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 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.
really the island impact and greater than Chicago in many ways. NYC is less dense along the ocean actually
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.
You misinterpreted me. I agree Chicago's density is largely due to the time during which it "grew up" but also because of the lake. People wouldn't live there if it weren't for the lake. However, if all other factors were the same, except for the lake, and one assumes that the same number of people live there, Chicago wouldn't be as dense because they'd have more room to fit the same number of people, aka less dense.
You misinterpreted me. I agree Chicago's density is largely due to the time during which it "grew up" but also because of the lake. People wouldn't live there if it weren't for the lake. However, if all other factors were the same, except for the lake, and one assumes that the same number of people live there, Chicago wouldn't be as dense because they'd have more room to fit the same number of people, aka less dense.
understand the premise but in the end cities grow much of because of location. The lake was why Chicago came to be in the first place
understand the premise but in the end cities grow much of because of location. The lake was why Chicago came to be in the first place
Exactly. Which is what I said in the post you quoted. So in the end, like I originally said, it's probably a non-factor when considering both the fact that the lake constrains the total land area within a radius and that the city owes its large population due to the lake. Despite the lake, I think Chicago is appropriately ranked 3rd and the data reflects that.
Exactly. Which is what I said in the post you quoted. So in the end, like I originally said, it's probably a non-factor when considering both the fact that the lake constrains the total land area within a radius and that the city owes its large population due to the lake. Despite the lake, I think Chicago is appropriately ranked 3rd and the data reflects that.
Given that all but 1 city with significant water moved up in the ranking from where they really are, this ranking seems to at least counter the water because of the increased density. Most people just see water and are making the assumption that it hurts those cities, but for most of them, it didn't at all, and I'm not even sure it did for that single other city. Geography limits the spread of development, but it often forces density to go a lot higher than it otherwise would. Cities like Dallas or Charlotte that don't have significant geographical limitations can spread out, but they also tend to be a lot less dense. There's a give and take for each, so I personally don't think geography is all that significant to the ranking. Others obviously disagree.
A better metric is to use the first 200 square miles of continuous urban area starting from the most dense zipcode of each city.
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.
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.
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.
It actually more or less shows the big city ranking according to people's perceptions, not sheer statistics (Houston is 4 times the size of Boston).
It is almost nice to see the sunbelt cities dropping in status like flies (Phoenix is now half the size of Philly, instead of being close) - which is logical, the less dense a city is, the less city-like it appears, irrespectively of the total population living within the city boundaries.
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.
