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.
Oh, right, LOL! Well, here is something verifiable about Central Phoenix; this is old as well so the population of 5 square miles in Central Phoenix, around downtown was greater than 113,000 in 1995; looking for 2000 census data, but that number is believed to be 200,000 and for 2010 the new estimate is greater than 280,000-310,000 (50,000-60,000 people/square mile).
As most people know, Phoenix between 1990 and 2000 grew from 983,403 to 1,321,045 and to 2010 estimated at 1,620,141 with many moving into the Central City region. Now, Phoenix IS suburban and if the city had concentrated on growth in the core, the density of Phoenix today would be rather "scary" but obviously there were too many obstacles then for such growth unlike today where that can be sustained with mass transit.
..........................................TABLE 1
POPULATION AND HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS IN CENTRAL PHOENIX
....................................1970 to 1995
..........................1970..................1980........ ..........1990..................1995..................2000...............2010
Population..........130,591..............111,911..............103,544.............113,223..............200,000..........280,000-310,000
Density..............26,118.2 psm......22,382.2 psm......20,708.8 psm.....22,644.6 psm......40,000 psm.....56,000 psm-62,000 psm
In Group Quarters 3,671 4,070 7,013 11,481
In Housing Units 126,920 107,841 96,531 101,742
Housing Units 50,699 46,565 41,402 39,565
Occupied 47,071 42,005 34,736 35,602
Vacancy Rate 7.2 9.8 16.1 10.0
Persons per Household 2.70 2.57 2.78 2.86
Metropolitan Area:
Vacancy Rate 5.0 10.8 15.2 10.4
Persons per Household 3.14 2.73 2.59 2.62
Source: Calculated from the U.S. Bureau of the Census, decennial censuses and 1995 Special
Oh hi! Thanks for providing your source! I was looking at this previously and it just tickled my absolutely incredulous bone!
Anyhow, I actually looked at your source and immediately saw something strange! If you look at Figure 1 on Page 5, you'll see that they've made a graph detailing the population density on one axis and the distance from a fixed center from downtown (in miles). So basically, it's an expanding circular area from a point in downtown for the x-axis and the density of the population of that area on the y-axis. But oh noes! The y-axis only goes up to 6000 persons/square mile! How odd given that you're citing numbers 10x that with 62000 persons/square mile in a 5 square mile area!
And that's when it hit me--you must've done the density calculations yourself! You probably took the raw population data which is correct, but then divided it by a wrong number. So to help you out, I looked for Central Phoenix which took me to page 11 in the study. Immediately in the first paragraph it mentions: "the population density within three miles of downtown Phoenix" and "Given the fixed geographic area, changes in density equate to changes in population."
Uh oh! This sounds like a really strong hint that maybe they're not using your same definition of 5 square miles for Central Phoenix. In fact, it sounds like they're using a circle with a radius of "three miles [from] downtown Phoenix" instead. That would equate to pi*(3)^2 which would be slightly bigger than 28 square miles for the populations they're listing.
But maybe I've misinterpreted it, so I guess I should find a way to check it. I know! How about checking it against the graph I've mentioned, the odd one that only goes up to 6000 persons/square mile (Figure 1, page 5). So let's use 1970 population for Central Phoenix of 130,591 and divide that by that 28 square miles (3 mile radius circle centered in downtown Phoenix) to get roughly 4,600 persons/square mile for people falling within 3 miles of the center. Now let's go to that pesky Figure 1 on page 5 and see what the population density is for an x-value of 3 miles from urban center yields.... OH MY GOSH, it's about 4,600 persons/square mile on the graph, too! Weird! Looks like you've failed to say that the actual density calculations were your own so other people can check if you read the study properly! WEIRD!
It looks like your reading was way off (you took the population for a 28 square mile area and divided it by 5 square miles instead to yield huge densities) and those insanely large numbers (those would be Midtown Manhattan, Chicago Loop, LA's Koreatown kind of numbers) didn't seem to trigger any questions.
So... are you saying it's untrue?
You're saying Phoenix offers permanent, year-round companies in all four categories of the performing arts?
You are grasping for straws again. And not making sense. Everything of interest just named in Houston is within a 5 to 6 mile radius. I see this going nowhere...
Oh hi! Thanks for providing your source! I was looking at this previously and it just tickled my absolutely incredulous bone!
Anyhow, I actually looked at your source and immediately saw something strange! If you look at Figure 1 on Page 5, you'll see that they've made a graph detailing the population density on one axis and the distance from a fixed center from downtown (in miles). So basically, it's an expanding circular area from a point in downtown for the x-axis and the density of the population of that area on the y-axis. But oh noes! The y-axis only goes up to 6000 persons/square mile! How odd given that you're citing numbers 10x that with 62000 persons/square mile in a 5 square mile area!
And that's when it hit me--you must've done the density calculations yourself! You probably took the raw population data which is correct, but then divided it by a wrong number. So to help you out, I looked for Central Phoenix which took me to page 11 in the study. Immediately in the first paragraph it mentions: "the population density within three miles of downtown Phoenix" and "Given the fixed geographic area, changes in density equate to changes in population."
Uh oh! This sounds like a really strong hint that maybe they're not using your same definition of 5 square miles for Central Phoenix. In fact, it sounds like they're using a circle with a radius of "three miles [from] downtown Phoenix" instead. That would equate to pi*(3)^2 which would be slightly bigger than 28 square miles for the populations they're listing.
But maybe I've misinterpreted it, so I guess I should find a way to check it. I know! How about checking it against the graph I've mentioned, the odd one that only goes up to 6000 persons/square mile (Figure 1, page 5). So let's use 1970 population for Central Phoenix of 130,591 and divide that by that 28 square miles (3 mile radius circle centered in downtown Phoenix) to get roughly 4,600 persons/square mile for people falling within 3 miles of the center. Now let's go to that pesky Figure 1 on page 5 and see what the population density is for an x-value of 3 miles from urban center yields.... OH MY GOSH, it's about 4,600 persons/square mile on the graph, too! Weird!
It looks like your reading was way off (you took the population for a 28 square mile area and divided it by 5 square miles instead to yield huge densities) and those insanely large numbers (those would be Midtown Manhattan, Chicago Loop, LA's Koreatown kind of numbers) didn't seem to trigger any questions.
Easy to answer, LOL; average density v real density per census tract. The difference in saying that NYC has densities of 130,000-170,000 but AVERAGE density of 33,000...LOL OH MY GOSH, how hard was that to understand, LOL...too! Weird! It's like explaining to a 5 year old... I asked for clarification from the source of the document in case I was wrong, by the way the 2005 archive will be released after the 2010 census; and I am right. While linear averages "dilute" figures, census tracts use physical distributions. So while in one direction of any given radius, a large park like Encanto, would register 1 mile of the 3 mile radius as 0 density, while inside or outside that would have the bulk of the density...
LMAO!!! Those people are gathered for a parade! LOL! I mean, downtown Phoenix TODAY looks many times more crowded than that for a parade, Cinco De Mayo or the Fiesta Bowl Parade (Parada del Sol)...
Again, your kidding! Please look at the pics of downtown Phoenix again of the amount of pedestrians just walking around and then look at these three...no comparison!
No, I think you are kidding. Because 2 b/w pics of Phoenix show more people on the streets, you think it must have been more lively and vibrant than every place that I mentioned? Are you even familiar with the old theaters of Downtown Los Angeles? Your credibility is disappearing after each of your posts.
Density and walkability ARE a part of being urban! I know there won't be many (many be a few, LOL) who'll agree with me or who will actually look at the facts and see the difference between most of the cities in the Sun Belt. Miami is decidedly the MOST dense in the Sun Belt and Phoenix doesn't match that...
But this belief that Phoenix is all sprawl, has no core, density, urbanity, or sense of urban form is so ridiculous on this forum that I just had to try to get some truth and reality in the conversation for a bit, LOL!
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).
Another clue that should tip you and the linear inaccuracy would be to look at a map of Phoenix. A 28 square mile area if drawn in a circular (radial) manner as you've insisted would put that "central city" population into other cities' city limits like Tempe which is only 5-6 miles to the east of downtown Phoenix...to the south at that distance, you are in South Mountain Park and to the North, near the North Mountain Preserves....LOL
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).
LOL, then they are the same.
I'll maintain that for Sun Belt Cities, Phoenix is more dense; compared nationally and to other large cities, Houston and Phoenix would be lumped together anyhow.
However, relatively speaking (and even psychically) one can tell the difference in denser housing in urban districts in downtown and central Phoenix compared to Houston.
No, I think you are kidding. Because 2 b/w pics of Phoenix show more people on the streets, you think it must have been more lively and vibrant than every place that I mentioned? Are you even familiar with the old theaters of Downtown Los Angeles? Your credibility is disappearing after each of your posts.
You've offered NO solid proof. There is nothing to discredit anything. Just your bias and disdain.
Re-read your report. The very report you're citing is telling you your numbers are completely wrong. I did it step-by-step for you so it's easy to follow. Open the report and go through what I've said. You're either lying or just really bad at reading.
Did you or did you not make the population density calculations yourself in that post? Re-read your own report. You've mislead everyone by doing the numbers yourself and doing them incorrectly. Where did you get your 5 square miles from when the study states an area 3 miles from downtown Phoenix (ie a circle with a radius of 3 miles which equals about 28 square miles)? How did you take the study's numbers and then suddenly swap out 28 square miles for 5?
LOL, OH MY GOSH, yes! Did I say Manhattan? No--I specifically cited Midtown Manhattan, the Chicago Loop, and LA's Koreatown. You know, areas that are very visibly of extreme density.
Also, where do you think city-data gets its population stats from (hint: it rhymes with the US Census Burea)?
LOL, oh my gosh, someone needs to re-read the entire study to figure out the information, it'll be ok! LOL You'll also need to look up Census Bureau estimates and city estimate for 2008...2009; they are available for Houston too! LOL
If I calculated something wrong, I'll find out shortly and admit it, LOL! Having someone familiar with this look over what I wrote...
Last edited by fcorrales80; 02-02-2010 at 06:18 PM..
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.
It's like explaining to a 5 year old...
I asked for clarification from the source of the document in case I was wrong, by the way the 2005 archive will be released after the 2010 census; and I am right. While linear averages "dilute" figures, census tracts use physical distributions. So while in one direction of any given radius, a large park like Encanto, would register 1 mile of the 3 mile radius as 0 density, while inside or outside that would have the bulk of the density...
LOL! I mean, downtown Phoenix TODAY looks many times more crowded than that for a parade, Cinco De Mayo or the Fiesta Bowl Parade (Parada del Sol)...
