U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-02-2010, 06:11 PM
 
Location: Houston
2,026 posts, read 3,670,653 times
Reputation: 466

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by polo89 View Post
I just don't see how one is MORE urban then the other. I see your point in how dense Phoenix is, I see it has a good street car system, I see some areas are walkable, but Houston has ALL of those facets, as well(with the exception of the streetcar system).
It used to have a streetcar system. In fact, before the 60's, almost every decent sized city in the country had a streetcar system. Houston just became a very car based city and the street cars became very crappy and weren't worth the money to maintain, and they where eventually destroyed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-02-2010, 06:11 PM
 
Location: Phoenix
3,995 posts, read 8,852,324 times
Reputation: 901
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxposure View Post
More dense than where?
LOL, wow! Houston
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2010, 06:16 PM
 
Location: In the heights
22,010 posts, read 23,554,423 times
Reputation: 11573
Here's some additional perspective:

Chicago's most densely populated area is generally regarded to be the North Side. Here's the Near North Side, one of the most densely populated communities in Chicago (and the US)

Near North Side, Chicago - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's a density of 26,786.9/sq mi in an area of 2.7 square miles.

You are giving numbers for Central Phoenix twice that density in almost twice the area covered by Chicago's Near North Side. Do you understand how completely ludicrous that is?

EDIT: My mistake as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Park,_Chicago is more densely populated

So that's 34,326.3 persons/square mile over 1.8 square miles for what is probably Chicago's densest neighborhood versus the gargantuan Central Phoenix which can sustain densities of 56,000 psm-62,000 psm over an area of 5 square miles. Incredibly impressive.

Last edited by OyCrumbler; 02-02-2010 at 06:34 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2010, 06:20 PM
 
Location: Phoenix
3,995 posts, read 8,852,324 times
Reputation: 901
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
Answer the questions. Either you're willfully lying or you really just misread the study.
UH-OH, I think I mis-read something... (one sec) About your Chicago density, again that is an average density and not the most dense area. Ok, here was my confusion, don't kill me too harshly, census tracts aren't complete square miles, so what was not in my information and I was looking at closely was census tracts can have a very high population in a small area but not correlate to the physical square mileage figure...

There are no PHYSICAL square miles with 40,000/60,000 people in Phoenix but census tracts with that figure. The ACTUAL physical people/square mile in the location is closer to 19,000...

I apologize to you all for the confusion! I was reading the study, looking at the census bureau figures, and calculating very badly! Phoenix is only slightly more dense than Houston. Also what confused me was "downtown" populations and census tracts for each city. Hmmmm, it is safe to admit I was going way too fast looking at the numbers! Downtown Phoenix does have a larger, denser downtown population; however, not nearly as dense as I first assumed. I should have caught that when I saw the population of downtown Phoenix' 1 square mile...

And more; it is more populous by about 10,000-12,000 (Physical downtown population); this is assuming that what I am reading about downtown Houston is correct and that the population there is only 2,000-3,500...

Last edited by fcorrales80; 02-02-2010 at 06:34 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2010, 06:34 PM
 
358 posts, read 645,098 times
Reputation: 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by fcorrales80 View Post
You've offered NO solid proof. There is nothing to discredit anything. Just your bias and disdain.
You said you couldn't find pics old pics of downtowns for the cities I mentioned, thus thinking that Phoenix must be the only place to have streetcars and streets full of pedestrians. Then I provided links to some pics showing other places that had the same thing, how is that not proof? You are also delusional to think that downtown LA was less vibrant than downtown Phoenix. Do you also think that downtown Phoenix was more vibrant that places like Pittsburgh, Cincinatti, Cleveland, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Denver, etc, during the same period? Educate yourself, my man. For you to think that downtown Phoenix is one of the few places that had a vibrant downtown, surrounded by inner ring neighborhoods is too much to handle. You need to travel more, seriously. Travel. More. Now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2010, 06:37 PM
 
Location: Houston
2,026 posts, read 3,670,653 times
Reputation: 466
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxposure View Post
You said you couldn't find pics old pics of downtowns for the cities I mentioned, thus thinking that Phoenix must be the only place to have streetcars and streets full of pedestrians. Then I provided links to some pics showing other places that had the same thing, how is that not proof? You are also delusional to think that downtown LA was less vibrant than downtown Phoenix. Do you also think that downtown Phoenix was more vibrant that places like Pittsburgh, Cincinatti, Cleveland, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Denver, etc, during the same period? Educate yourself, my man. For you to think that downtown Phoenix is one of the few places that had a vibrant downtown, surrounded by inner ring neighborhoods is too much to handle. You need to travel more, seriously. Travel. More. Now.
Even Houston had streetcars.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2010, 06:38 PM
 
Location: Phoenix
3,995 posts, read 8,852,324 times
Reputation: 901
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxposure View Post
You said you couldn't find pics old pics of downtowns for the cities I mentioned, thus thinking that Phoenix must be the only place to have streetcars and streets full of pedestrians. Then I provided links to some pics showing other places that had the same thing, how is that not proof? You are also delusional to think that downtown LA was less vibrant than downtown Phoenix. Do you also think that downtown Phoenix was more vibrant that places like Pittsburgh, Cincinatti, Cleveland, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Denver, etc, during the same period? Educate yourself, my man. For you to think that downtown Phoenix is one of the few places that had a vibrant downtown, surrounded by inner ring neighborhoods is too much to handle. You need to travel more, seriously. Travel. More. Now.
LOL, no. Now you are bringing cities in to the picture that were MUCH more dense and MUCH more populous than Phoenix could even have fathomed back then. There is no correlation. We are talking about those cities you listed and by the populations and city land in the 1950's. L.A.'s downtown was not like Pittsburgh's, Cleveland's, etc...it grew differently even in the 1950's as can be seen by how the city spread from the early 1900's...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2010, 06:46 PM
 
358 posts, read 645,098 times
Reputation: 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
Very badly? Not nearly as dense as you first assumed? How about being completely off the charts wrong with your figures and then laughing about how other people are trying to argue with hard numbers? How about completely fabricating a 5 square miles (how did you glean that from the report)? How about laughing off census bureau numbers (oh yes, because this website just makes up its population numbers for the sheer joy of it)?

And now where are you citing this 19,000 square miles? You were using the previous study to back your claims as hard numbers. So where are these all important hard numbers now?

I wouldn't be trying to gut you if you had actually taken the time to look at something very reasonable without being insulting to everyone about it. Where in this argument have you even tried to be reasonable?
Co-signed and hand delivered.....

and as they would say in the unemployment office.......NEXT!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2010, 06:48 PM
 
Location: Houston
2,026 posts, read 3,670,653 times
Reputation: 466
Quote:
Originally Posted by fcorrales80 View Post
UH-OH, I think I mis-read something... (one sec) About your Chicago density, again that is an average density and not the most dense area. Ok, here was my confusion, don't kill me too harshly, census tracts aren't complete square miles, so what was not in my information and I was looking at closely was census tracts can have a very high population in a small area but not correlate to the physical square mileage figure...

There are no PHYSICAL square miles with 40,000/60,000 people in Phoenix but census tracts with that figure. The ACTUAL physical people/square mile in the location is closer to 19,000...

I apologize to you all for the confusion! I was reading the study, looking at the census bureau figures, and calculating very badly! Phoenix is only slightly more dense than Houston. Also what confused me was "downtown" populations and census tracts for each city. Hmmmm, it is safe to admit I was going way too fast looking at the numbers! Downtown Phoenix does have a larger, denser downtown population; however, not nearly as dense as I first assumed. I should have caught that when I saw the population of downtown Phoenix' 1 square mile...

And more; it is more populous by about 10,000-12,000 (Physical downtown population); this is assuming that what I am reading about downtown Houston is correct and that the population there is only 2,000-3,500...
that part in bold sounds about right, but downtown Houston is most certainly NOT the most dense part of town. I'm not sure what is, but maybe one of the other Houston residence can help you out.

Another thing, when your comparing the densest part Phoenix to the densest part Houston, you really can't include the whole 610 Loop. The entire eastern half of the Loop isn't NEARLY as dense and it really dilutes the numbers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2010, 06:49 PM
 
Location: Phoenix
3,995 posts, read 8,852,324 times
Reputation: 901
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
Very badly? Not nearly as dense as you first assumed? How about being completely off the charts wrong with your figures and then laughing about how other people are trying to argue with hard numbers? How about completely fabricating a 5 square miles (how did you glean that from the report)? How about laughing off census bureau numbers (oh yes, because this website just makes up its population numbers for the sheer joy of it)?

And now where are you citing this 19,000 square miles? You were using the previous study to back your claims as hard numbers. So where are these all important hard numbers now?

I wouldn't be trying to gut you if you had actually taken the time to look at something very reasonable without being insulting to everyone about it. Where in this argument have you even tried to be reasonable?
At the beginning, LOL. It was an honest mistake. I am being told how I looked at the numbers incorrectly. Five square miles was taken from the study and from the census.gov reports on census tracts from the 2000 and 2005 mid-census review. Sorry dad! I admit to being wrong, but I wasn't false in that Phoenix is STILL more dense than Houston (just not by leaps and bounds) which is supported by all the evidence posted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:10 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top