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 couldnt fit NY, Dallas and Houston but we all know that New York is the largest, and that Dallas and Houston are both lackluster considering their massive populations.
e.
And yet you have Detroit and ATL on there which are even more lackluster in these visuals
Cool maps! The one piece of bragging rights that I might personally glean from them is that many of Boston's satellite cities appear to have peak densities equal to or greater than those found in sunbelt cities like Dallas and Atlanta.
Or at least the cities around Boston make ours a cool-looking map that imo stands out from the rest by having so many isolated spikes.
I needed to see them side by side, to scale, so I made this:
I couldnt fit NY, Dallas and Houston but we all know that New York is the largest, and that Dallas and Houston are both lackluster considering their massive populations.
Anyway, these maps coincide with the maps that I made years back using NYTimes Census Maps.
As I've long stated, the Bay Area just feels so much larger as a contiguous region that just about anywhere except NY and LA of course.
I let my own comments go unsaid when these metro density visual aids first appeared here a few weeks ago but now that they have been juxtaposed so nicely in a comparative format, I have to say that the weakness of them in portraying an entirely accurate comparative reflection of various metros is hard to ignore.
For example, a quick glance at the metro Miami visual followed by a look the one for metro Atlanta could easily lead to the conclusion that Miami was multiple times the size of metro Atlanta & that Atlanta was a buccolic backwater. I can give assurance that neither conclusion would be correct.
They are sort of pretty to look at but not particularly accurate in conveying the complete story.
I needed to see them side by side, to scale, so I made this:
I couldnt fit NY, Dallas and Houston but we all know that New York is the largest, and that Dallas and Houston are both lackluster considering their massive populations.
Anyway, these maps coincide with the maps that I made years back using NYTimes Census Maps.
As I've long stated, the Bay Area just feels so much larger as a contiguous region that just about anywhere except NY and LA of course.
I think this is an accurate comparison and shows how the Bay area functions as 1 entity which in turn makes it feel like the 4th largest city, Houston is a distant 7-8.
I let my own comments go unsaid when these metro density visual aids first appeared here a few weeks ago but now that they have been juxtaposed so nicely in a comparative format, I have to say that the weakness of them in portraying an entirely accurate comparative reflection of various metros is hard to ignore.
For example, a quick glance at the metro Miami visual followed by a look the one for metro Atlanta could easily lead to the conclusion that Miami was multiple times the size of metro Atlanta & that Atlanta was a buccolic backwater. I can give assurance that neither conclusion would be correct.
They are sort of pretty to look at but not particularly accurate in conveying the complete story.
I was thinking the same thing. Atlanta looks tiny compared to just about every city on there, yet it's metro is nearly 6 million people. Are we even sure its the same scale?
If Atlanta actually had low density sprawl over a large area, wouldn't the drawing for Atlanta be larger?
I think the boston and San Fran might be a little bit blown up as the boston one doesn't seem to include all of Boston's far out burbs or large cities that entered their fold.
A perfect illustration of how much of a sprawl monster ATL is. Large land area, Low density.
Don't get me wrong, ATL is a huge cohesive metro area that is truly unique in that it is spread out, yet functions as well as most compact metro area's.
MIA can only go up at this point, although there is still open land in Palm Beach county.
Great maps RedJohn, you have some of the most interesting threads on here.
i find it interesting that baltimores spike is higher than dc's ?
The density spike in Baltimore City is from Census tract 1003 with the downtown detention center/prison on it at 401 E Eager St. Other than that, Baltimore City's densest census tract, representing people not detained in prison, is 35,000 people per square mile.
Last edited by revitalizer; 11-27-2015 at 05:04 AM..
I think the boston and San Fran might be a little bit blown up as the boston one doesn't seem to include all of Boston's far out burbs or large cities that entered their fold.
Boston's map extends into RI and NH.
I don't know how you could go much farther out....
The density spike in Baltimore City is from Census tract 1003 with the downtown detention center/prison on it at 401 E Eager St. Other than that, Baltimore City's densest census tract, representing people not detained in prison, is 35,000 people per square mile.
Figures.
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.
