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.
How the hell does Houston have 19,000 ppsm at the 0-1 mile point? It' downtown is almost all office towers and I doubt the apartment/SFH have 19,000 people living in them within 1 mile of city hall...I don't see it being denser than Miami at the core, especially weighted.
I still dont see why New York ranks so low at 35miles when in statistics its numbers are higher then everyone. So I dont really see this as good way to see the density, because real numbers prove otherwise.
It's partly because the areas outside new york are often large estates, state parks and greenspace in general outside of the city proper. In that are fairly dense concentrations of population and buildings along the commuter rail lines which feather out quickly in directions not along those rail lines. It's also what I find great about NYC. Los Angeles in contrast has a lot of small lot single family homes and a great dearth of greenspaces.
How the hell does Houston have 19,000 ppsm at the 0-1 mile point? It' downtown is almost all office towers and I doubt the apartment/SFH have 19,000 people living in them within 1 mile of city hall...I don't see it being denser than Miami at the core, especially weighted.
I find it so hard to believe that Chicago is between 3rd and 5th when it comes to population density, considering that its infrastructural density SEEMS to be easily #2, if not #3! I've been to LA, SF, etc. and don't see where those cities have the infrastructure and density that Chicago does in the core 1, 3, 5, or more miles. I realize that household size may vary a bit, but c'mon......it just doesn't add up to me! Granted, I know Chicago MUCH better than I know LA, SF, Philly or Boston, and I do not deny that all four have very dense urban cores in parts, but from what I've seen or experienced they are nothing compared to the core of Chicago. I can see three (except LA) having similar core 1 mile densities, but not beyond that. Chicago has high-rises in all directions from its center, unlike any other city in America except NYC. What am I missing? I'm not upset, just a bit puzzled.
From what I've seen on Google Maps and from what I've heard is, Chicago has alot of urban prairies on the south and west-sides away from its core and away from the lake.
It's partly because the areas outside new york are often large estates, state parks and greenspace in general outside of the city proper. In that are fairly dense concentrations of population and buildings along the commuter rail lines which feather out quickly in directions not along those rail lines. It's also what I find great about NYC. Los Angeles in contrast has a lot of small lot single family homes and a great dearth of greenspaces.
Depending on how census tract boundaries are drawn, often they separate parkland from where people live. Since this is weighted density, census tracts with few people have little effect, so I don't think the decrease at 35 miles is due to green space but just general low density suburbia. The weighted density at 35 miles is 2500 per square mile, and it's similar further out. 2500 per square mile sounds about right for that distance except for Long Island, though some other directions have large-lot suburbia, so I think 2500 per square mile sounds about right.
Looking at a map, believe it even less so, unless all other areas around 495 are not part of Boston (then again the stat would become fairly selective if that were the case and not really suggest a density at that distance just at that distance included in the claculation, very selective) because based on my experience in areas like Marlborough; exurb and like 2K would seem to make more sense to me less on a standard density.
I get your concept because the area I am used has an extremly similar dynamic of old pretty dense towns, though generally sorrounded by low denisity exurbs to be honest (Boston too)
The numbers are in mile-width rings, so 25 miles is the weighted density of everything within 24.5 to 25.5 miles of Boston's City Hall. Eventually, going far enough out, not everything is included as part of the Boston metro, but I think at 25 miles everything else is. I downloaded the spreadsheet from the census, which gives data on each mile data point. From the data, it's rather obvious that small cities are causing the rise in weighted density. The rings with a higher weighted density also have the most people.
Miles, Weighted Density (per square mile), Population at that distance
21,1730,70932
22,2650,107749 23,5606,149221 24,6296,143059 25,6261,135337
26,2685,83067
27,1215,98557
The highest density distances stand out both by distance and rings. Old New England (as well as Eastern PA) cities tend to rather dense (many census tracts 15k +) for their size compared to typical Midwestern cities and the general I-495 corridor non-urban population lives at rather low densities. So it wouldn't that many people to affect weighted density. Weighted density is more skewed by high density tracts than average density, it's an average not a median. For example, if 80% of the population lives at 3,000 per square mile and 20% at 30,000 per square mile, the weighted density would be 3000*.8 + 30000*.2 = 8400 people per square mile. But most people live below 8400 people per square mile, the high density tracts are skewing the number. Also see my post here:
The numbers are in mile-width rings, so 25 miles is the weighted density of everything within 24.5 to 25.5 miles of Boston's City Hall. Eventually, going far enough out, not everything is included as part of the Boston metro, but I think at 25 miles everything else is. I downloaded the spreadsheet from the census, which gives data on each mile data point. From the data, it's rather obvious that small cities are causing the rise in weighted density. The rings with a higher weighted density also have the most people.
Miles, Weighted Density (per square mile), Population at that distance
21,1730,70932
22,2650,107749 23,5606,149221 24,6296,143059 25,6261,135337
26,2685,83067
27,1215,98557
The highest density distances stand out both by distance and rings. Old New England (as well as Eastern PA) cities tend to rather dense (many census tracts 15k +) for their size compared to typical Midwestern cities and the general I-495 corridor non-urban population lives at rather low densities. So it wouldn't that many people to affect weighted density. Weighted density is more skewed by high density tracts than average density, it's an average not a median. For example, if 80% of the population lives at 3,000 per square mile and 20% at 30,000 per square mile, the weighted density would be 3000*.8 + 30000*.2 = 8400 people per square mile. But most people live below 8400 people per square mile, the high density tracts are skewing the number. Also see my post here:
So, I guess many people on here have been wrong about the density for their cities compared to other cities according to this. Shows you can't always believe what people claim.
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.
