CSA Visualizations (Built-Up Area Population and Housing Density), Census 2014 (cost, largest, bigger)
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.
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.
This isn't a map of development, it's a map of density. Miami also doesn't have to deal with mountains. If you look at the areas around the bay, you can see that they are fairly dense.
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.
Getting lectured by what everyone considers the most obnoxious poster in the forum, who is also taken seriously by the exact opposite number of people, about what the hell I'm on about....huh, well I must say there is no short of irony in this forum.
Certain people do brag about that, you were probably busy going on about Masters degrees in SF to pay attention. Not that it ever makes a difference with you anyways.
This isn't a map of development, it's a map of density. Miami also doesn't have to deal with mountains. If you look at the areas around the bay, you can see that they are fairly dense.
Nope that's exactly what it is. Try paying attention to what you read better next time.
Quote:
The visualizations below show residential density (as one unit of height for every person per square mile - in their exact residential location in the CSA), by census tract, for the nation's 12 statistical areas of at least 5 million inhabitants. The images show Combined Statistical Areas (CSAs) with the exception of Miami, which until recently was not part of a CSA (using the older 2003 CSA definitions). The regions are viewed from the same height and distance, but from different directions, most often from the south.
I don't even get what the point of the second sentence was, given that's exactly what I just said. Miami doesn't have many geographic limitations such as places like SF, which allows them to build more continuously.
Getting lectured by what everyone considers the most obnoxious poster in the forum, who is also taken seriously by the exact opposite number of people, about what the hell I'm on about....huh, well I must say there is no short of irony in this forum.
Certain people do brag about that, you were probably busy going on about Masters degrees in SF to pay attention. Not that it ever makes a difference with you anyways.
Yawns. Like I said: 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.
That you interpret that as 'bragging' is your own personal issue.
Miami is just like SF as in it is almost a straight line that is 10-20 miles wide at most. Miami ha the ocean on one side and Everglades which can't be legally developed on the other side. Like SF Miami was multiple MSA's or regions and past miami it is almost continuous for a long time along the Florida coast as in it almost never stops with small beach town after small beach town. I did the drive from Jacksonville down and it is amazing that you can have nearly 100 miles of development non-stop and even if you expanded on that it can reach nearly 200 miles. Palm Beach Florida to Miami is a 71 mile completely urban drive and nothing in the U.S can prepare you for that, the thing is east to west the development is laughable, as it only takes 5-10 miles to get out of the urban and suburban nodes of the northern part of Miami area (Fort Lauderdale/West Palm Beach)to give way to everglades.
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.
There are some breaks on US1 once you get to Martin County. On 95, there's really nothing between Palm Beach County and Port St Lucie.
Miami is just like SF as in it is almost a straight line that is 10-20 miles wide at most. Miami ha the ocean on one side and Everglades which can't be legally developed on the other side. Like SF Miami was multiple MSA's or regions and past miami it is almost continuous for a long time along the Florida coast as in it almost never stops with small beach town after small beach town. I did the drive from Jacksonville down and it is amazing that you can have nearly 100 miles of development non-stop and even if you expanded on that it can reach nearly 200 miles. Palm Beach Florida to Miami is a 71 mile completely urban drive and nothing in the U.S can prepare you for that, the thing is east to west the development is laughable, as it only takes 5-10 miles to get out of the urban and suburban nodes of the northern part of Miami area (Fort Lauderdale/West Palm Beach)to give way to everglades.
Its definitely similar in that both are very linear but the Bay Area definitely extends a lot farther inland than Miami, the development just tends to be broken up by hills. Suburbs like Antioch, Brentwood, Fairfield, etc..can be 45-55 miles east/northeast from Downtown SF. Technically Stockton is considered partof the Bay Area's CSA now which is over 60+ miles east as the crow flies.
Coastal FL, particularly coastal South FL, as I've mentioned on another thread ("biggest city feel in SE"), might have no parallels in this country. That much is true. But we're really talking 95 going east, which is 2-4 miles at most. There is a gap in Martin County, and Indian River County (Vero) is not very heavily populated save for wealthy coastal communities, but generally speaking, the density AND built density (two different things that are related but not 100% related) right up along the coast is very impressive. Things that help S FL? Second homes and tourism. The area is built like it's an 8 million person metro, but it's obviously not.
That said, while those desperately trying to find "gaps" in the Bay Area or NorCal in some effort to make the area "smaller" than it is will be sorely disappointed. As someone with experience in both areas, there are clearly stronger ties between Sacramento (2.2 million people) and San Francisco than there are ties between Port St. Lucie (300K) and Miami (the latter being one CSA). There could come a day, easily, where Sacramento is in SF's CSA like Stockton already is, and like Providence is in Boston's. SF's sphere of influence is huge. NorCal is home to ~10-12 million people in a fairly cohesive area, culturally, economically, and geographically, with San Francisco as its anchor. Miami is at the southern tip of the intensity that is S FL. It takes considerably longer for people to get from PSL to Miami (135 miles through urban jungle most of the way) than it does to get from Sacramento to San Francisco (90 miles with more open space and a commuter rail option). It's actually less of a distance with far less traffic and wide open Beeline expressway to get from PSL to Orlando.
And visually, since the maps are looking at population density, not built density, the Bay Area still looks "spikier" than S FL. Not sure how people could see otherwise. The Bay Area is denser on paper both overall and at its peaks, with more people.
And both Philly and Boston seem sparsely populated right outside of their cores (though Boston moreso), and DC-Baltimore looks more impressive put in this form, to me. DC-Baltimore actually looks quite cohesive. Houston/Dallas have lower spikes in their cores, obviously, but look to be higher density over a larger area than Philly/Boston.
There are several gaps about 5-6 miles each between SF and Sacramento where it's just farms or nature.
This is true, but population wise, Solano County (part of SF CSA) between SF MSA and Sacramento MSA is similar to the 3 counties north of Palm Beach that extend up for 80-90 miles. Solano County = 430K people extended between ag land and townships for ~60 miles and Martin/St. Lucie/Indian River counties have 585K people for 1/3 longer. By the way, Indian River County in FL is mega ag land for that state, as well. A lot of citrus comes from that area.
If Indian River County (where Vero is) had 1.5 million people and another 700K feeding into it, it would be more akin to SF-Sacramento, except then Vero would have to be 45 miles closer to Miami than it is now for it to be geographically similar.
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.
