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.
Like it was explained in the quote in the OP, it is to the same exact scale for every single city. It is a using CSA land boundaries and the green towers of population density show where people actually live in these CSAs and what their built up density is. So when you see the grey, no one lives there, no development, no density, nothing is in the grey.
Look for the green areas and their relationship within that CSA to the central core and look at their peak densities.
Ahh ok...just saw this now. Completely though? How about say really low population like Montauk, NY? I don't seem to see any green spots there, or maybe it's so tiny that it's really that hard to spot in that image.
Which would then bring me to the question, do you have any larger sized images for downloads to zoom it?
Ahh ok...just saw this now. Completely though? How about say really low population like Montauk, NY? I don't seem to see any green spots there, or maybe it's so tiny that it's really that hard to spot in that image.
Which would then bring me to the question, do you have any larger sized images for downloads to zoom it?
Yes the solidly grey areas have zero people, zero population density.
When people do exist there and when there is population density, you will see little black spots (hard to see but noticeable nonetheless if you look) or incisions/indentions/marks that will let you know where people are.
Look at the Los Angeles one for reference, to the east where you see all grey and zero anything else, it is because that is uninhabitable desert where no one lives. The data was compiled using census tracts (the smallest units of population and population density) for the entire CSAs and everyone that lives in them. So it is accurate.
Anyways, the most continuous development actually seems to belong to Miami looking at that map, percentage wise that is. So I don't know why SF/Bay Area dudes here are always bragging like they are king of that or something.
Boston on the other hand though has a surprising amount of gaps.
The work of Chris Dickersin-Prokopp over at GreaterGreaterWashington, data compiled using United States census data for 11 American CSAs and 1 American MSA.
good stuff
am curious if SD exits would be interesting to see the continuity also for a combined Philly and NYC - the southern part of NYC is trenton directly brodering the populations spikes from Philly moving NE
Also sacramento also as am cutious on the continuity of the bay
These are great for quick visual reads thanks for posting
also is Miami cut off, I think the coast would continue and would be interesting both the SE of FLA i pretty crazy along the coast
am curious if SD exits would be interesting to see the continuity also for a combined Philly and NYC - the southern part of NYC is trenton directly brodering the populations spikes from Philly moving NE
Also sacramento also as am cutious on the continuity of the bay
These are great for quick visual reads thanks for posting
also is Miami cut off, I think the coast would continue and would be interesting both the SE of FLA i pretty crazy along the coast
LA is also very impressive in these images
There looks to be large gaps in the bay area before it reaches Sacramento, which indicates that there isn't continuation between them.
As for Miami, I believe it's cut off at the MSA for this. Miami's CSA also includes four additional counties (St. Lucie, Martin, Indian River, Okeechobee). I'm not too familiar with those but it would surprise me if it wasn't mostly continuous development, as Florida usually doesn't have the geographic restrictions that certain other places do. Someone will have to enlighten me otherwise if that's not the case. But so far, Miami definitely looks to have the most continuous development of any large city in the US.
Anyways, the most continuous development actually seems to belong to Miami looking at that map, percentage wise that is. So I don't know why SF/Bay Area dudes here are always bragging like they are king of that or something.
What the hell are you on about?
The only reference made by people in SF is usually that the 50-mile drive from SF to SJ is totally developed, which it is.
Location: East Central Pennsylvania/ Chicago for 6yrs.
2,535 posts, read 3,279,332 times
Reputation: 1483
Quote:
Originally Posted by DistrictDirt
Did you just type out your inner monologue?
Your Masters surely has given you a lot of intellect.... perhaps you can take the thread further then appreciation of the graphs and knowing the creator of them? Past that..... is all that I meant. Or did you take something personal ..... as if my comment was meant for you?
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.
