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.
1. Census tracts
2. UA
3. Weighted density
4. MSA
5. CSA
6. City limits
are these in order?
CSA?
also weighted density is measurment technique not really an area measurment
Austin Contrarian uses the borders of a UA and the Census numbers Munch just provided use the MSA
Problem is all of these work better depending on the comparison
UA is likely the most uniform as it takes developed continuity and a smaller footprint for calculating
most likely to the individual neighborhood (or collections of connected ones) may actually be the most meaningful to the life experience
tracts are interesting but IMHO too small as a stand alone, when combined and aggregated they make most sense - UA is a very large incarnation of this (my only issue with UA is 1K is too low in density but on the whole is probably the best measure readially available)
also weighted density is measurment technique not really an area measurment
Austin Contrarian uses the borders of a UA and the Census numbers Munch just provided use the MSA
Problem is all of these work better depending on the comparison
UA is likely the most uniform as it takes developed continuity and a smaller footprint for calculating
most likely to the individual neighborhood (or collections of connected ones) may actually be the most meaningful to the life experience
tracts are interesting but IMHO too small as a stand alone, when combined and aggregated they make most sense - UA is a very large incarnation of this (my only issue with UA is 1K is too low in density but on the whole is probably the best measure readially available)
I think UA is the best. The problem with it is--for a city comparison, it covers too much land. I want to see how L.A. stacks up to Chicago, or Philly to San Francisco, or DC to Miami, without bringing far flung suburbs into the mix. That's the problem with weighted density when you use UA as well--the average density becomes suburb dominated, since that is what all UAs mainly consist of. Only California suburbs get away relatively unscathed using this formula. The rest not so much. Even NYC. The city itself is phenomenally dense--over 60k ppsm weighted density. That's impressive (at least to me it is) for a city of ONE million. For a city of EIGHT million-. Now throw in Long Island, Jersey and CT--it drops to 30,000 ppsm. Still impressive, but misleading depending on how you look at it.
Weighted density by city limits has also been done, but it runs into the same problem you have when you compare using standard density--size differences in land area.
Census tracts work in the sense that you get to see how many people in a given metro are living at 50/30/20/10k densities. Since those are the densities most of us are interested in comparing, this is pretty useful. The only drawback is perhaps a lack of continuity.
I think UA is the best. The problem with it is--for a city comparison, it covers too much land. I want to see how L.A. stacks up to Chicago, or Philly to San Francisco, or DC to Miami, without bringing far flung suburbs into the mix. That's the problem with weighted density when you use UA as well--the average density becomes suburb dominated, since that is what all UAs mainly consist of. Only California suburbs get away relatively unscathed using this formula. The rest not so much. Even NYC. The city itself is phenomenally dense--over 60k ppsm weighted density. That's impressive (at least to me it is) for a city of ONE million. For a city of EIGHT million-. Now throw in Long Island, Jersey and CT--it drops to 30,000 ppsm. Still impressive, but misleading depending on how you look at it.
Weighted density by city limits has also been done, but it runs into the same problem you have when you compare using standard density--size differences in land area.
Census tracts work in the sense that you get to see how many people in a given metro are living at 50/30/20/10k densities. Since those are the densities most of us are interested in comparing, this is pretty useful. The only drawback is perhaps a lack of continuity.
Completely agree. I prefer looking at an area of roughly 20-30 sq miles, though that number is arbitrary, it is a large enough area to measure the "core" for most cities. Especially with physically large cities like LA/NYC/CHI as there are so many different urban environments within the city limits themselves.
I think UA is the best. The problem with it is--for a city comparison, it covers too much land. I want to see how L.A. stacks up to Chicago, or Philly to San Francisco, or DC to Miami, without bringing far flung suburbs into the mix. That's the problem with weighted density when you use UA as well--the average density becomes suburb dominated, since that is what all UAs mainly consist of. Only California suburbs get away relatively unscathed using this formula. The rest not so much. Even NYC. The city itself is phenomenally dense--over 60k ppsm weighted density. That's impressive (at least to me it is) for a city of ONE million. For a city of EIGHT million-. Now throw in Long Island, Jersey and CT--it drops to 30,000 ppsm. Still impressive, but misleading depending on how you look at it.
Weighted density by city limits has also been done, but it runs into the same problem you have when you compare using standard density--size differences in land area.
Census tracts work in the sense that you get to see how many people in a given metro are living at 50/30/20/10k densities. Since those are the densities most of us are interested in comparing, this is pretty useful. The only drawback is perhaps a lack of continuity.
Yeah mostly agree with everything you wrote
And you are right on the suburbs in the current UA calculation
Speaking of my area the current UA is like 5.3 million over like 1500-1700 sq miles. The first 4-4.5 million do it in about the first 600 sq miles which is like an average at 8K and probably a weighted density of like 12-15K in this space. The last 1000 sq miles add at a rate of like 1kppsm mostly in the western burbs where it is reallly more exurban. Heading north into Jersey the densities are generally higher than west or even South. To the east you hit the pine barrens which have almost the CA look of developed density then to zero as the 1 million acre park is basically undeveloped.
I would love to see UAs with 10K, 8K, 4K plus maybe even core UAs at like 15-20K dunno
there will never a perfect way to compare and even said population density is only one factor even in this regard as developed desnity is another with no good metrics to articulate this
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.
