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.
we can speak hypothetically but that isn't the case. and as a whole continued area the SF metro area is the second most dense after LA which means its metro is denser than nyc. So yes if nyc was like that then SF wud be the most urban OVERALL because it has a higher percent of urbanity in its city limits. pound for pound it wud be most urban in north America instead of #2 like it is right now
Ok, well agree to disagree I guess. I would argue that cities like London and Berlin are more urban than SF or Boston despite the fact that SF/BOS are both denser technically denser. These larger cities have more concentrated aggregate density in the core but are pulled down by lower densities in their outer neighborhoods. Yeah, maybe on average less density, but far more people living in dense urban environments in the big European capitals.
As was suggested weighted density would probably get around some of these objections, but it would still miss the scale element.
Ok, well agree to disagree I guess. I would argue that cities like London and Berlin are more urban than SF or Boston despite the fact that SF/BOS are both denser technically denser. These larger cities have more concentrated aggregate density in the core but are pulled down by lower densities in their outer neighborhoods. Yeah, maybe on average less density, but far more people living in dense urban environments in the big European capitals.
As was suggested weighted density would probably get around some of these objections, but it would still miss the scale element.
no perfect metrics but weighted density can also supply the numbers at different levels
x city 150K > 30K vs y city 120K >30K density etc.
charted as NEI and Memph have done you can start to see the scale elements a bit
probably woulde have to be done at the tract level as zips run into the same averaging effect many times
Ok, fine make it consistent. You could take a contigous, non-blob shaped area of Chicago the same size as San Francisco. It would have a bit more people than San Francisco.
This is true, but we're talking 900,000 people or so versus 840,000 people. It's not like Chicago approaches NYC here, and at the rate that SF is growing, I don't know how much longer this might last. Also, I'm assuming we're talking weighted density here, because nearly a third of SF is uninhabited (so it's more like 840,000 people in 30 something square miles) and the Northside of Chicago has Lincoln Park and a few others...
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly
good post
also the other issue with straight density is that different sized places can have other things that bring down density. Philadelphia has an area sq mileage wise with no population larger than all of SF (actually believe both Boston and DC proper as well and is only 134 sq miles to begin with) because of refineries, ports, parks, and airports while all places have them these aspects, they are not always consistent in percentages
Boston has Logan; SF does not have SFO as an example
I always wondered if anyone had or did weighted density in cities, while still flawed maybe better as it better adjusts to the density people actually live in
in the end it's really us geeks that even care to discuss it
most people just walk outside and make an assessment if at all
The weighted average density of Philadelphia is still significantly lower than SF's. We've been down this road to begin with, and you can back into the square mileage of the airport and refineries, and they aren't nearly THAT large (47 square miles? that would make it by far the largest airport, lol). Philly proper has 1 refinery, the Philly metro has several going into NJ and DE. Philly airport is on 2,370 acres, which is 3.7 square miles. Philly parkland is 10,334 acres, which is 16.14 square miles. Sunoco is on 1,400 acres, which is 2.2 square miles.
So right off the bat, the VAST bulk of uninhabitable land is a total of 22 su miles, or about 16% of the city, which is less than what you can easily take out for SF if you dip into industrial land.
SF has *A LOT* of land that is uninhabited, as well. Including industrial land. And major major parks. Just 3 minutes of research and I get to 7.3 square miles of parkland/basically uninhabited land between some of the major parks in the city (Presidio, GG Park, Lands End, Lake Merced and Park Merced, Treasure Island). That's 15% right there.
This map has a pretty solid indication of what's "park" and what's industrial wasteland:
This is true, but we're talking 900,000 people or so versus 840,000 people. It's not like Chicago approaches NYC here, and at the rate that SF is growing, I don't know how much longer this might last. Also, I'm assuming we're talking weighted density here, because nearly a third of SF is uninhabited (so it's more like 840,000 people in 30 something square miles) and the Northside of Chicago has Lincoln Park and a few others...
The weighted average density of Philadelphia is still significantly lower than SF's. We've been down this road to begin with, and you can back into the square mileage of the airport and refineries, and they aren't nearly THAT large (47 square miles? that would make it by far the largest airport, lol). Philly proper has 1 refinery, the Philly metro has several going into NJ and DE. Philly airport is on 2,370 acres, which is 3.7 square miles. Philly parkland is 10,334 acres, which is 16.14 square miles. Sunoco is on 1,400 acres, which is 2.2 square miles.
So right off the bat, the VAST bulk of uninhabitable land is a total of 22 su miles, or about 16% of the city, which is less than what you can easily take out for SF if you dip into industrial land.
SF has *A LOT* of land that is uninhabited, as well. Including industrial land. And major major parks. Just 3 minutes of research and I get to 7.3 square miles of parkland/basically uninhabited land between some of the major parks in the city (Presidio, GG Park, Lands End, Lake Merced and Park Merced, Treasure Island). That's 15% right there.
This map has a pretty solid indication of what's "park" and what's industrial wasteland:
The wtd avg density of SF is in the 30s 000s ppsm. Still second highest.
airports etc you excluded and the ports etc it works out to be nearly 60 sq miles actually within the 134 sq mile city limits
and the weighted densities were by metro not city proper
SF is dense where people live and so is Philadelphia - they are probably fairly close as would be Chicago and Boston these 4 are all closer than any are to NYC from this standpoint and NYC contains within the city alone the whole population of the Bay area or more than the philly metro its the outlier here the others are really more comparable on many levels with some aspects higher or lower in the relative sene
Last edited by kidphilly; 09-25-2014 at 09:53 AM..
technically it doesn't but why wud u measure a city that may only be 2 square miles with 30k people.. a city like boston or sf that are some of the largest in the country would qualify for the poll. but technically Somerville is more urban per capita/pound for pound within its city limits
I recall from Occupy Wall Street that NYC also has lots of "parks" that are actually on private property and operated by the private owners. That's why they were able to kick out the OWS protesters. I think that those parks are in exchange for the developer being able to build taller or some such. Those "parks" are mostly courtyards and sitting areas and aren't green spaces. They are also listed on the NYC Parks Dept website and are very likely included in the total.
Yea, they are listed exclusively as parks that are not under NYC parks management while the percentage of parkland they listed is explicitly for parks under their management. My post actually does the busywork of finding the links for you.
And yea, there are private property parks and they are mostly of the same variety of parks that new parks are designed these ways (if you want to think of an analogue for yourself, think about Pershing Square, that's the style, which is pretty meh). However, those are the far minority of park areas that are not under the administration of NYC Parks (makes sense since these small private parks are usually tiny and exist almost exclusively in downtown and midtown Manhattan). The vast majority of the unaccounted for space that is outside the purview of NYC Parks is that under National or State park management. The largest "single" piece of this is the Gateway National Recreation Area which is left pretty wild, but there are a lot of other large parcels out there.
Again, NYC is pretty great because of its vast amount of set aside parkland.
This is true, but we're talking 900,000 people or so versus 840,000 people. It's not like Chicago approaches NYC here, and at the rate that SF is growing, I don't know how much longer this might last. Also, I'm assuming we're talking weighted density here, because nearly a third of SF is uninhabited (so it's more like 840,000 people in 30 something square miles) and the Northside of Chicago has Lincoln Park and a few others…
I was talking about overall density. The North Side of Chicago has a bit more people than San Francisco in the same area. I agree the difference, it's mainly in response to the comments that San Francisco is much denser than Chicago. I would say both are rather similar, with an edge to Chicago at larger areas. Though yes, San Francisco has a higher peak, but that's looking at a rather tiny area.
Quote:
The weighted average density of Philadelphia is still significantly lower than SF's. We've been down this road to begin with, and you can back into the square mileage of the airport and refineries, and they aren't nearly THAT large (47 square miles? that would make it by far the largest airport, lol). Philly proper has 1 refinery, the Philly metro has several going into NJ and DE. Philly airport is on 2,370 acres, which is 3.7 square miles. Philly parkland is 10,334 acres, which is 16.14 square miles. Sunoco is on 1,400 acres, which is 2.2 square miles.
Again, that's only because Philadelphia's city limits include less dense areas that wouldn't be in San Francisco's city limits. The equivalent of say, Northeast Philly (moderately dense mid-century development with a lot of suburban charecteristics) is found Daly City and adjacent cities as well as parts of the inner East Bay. This would drag down Philly's weighted density but not San Francisco's. And no, it wouldn't be the biggest airport, Denver's airport is 54 square miles.
New York City
Los Angeles
Chicago
Philadelphia
San Francisco
Boston
Washington DC
This method works best IMO. It's the most democratic. If someone can do a weighted density comparison over a 5/10/15 sq miles that would be even better. Doing so entire urbanized area is bit much.
PHL is not 54 sq miles but the city has two airports within the city limits.
Just as the comparison it has a lot more non resdiential stuff than does SF because of the compressed city limits
in the end I think they are all pretty close. Dont see huge differences. And none even compare to NYC
its kind of like
1 NYC
5 Chicago
6 Boston/SF/Philly
8 DC
and never know what to do with LA - probably best at like 4 maybe though if considering more core maybe closer to 7/8
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.
