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.
Note that the Boston looks like one big city (Boston, obviously) with smaller cities scattered around with uninhabited areas in between, but there's a sea of light green or gray in between that's faint but represents very low density areas.
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.
I'm not exactly sure the point you're trying to make here is.
To me there seems to be more defined gaps between SF and Sacramento than in Southeast Florida. Honestly it doesn't appear there are really any significant gaps all the way up to Cape Canaveral/Titusville along Highway 1 and A1A. Doesn't seem like you can find a gap of more than 5 miles all the way up to Jacksonville which is really crazy imo.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,172,482 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonelitist
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.
I disagree about Houston and Dallas visually appearing to be higher density over a larger area than Philadelphia. Boston is clearly the spikiest and most disjointed metro of the four, but Philadelphia seems to have the most evenly distributed high density out of the four, while still having having lower density over a commensurate area with Houston and Dallas (radiating on the NJ side, south along the Delaware River past Wilmington, as well as snaking to the NW). Dallas and Houston may be more uniform in their density, and the pattern more circular in form (thus easier/more pleasing to the eye), but depending on what measurement and what source you use, all three are very close to one another in density and area.
In UN Urban Area, Philly and Dallas are virtually tied in land size, with Houston slightly behind. With the US Census Urban Area, Philly is actually the largest in area of the three, and the least dense (albeit not by much in both metrics). And since these are CSA visualizations, Philadelphia has 200,000 less people than Dallas at that level, but about 500,000 people ahead of Houston. I'm struggling to find sq mileage data on CSAs, but given how close their urban areas are (and by just looking at the closeness of the maps here), it's safe to assume their densities are close to one another at the CSA level as well, with Philly probably *slightly* behind Dallas at this juncture, and probably *slightly* ahead of Houston.
Point is, these are all three similar sized cities in Urban Area/MSA and CSA metrics, both in population and area. Philadelphia will inevitably continue to fall behind Dallas and Houston due to their astronomical growth, but as it stands now, it's somewhere in the middle CSA wise, and I think this map reflects that. The population distribution might be *slightly* different than Dallas/Houston in that there's a tiny bit more "disjointedness" heading west, but it's nowhere near as jarring as with Boston, and overall visually looks quite similar to my eyes, discounting the sharp rise towards the end of the Main Line (I'm assuming West Chester? Wish this map had county lines on it).
Last edited by qworldorder; 11-17-2015 at 12:53 PM..
I don't know if anyone noted this but Census tracts are not a defined size so the heights of some lines doesn't tell the whole story. Interesting none the less.
I'm not exactly sure the point you're trying to make here is.
To me there seems to be more defined gaps between SF and Sacramento than in Southeast Florida. Honestly it doesn't appear there are really any significant gaps all the way up to Cape Canaveral/Titusville along Highway 1 and A1A. Doesn't seem like you can find a gap of more than 5 miles all the way up to Jacksonville which is really crazy imo.
You can. There is a HUGE gap on 95 in central FL where Cape Canaveral is, for obvious reasons. There are also the same sort of preserves, wildlife, and agriculture up and down this route that you would find on the short drive from SF to Sacramento.
Unless you're taking A1A all the way up and down FL's coast (follows the 1-2 wide mile path of development right along the coast, and is a beautiful drive), on 95 you will experience gaps of "nothing" far longer than you'd experience between SF and Sacramento, which contains 450K people in a ~60 mile stretch between the two MSAs, a density that rivals St. Lucie County by itself (and far exceeds the other aforementioned counties north of Palm Beach), matches "urbanized" NE corridor areas such as Lancaster County and Harrisburg PA, etc.
95 up until a couple of years ago was actually only 2 lanes in either direction in much of central FL.
Overall I'd agree with you, but you brought up little 5-6 mile gaps in between SF and Sacramento as if they are some huge thing, and you are insinuating that these little gaps don't exist on the FL coast, even in south-central FL, when these gaps and larger in fact do exist.
This is not to detract from the point that coastal FL is intensely developed. But FL is one of several urbanized areas, the NE being the largest and most prominent, followed by Great Lakes area, coastal CA between Sacramento all the way down to San Diego, and I'd say even TX at this point with more/larger cities than even FL, and fairly close together. FL is not "unique" in terms of development/population, but with a conservative population and no state income tax, climate change denial, etc is uniquely positioned to poorly handle the kinds of population growth it will continue to face and the challenges from climate change, as well.
You can. There is a HUGE gap on 95 in central FL where Cape Canaveral is, for obvious reasons. There are also the same sort of preserves, wildlife, and agriculture up and down this route that you would find on the short drive from SF to Sacramento.
Unless you're taking A1A all the way up and down FL's coast (follows the 1-2 wide mile path of development right along the coast, and is a beautiful drive), on 95 you will experience gaps of "nothing" far longer than you'd experience between SF and Sacramento, which contains 450K people in a ~60 mile stretch between the two MSAs, a density that rivals St. Lucie County by itself (and far exceeds the other aforementioned counties north of Palm Beach), matches "urbanized" NE corridor areas such as Lancaster County and Harrisburg PA, etc.
95 up until a couple of years ago was actually only 2 lanes in either direction in much of central FL.
Overall I'd agree with you, but you brought up little 5-6 mile gaps in between SF and Sacramento as if they are some huge thing, and you are insinuating that these little gaps don't exist on the FL coast, even in south-central FL, when these gaps and larger in fact do exist.
This is not to detract from the point that coastal FL is intensely developed. But FL is one of several urbanized areas, the NE being the largest and most prominent, followed by Great Lakes area, coastal CA between Sacramento all the way down to San Diego, and I'd say even TX at this point with more/larger cities than even FL, and fairly close together. FL is not "unique" in terms of development/population, but with a conservative population and no state income tax, climate change denial, etc is uniquely positioned to poorly handle the kinds of population growth it will continue to face and the challenges from climate change, as well.
Well I was talking about US-1 and A1A and specified that, I realize there are large swaths of I-95 with no development. North of Palm Beach County I-95 seems to skirt around the cities/towns more so rather than go right through it like I-80 does through towns on its way to Sacramento.
I never suggested the 5-6 mile gaps were some "huge thing", I was merely quantifying the size of those gaps. I do think Southeast Florida is more continuous with development than SF to Sacramento, not along I-95 though and I never suggested it was. You're not going to find any highway connecting Sac and SF with as much continuous development as you find along the Florida coast. And you definitely can find bigger gaps from Sacramento down to San Diego.
But here's the thing you don't get looking at a map. You're not going to commute (to run occasional shopping errands most likely, but maybe, just maybe to work) from Fort Pierce or Vero into Palm Beach County via A1A, which would take hours. You're going to find an access road to 95 and drive inland to 95, then drive south. All that being said, would still take a couple hours. Thus these towns largely live in a bubble. Largely retirement centers.
If you live in Davis, you have easier access (and less miles) both into Sacramento and into greater San Francisco (Contra Costa County, for instance) as the towns are all right on 80. Thus it is both possible and quite advantageous for many people to live between the two cities, and yet work in one of the cities.
But here's the thing you don't get looking at a map. You're not going to commute (to run occasional shopping errands most likely, but maybe, just maybe to work) from Fort Pierce or Vero into Palm Beach County via A1A, which would take hours. You're going to find an access road to 95 and drive inland to 95, then drive south. All that being said, would still take a couple hours. Thus these towns largely live in a bubble. Largely retirement centers.
If you live in Davis, you have easier access (and less miles) both into Sacramento and into greater San Francisco (Contra Costa County, for instance) as the towns are all right on 80. Thus it is both possible and quite advantageous for many people to live between the two cities, and yet work in one of the cities.
I realize that, I was simply speaking on development and that's all. I just find it rather fascinating how continuously developed the eastern coast of Florida is.
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.
