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.
I'd like to see this done with the size challenged cities that anchor decent sized metro areas like Hartford, and Grand Rapids. Hartford is 18 sq mi. What would it's population be even at 100?
I have the numbers, but I'm not going to post them. I've learned my lesson.
...it was meant to be a fun little experiment, not meant to be taken as gospel truth.
I think what you're doing is great, and is a great start. With a bit of tweaking (like the algorithm I proposed on the last page), it could be the best way to compare cities, I believe.
Don't let the criticism get to you, I think most people mean well. I think most are just saying that what you're doing is great, but could be better.
Regardless, pretty much anything is better than just straight city limit comparisons.
I think what you're doing is great, and is a great start. With a bit of tweaking (like the algorithm I proposed on the last page), it could be the best way to compare cities, I believe.
Don't let the criticism get to you, I think most people mean well. I think most are just saying that what you're doing is great, but could be better.
Regardless, pretty much anything is better than just straight city limit comparisons.
It's interesting that at 200 square miles Chicago is 600,000 people short of it's population at 222 square miles, which is the size of the whole city. On the other hand, a city like Philadelphia only gains 300,000 from its' city proper population by extending out another 70 square miles.That's a steep drop off in density right outside the core.
That 200 square miles for Chicago is almost half water if they do the circle from downtown.
That 200 square miles for Chicago is almost half water if they do the circle from downtown.
True.... but isn't it also a reasonable assumption that Chicago wouldn't be nearly as dense if it weren't for the lake? It's an imperfect metric but it's what OP did.
True.... but isn't it also a reasonable assumption that Chicago wouldn't be nearly as dense if it weren't for the lake? It's an imperfect metric but it's what OP did.
sort of an interesting concept. density is a form of supply/demand of sorts
Waterfrontage can be an increase in demand and decrease in supply in many ways. Not sure any way to quantify but this plays in
Miami has a string of density along the ocean etc.
Manhattan and SF are compressed by water etc.
But not sure anyone can truly quantify this in this way
True.... but isn't it also a reasonable assumption that Chicago wouldn't be nearly as dense if it weren't for the lake? It's an imperfect metric but it's what OP did.
I don't think it's a reasonable assumption. I think Chicago's density has everything to do with it being a city that was planned before the nation became auto-centric. Almost all cities that grew during the industrial revolution have or had heightened levels of density. Chicago's lake proximity has everything to do with all big settlements being built up around major water bodies for transit and sustainability reasons. Under that same assumption one would have to assume that New York wouldn't be nearly as dense were it not for the Atlantic Ocean.
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.
Ok
