklahoma City: -28
60. Honolulu: -10

Top 10 Gainers in Position
1. Santa Ana, CA: +51
2. Anaheim: +40
3. Cincinnati: +36
5. Miami: +35
6. Minneapolis: +35
7. Toledo: +34
8. St. Louis: +33
9. Oakland: +32
10. Long Beach: +30

Top 10 Losers in Position
1. Jacksonville: -45
2. Fort Worth -36
3. Indianapolis: -35
4. Phoenix: -35
5. Nashville: -32
6. Houston: -29
7. Charlotte: -29
8. San Antonio: -29
9. Oklahoma City: -28
10. Memphis: -26

Certainly some surprises. Not a single Texas city, for example, moved up. All of them instead moved much further down the list.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-01-2011, 10:22 PM
 
976 posts, read 2,230,487 times
Reputation: 629
pittsburgh?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2011, 10:24 PM
 
Location: The City
22,379 posts, read 38,665,395 times
Reputation: 7974
A couple of quick points, you extrapolated up or down the density to 100 miles. Not to nitpick but that assumes continuity which does not exist.

Here is a 2 miles radius - core 12 sq miles

Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly View Post
Now to the Cores - 2009 Estimates of the Downtown (2 Mile Radius) I will also note based on the map there is very little water in any of these measures at two miles.

1. NYC 506K
2. Philadelphia 243K
3. Boston 213K
4. San Francisco 211K (Used 800 Market St as center, not Emeryville Amtrak)
5. Chicago 160K
6. LA 157K
7. DC 155K
8. Miami 103K
9. Houston 75K
10. Detroit 73K
11. Atlanta 72K
12. Dallas 49K
and the 5 mile (~75-80 sq miles) are in the attached link

http://www.city-data.com/forum/15620032-post75.html


I do think it is interesting that virtually any way you slice it, NYC, Chicago, and Philadelphia hardly move; they are the three cities that cover a decent milege with sustained urban density pretty much any way you slice them.

Also LA gets wildly miscast as not being dense; even if it doesnt always feel that way
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2011, 10:25 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 15,926,837 times
Reputation: 4047
Haha. You realize that as of the 2010 US Census that Houston has a slightly higher population density than Dallas, right?

I'm not sure but you cant go by density on an entire city basis all the time, the density outside of a 25 mile core (5 X 5) significantly drops for 95% of the cities out there. Some of the most populated cities all have immense density around the core and the further you move out, mile by mile it starts to diminish. I think Los Angeles would possibly be one exception to that rule (and maybe a few others).

EDIT: Just noticed you went off the 2000 Census numbers. Haha
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2011, 10:36 PM
 
16,345 posts, read 17,932,577 times
Reputation: 7878
Quote:
Originally Posted by DANNYY View Post
Haha. You realize that as of the 2010 US Census that Houston has a slightly higher population density than Dallas, right?

I'm not sure but you cant go by density on an entire city basis all the time, the density outside of a 25 mile core (5 X 5) significantly drops for 95% of the cities out there. Some of the most populated cities all have immense density around the core and the further you move out, mile by mile it starts to diminish. I think Los Angeles would possibly be one exception to that rule (and maybe a few others).

EDIT: Just noticed you went off the 2000 Census numbers. Haha
All the cities have not been made available. I was going to update once they were all out. I do expect several changes when they're updated.

I don't think there is an exact way to measure regardless of what size I used. The average area size for all 60 cities was 209 sq/miles, but I figured that density was much less the further you go out, so I cut that in half and just used 100. It's never going to be totally accurate, but it gives an overall truer rank than just population alone.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2011, 10:37 PM
 
Location: South Beach and DT Raleigh
13,966 posts, read 24,000,674 times
Reputation: 14759
Quote:
Originally Posted by DANNYY View Post
Haha. You realize that as of the 2010 US Census that Houston has a slightly higher population density than Dallas, right?

I'm not sure but you cant go by density on an entire city basis all the time, the density outside of a 25 mile core (5 X 5) significantly drops for 95% of the cities out there. Some of the most populated cities all have immense density around the core and the further you move out, mile by mile it starts to diminish. I think Los Angeles would possibly be one exception to that rule (and maybe a few others).

EDIT: Just noticed you went off the 2000 Census numbers. Haha
Miami is pretty dense at over 12,000 people/s.m. but Miami Beach is actually a bit denser. The Western suburbs are less dense but the high density runs for miles among a variety of municipalities on the Bay and Atlantic Coast.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2011, 10:39 PM
 
Location: South Beach and DT Raleigh
13,966 posts, read 24,000,674 times
Reputation: 14759
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81 View Post
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.

1. New York: No change
2. San Francisco: +10
3. Chicago: No Change
4. Santa Ana, CA: +51
5. Boston: +15
6. Philadelphia: No Change
7. Miami: +35
8. Washington DC: +19
9. Long Beach, CA: +30
10. Baltimore: +11
11. Los Angeles: -9
12. Oakland: +32
13. Minneapolis: +35
14. Detroit: -3
15. Seattle: +8
16. Anaheim: +40
17. Milwaukee: +9
18. Cleveland: +25
19. St. Louis: +33
20. San Jose: -11
21. Cincinnati: +36
22. Las Vegas: +6
23. Sacramento: +15
24. Fresno: +12
25. Portland: +5
26. Toledo: +34
27. San Diego: -19
28. Denver: -4
29. Arlington, TX: +20
30. Dallas: -21
31. Columbus: -15
32. Omaha: +8
33. Houston: -29
34. Atlanta: -1
35. Mesa, AZ: +2
36. San Antonio: -29
37. Tampa: +17
38. New Orleans: +15
39. Austin: -24
40. Phoenix: -35
41. Witchita: +10
42. Tucson: -10
43. Albuquerque: -9
44. Raleigh: +1
45. Memphis: -26
46. El Paso: -24
47. Charlotte: -29
48. Bakersfield: +10
49. Indianapolis: -35
50. Tulsa: -3
51. Colorado Springs: -5
52. Aurora, CO: +7
53. Fort Worth: -36
54. Virginia Beach: -13
55. Louisville: -26
56. Kansas City: -21
57. Nashville: -32
58. Jacksonville: -45
59. Oklahoma City: -28
60. Honolulu: -10

Top 10 Gainers in Position
1. Santa Ana, CA: +51
2. Anaheim: +40
3. Cincinnati: +36
5. Miami: +35
6. Minneapolis: +35
7. Toledo: +34
8. St. Louis: +33
9. Oakland: +32
10. Long Beach: +30

Top 10 Losers in Position
1. Jacksonville: -45
2. Fort Worth -36
3. Indianapolis: -35
4. Phoenix: -35
5. Nashville: -32
6. Houston: -29
7. Charlotte: -29
8. San Antonio: -29
9. Oklahoma City: -28
10. Memphis: -26

Certainly some surprises. Not a single Texas city, for example, moved up. All of them instead moved much further down the list.
Therein lies the reason why nobody in Florida considers Jacksonville the largest city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2011, 10:42 PM
 
16,345 posts, read 17,932,577 times
Reputation: 7878
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly View Post
A couple of quick points, you extrapolated up or down the density to 100 miles. Not to nitpick but that assumes continuity which does not exist.

Here is a 2 miles radius - core 12 sq miles



and the 5 mile (~75-80 sq miles) are in the attached link

http://www.city-data.com/forum/15620032-post75.html


I do think it is interesting that virtually any way you slice it, NYC, Chicago, and Philadelphia hardly move; they are the three cities that cover a decent milege with sustained urban density pretty much any way you slice them.

Also LA gets wildly miscast as not being dense; even if it doesnt always feel that way
I know, as I said, there is not an exact standard to use. If I was going by the average size of the city area, the number I would've used would be twice as big. I compensated for the lack of continuous density by dividing it in half. Only 19 of the 60 cities had an area size of less than 100 sq/mi.

BTW, there would be 7 cities with a population over 1 million using the standards I used. LA would be about 788,000.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2011, 10:42 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 15,926,837 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81 View Post
All the cities have not been made available. I was going to update once they were all out. I do expect several changes when they're updated.

I don't think there is an exact way to measure regardless of what size I used. The average area size for all 60 cities was 209 sq/miles, but I figured that density was much less the further you go out, so I cut that in half and just used 100. It's never going to be totally accurate, but it gives an overall truer rank than just population alone.
I've actually been working on this also for a few months now, I've done about 17 cities so far but I need to throw my work away on it. It appears 2009 estimates were off for majority of the cities. I was adding them in correlation to everything near by or so and adding in land area or such.

I probably wont have that thread made until next year though, but this is a cool thread though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2011, 10:47 PM
 
940 posts, read 2,016,975 times
Reputation: 742
Fun idea... but what is the methodology here?

Are you just multiplying the city density by a constant 100 for each? Cause then this list is just a list of population density. There's no need to do the multiply by 100 step if it's constant.
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