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 03-20-2015, 01:30 AM
 
6,389 posts, read 10,436,810 times
Reputation: 6543

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaoWow77007 View Post
A better metric is to use the first 200 square miles of continuous urban area starting from the most dense zipcode of each city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81 View Post
That would be very difficult to do (zip codes are large and development doesn't stop or begin at their borders) and you would still have a lot of people complaining that the results are unfair/skewed/misleading/wrong/stupid, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjlo View Post
On a site full of people cheering on their hometowns you have to prepared that a few homers are going to get bent out of shape when they see a result that doesn't make their homer place the best ever. I liked your concept and logic, I am sorry you were frustrated by the naysayers.
I actually did this for Nashville a while back (using Census tracts). It was very difficult, but my intention at the time was to address this very sort of issue, and to illustrate what Nashville's population and density might look like if it had borders more like its peer cities, rather than a consolidate city-county government.

According to the 2010 Census, Nashville-Davidson County had 626,681 people in 504 square miles, giving it a density of 1,243 per square mile.

Using only Census tracts with 1,000+ ppsm, the population dips to 528,354, but the land area is cut down to 215 square miles, giving it a density of 2,462 per square mile. That's 84% of the population in 43% of the original land area, just about doubling the average density.

Of course this method is selective as well. Some Census tracts with a high concentration of industrial land, park land, and other 'developed' land may not be included when they are clearly part of the developed city.

You all are right that not everyone is going to agree on methodology. In my opinion, they all have their flaws.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-20-2015, 12:03 PM
 
172 posts, read 204,014 times
Reputation: 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81 View Post
Of course, there's always going to be something. However, geographic limitations don't seem to affect the rankings all that much. Coastal cities are all ranked highly, and indeed almost all of them moved upwards in the ranking. This may be because cities with major geographic limitations end up having higher densities that compensate for that. This at least tries to balance things out and doesn't just rely on the arbitrary existing boundaries.
I disagree - this isn't a minor thing. In a place like San Francisco with an ocean, multiple bays, and mountains it renders this type of analysis almost useless. See the satellite image below highlighting SF Bay Area's density to see my point. Keep in mind there are nearly 7 million people around the bay:


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._area_USGS.jpg
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2015, 12:44 PM
 
9,701 posts, read 6,753,214 times
Reputation: 9787
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly View Post
really the island impact and greater than Chicago in many ways. NYC is less dense along the ocean actually
Yeah, the ocean has basically nothing to do with NYC's density.

NYC is dense because of agglomeration of jobs, and extreme demand along transit corridors. If NYC were in Texas or something, with flat land on all sides for sprawl, it would probably look about the same, assuming it had the same economic base and historical trajectory.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2015, 12:52 PM
 
Location: Randolph, MA
508 posts, read 608,789 times
Reputation: 593
I'm ok with Boston being #6.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2015, 02:56 PM
 
34 posts, read 30,346 times
Reputation: 43
This is a pretty good ordering, but why don't we order them by (metro population / 1000000) * ( anchor city density / 1000 ) to get an index that combines density and total amount of people likely to be found nearby. It considers the surrounding suburbs density without handicapping cities like SF that are surrounded by water.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2015, 03:20 PM
 
1,335 posts, read 1,169,421 times
Reputation: 1910
Quote:
Originally Posted by T. Damon View Post
Same thing as San Diego. To compare Phoenix, San Antonio and San Diego (nearly identical size cities) this way when downtown San Diego is hard against the water and the other two sprawl pretty evenly in all directions is highly inaccurate.
An 8-mile radius around Phoenix would also include almost all of South Mountain Park, which is the largest municipal park in the United States. That's like 30 sq miles of no population. Kind of like an ocean

San Diego does not have a lot of residential downtown. It's dense, but you have the airport, lots of commerical and even some military within the 8 mile radius.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2015, 07:59 PM
 
Location: The Dirty South.
1,567 posts, read 1,323,417 times
Reputation: 1087
San Antonio is slowly catching up to Houston in land mass.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2015, 09:10 PM
 
Location: Mexico City, formerly Columbus, Ohio
12,800 posts, read 12,841,756 times
Reputation: 5483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bernard_ View Post
I disagree - this isn't a minor thing. In a place like San Francisco with an ocean, multiple bays, and mountains it renders this type of analysis almost useless. See the satellite image below highlighting SF Bay Area's density to see my point. Keep in mind there are nearly 7 million people around the bay:


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._area_USGS.jpg
SF moved up 2 spots from its real ranking. How do you explain that if you're correct?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2015, 10:05 PM
 
1,462 posts, read 1,517,149 times
Reputation: 1019
You keep emphasizing that some of these places still managed to move up in the rankings despite their perceived limitations, but that isn't indicative of the overall [for lack of a better word] complaint from some posters. I think some posters' issue isn't whether these places moved up or down, but instead that these places weren't able to reach their full potential via the criteria used, even though all places were given the same set of criteria - it still creates limitations for some and strengths for others, which is most likely true no matter the format used for these kinds of exercises.

And I think your overall point is that this wasn't intended to be some kind of all encompassing fix for anything, it was just one uniform way of tallying populations which you decided to share, which I think is valid (the exercise in general, that is).

Either way, not something to get worked up over.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2015, 02:18 AM
 
Location: Mexico City, formerly Columbus, Ohio
12,800 posts, read 12,841,756 times
Reputation: 5483
Quote:
Originally Posted by RadicalAtheist View Post
You keep emphasizing that some of these places still managed to move up in the rankings despite their perceived limitations, but that isn't indicative of the overall [for lack of a better word] complaint from some posters. I think some posters' issue isn't whether these places moved up or down, but instead that these places weren't able to reach their full potential via the criteria used, even though all places were given the same set of criteria - it still creates limitations for some and strengths for others, which is most likely true no matter the format used for these kinds of exercises.

And I think your overall point is that this wasn't intended to be some kind of all encompassing fix for anything, it was just one uniform way of tallying populations which you decided to share, which I think is valid (the exercise in general, that is).

Either way, not something to get worked up over.
Then honestly, their complaints are pretty worthless and they seem to be complaining just for the sake of doing so. They can't offer something better and they're certainly not willing to stick their own necks out and post something different.

My point is that the water/geography issue did not show up in the results as far as I can tell, at least not to the degree people are assuming. It may adjust population numbers a bit, but again, that is offset by the increased density of those geographically limited areas. The cities that were most "punished" by the ranking were those with larger than average city boundaries or lower densities, not those by water, mountains or any other landscape. So yeah, not getting worked up, but I do find it really annoying that people keep claiming something that really isn't supported by the results.
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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - 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 - Top