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 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-04-2009, 04:26 PM
 
454 posts, read 705,780 times
Reputation: 396
Quote:
Originally Posted by HenryAlan View Post
And yet Boston is clearly more urban and more dense than Los Angeles.

The difference lies in what happens outside the core. In Boston, once you are past the route 128 perimeter, you quickly find a pretty low density (ie the 1000 per square mile) type of small town development. I do not consider this to be a reflection of urbanity. In L.A., everything is a continuous mass of 1/8 acre single family houses. That will get you a pretty high number of residential units per square mile, and hence a high density, even though few places in Los Angeles actually are high density.
YES, Boston PROPER is clearly more dense than Los Angeles, but Boston proper only includes 13% of the Boston Metro. The Boston suburbs are more sprawling than Los Angeles suburbs. Los Angeles maintains density throughout the area because even the suburbs and outlying communities are dense. What the urban area statistic does is try to represent areas which have some form of development.

With regards to few places having high density in L.A., the city actually has some of the densest neighborhoods in the country not in New York City.

Sample L.A. neighborhood density:
Koreatown: 124,000 people at 42,699 people per square mile (this isn't dense?)
Westlake: 112,000 people living at 38,000 per square mile
East Hollywood: 74,000 people at 31,903 per square mile
Pico Union: 44,000 people at 25,000 per square mile
Harvard Heights: 20,000 people at 23,000 per square mile
Chinatown: 28,000 people at 22,500 per square mile
Hollywood: 85,000 people at 22,000 per square mile
Palms: 45,000 people at 22,000 per square mile
Adams-Normandie: 18,000 people at 21,000 per square mile
South Park: 32,000 people at 21,000 per square mile
Arlington Heights: 23,000 people at 21,000 per square mile
University Park: 25,000 people at 20,000 per square mile

Los Angeles city PROPER has about 670,000 people living in neighborhoods greater than 20,000 people per square mile. That is more than the entire population of Boston proper. The rest continues to show that about 70% of the population of the city of Los Angeles PROPER lives in neighborhoods greater than 10,000 people per square mile (about 2,695,000 people which is roughly the same size as Chicago). Much of L.A.'s land area is in mountains that cut through the city limits and are challenging to build on. Subruban cities not part of Los Angeles proper average 4,000-14,000 people per square mile in general.

Source: Population density neighborhood ranking - Mapping L.A. - Los Angeles Times (http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/neighborhoods/population-density/neighborhood/list/ - broken link)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-04-2009, 05:07 PM
 
13,154 posts, read 12,221,591 times
Reputation: 3323
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnc2mbfl View Post
The same is true for MiamiDade County. Most of it is swamp/Everglades. The 2.4 million people in the county are squeezed into a fairly narrow strip of land. In the far southern section of the county, the development is less dense and there actually some farm land. But, for the most part, the people in the county are concentrated in the East/Northeast section of the county. The rest of it is primarily inhabited by alligators.
Yeah, there is a little teeny tiny bit of farmland in Dade County, BUT for the MOST part, MOST of the people are REALLY packed into a REALLY DENSE urbanized area. And that urban area stretches ALL the way NORTH to West Palm Beach and it STOPS somewhere before Port Saint Lucie. Palm Beach County, Broward County, and Dade Coutny's urban areas are some of the most DENSELY populated in the US. You can drive from Jupiter FL, in EXTREME Northern Palm Beach County, on I-95, SOUTH to Miami and see nothing but development and urbanization the WHOLE way. Well, there is a little bit of empty grasslands inbetween Palm Beach County and Broward County, but THAT'S IT. You can even see all the dense urbanization from above on Google Maps. It's the same thing with LA and San Bernardino being all the way in the desert, as it is with West Palm Beach and Belle Glade being ALL the way in the Everglades, YET it's still in Palm Beach County, THUS making it part so of the Greater South Florida Metro Area.

Last edited by polo89; 12-04-2009 at 05:15 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2009, 05:14 PM
 
Location: Underneath the Pecan Tree
15,832 posts, read 18,414,882 times
Reputation: 6632
Quote:
Originally Posted by coo77 View Post
YES, Boston PROPER is clearly more dense than Los Angeles, but Boston proper only includes 13% of the Boston Metro. The Boston suburbs are more sprawling than Los Angeles suburbs. Los Angeles maintains density throughout the area because even the suburbs and outlying communities are dense. What the urban area statistic does is try to represent areas which have some form of development.

With regards to few places having high density in L.A., the city actually has some of the densest neighborhoods in the country not in New York City.

Sample L.A. neighborhood density:
Koreatown: 124,000 people at 42,699 people per square mile (this isn't dense?)
Westlake: 112,000 people living at 38,000 per square mile
East Hollywood: 74,000 people at 31,903 per square mile
Pico Union: 44,000 people at 25,000 per square mile
Harvard Heights: 20,000 people at 23,000 per square mile
Chinatown: 28,000 people at 22,500 per square mile
Hollywood: 85,000 people at 22,000 per square mile
Palms: 45,000 people at 22,000 per square mile
Adams-Normandie: 18,000 people at 21,000 per square mile
South Park: 32,000 people at 21,000 per square mile
Arlington Heights: 23,000 people at 21,000 per square mile
University Park: 25,000 people at 20,000 per square mile

Los Angeles city PROPER has about 670,000 people living in neighborhoods greater than 20,000 people per square mile. That is more than the entire population of Boston proper. The rest continues to show that about 70% of the population of the city of Los Angeles PROPER lives in neighborhoods greater than 10,000 people per square mile (about 2,695,000 people which is roughly the same size as Chicago). Much of L.A.'s land area is in mountains that cut through the city limits and are challenging to build on. Subruban cities not part of Los Angeles proper average 4,000-14,000 people per square mile in general.

Source: Population density neighborhood ranking - Mapping L.A. - Los Angeles Times (http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/neighborhoods/population-density/neighborhood/list/ - broken link)

Agreed. What people don't understand is that the sunbelt has tendency to maintain a respectable amount of density compared to older and northern cities. Cities like Boston, Seattle, DC or a couple of others have a more developed and urban core, but it sprawls fairly bad outside of the core; worse than sunbelt cities IMO. Large lots, less sidewalks, and more. Cities like Houston, Dallas, Los Angeles, Phoenix and others have a more smaller core, but maintain a better amount of density farther out.

Urbanized area populations give you a much better feel of what I'm talking about. I think lots of people are surprised by the amount of density or populations lots of these cities have in their urban areas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2009, 05:23 PM
 
13,154 posts, read 12,221,591 times
Reputation: 3323
Quote:
Originally Posted by jluke65780 View Post
Agreed. What people don't understand is that the sunbelt has tendency to maintain a respectable amount of density compared to older and northern cities. Cities like Boston, Seattle, DC or a couple of others have a more developed and urban core, but it sprawls fairly bad outside of the core; worse than sunbelt cities IMO. Large lots, less sidewalks, and more. Cities like Houston, Dallas, Los Angeles, Phoenix and others have a more smaller core, but maintain a better amount of density farther out.

Urbanized area populations give you a much better feel of what I'm talking about. I think lots of people are surprised by the amount of density or populations lots of these cities have in their urban areas.
True true, cities like those have DENSE suburban areas, whereas up north they have TRADITIONAL suburban areas, that maintain, well, suburban in Nature. That's why cities like LA, Houston, Miami, Atlanta, Phoenix, Dallas, and other Sunbelt cities have Suburbs with "inner-city" qualities, like crime, drugs, poverty etc, etc. Places like Compton, in LA, Carol City, in Miami, Gulfton, or Sharpstown, in Houston, College Park, in Atlanta, etc, etc, THOSE places I just named are exburbs, or inner-city like suburs. They were once considered OUTER suburbs of there respective cities, NOW they are considered inner-city suburbs, or suburban ghettos. That's one thing we see in the Sunbelt cities. Places that 20-30-40yrs ago were considered suburbs are now considered no different then inner-city areas, and are dense, and have inner-city qualities. Some of these places I just named are a good 25-30 minutes from the downtown or "inner-city" of there respective cities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2009, 05:26 PM
 
Location: Underneath the Pecan Tree
15,832 posts, read 18,414,882 times
Reputation: 6632
Quote:
Originally Posted by polo89 View Post
True true, cities like those have DENSE suburban areas, whereas up north they have TRADITIONAL suburban areas, that maintain, well, suburban in Nature. That's why cities like LA, Houston, Miami, Atlanta, Phoenix, Dallas, and other Sunbelt cities have Suburbs with "inner-city" qualities, like crime, drugs, poverty etc, etc. Places like Compton, in LA, Carol City, in Miami, Gulfton, or Sharpstown, in Houston, College Park, in Atlanta, etc, etc, THOSE places I just named are exburbs, or inner-city like suburs. They were once considered OUTER suburbs of there respective cities, NOW they are considered inner-city suburbs, or suburban ghettos. That's one thing we see in the Sunbelt cities. Places that 20-30-40yrs ago were considered suburbs are now considered no different then inner-city areas, and are dense, and have inner-city qualities. Some of these places I just named are a good 25-30 minutes from the downtown or "inner-city" of there respective cities.
Agree with everything.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2009, 06:45 PM
 
Location: Boston
1,082 posts, read 1,378,732 times
Reputation: 831
Quote:
Originally Posted by coo77 View Post
YES, Boston PROPER is clearly more dense than Los Angeles, but Boston proper only includes 13% of the Boston Metro. The Boston suburbs are more sprawling than Los Angeles suburbs. Los Angeles maintains density throughout the area because even the suburbs and outlying communities are dense. What the urban area statistic does is try to represent areas which have some form of development.

With regards to few places having high density in L.A., the city actually has some of the densest neighborhoods in the country not in New York City.

Sample L.A. neighborhood density:
Koreatown: 124,000 people at 42,699 people per square mile (this isn't dense?)
Westlake: 112,000 people living at 38,000 per square mile
East Hollywood: 74,000 people at 31,903 per square mile
Pico Union: 44,000 people at 25,000 per square mile
Harvard Heights: 20,000 people at 23,000 per square mile
Chinatown: 28,000 people at 22,500 per square mile
Hollywood: 85,000 people at 22,000 per square mile
Palms: 45,000 people at 22,000 per square mile
Adams-Normandie: 18,000 people at 21,000 per square mile
South Park: 32,000 people at 21,000 per square mile
Arlington Heights: 23,000 people at 21,000 per square mile
University Park: 25,000 people at 20,000 per square mile

Los Angeles city PROPER has about 670,000 people living in neighborhoods greater than 20,000 people per square mile. That is more than the entire population of Boston proper. The rest continues to show that about 70% of the population of the city of Los Angeles PROPER lives in neighborhoods greater than 10,000 people per square mile (about 2,695,000 people which is roughly the same size as Chicago). Much of L.A.'s land area is in mountains that cut through the city limits and are challenging to build on. Subruban cities not part of Los Angeles proper average 4,000-14,000 people per square mile in general.

Source: Population density neighborhood ranking - Mapping L.A. - Los Angeles Times (http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/neighborhoods/population-density/neighborhood/list/ - broken link)
Yeah, I get what you are saying, but I guess the point for me is that it is a comparison of apples and oranges. I grew up in L.A., I know it well. And many of the medium density sections are still far more sprawling in impact than the lower density outlying sections of Boston. The physical layout is different. In L.A. you will see a subdivision filled with single family houses packed closely together but still very remote from destinations like shopping and employment centers. In Boston you will see a small town with a dense center surrounded by population gaps. On average, that town may be low density, yet, people are able to walk to stores and transit to a much greater extent than people can in suburban sections of L.A. So while I understand how the statistics play out, they fail to accurately describe the geographic reality.

Essentially, the distinction is that in L.A., the actual density of any one spot is not significantly different from the average density. Whereas in Boston, the actual density is either much higher or much lower than the average. By counting the low density pockets as part of the whole, the math will imply low density. But the actual experience is one of high density.

At any rate, I'm not trying to say anything is wrong with L.A. -- I have always loved that city and always will. But I think it is a narrow analysis to simply look at total population against total area without regard to how it is actually dispersed. Ultimately what matters is clusters of density connected by transit to other clusters.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2009, 08:53 PM
 
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
24,570 posts, read 29,948,526 times
Reputation: 10346
Residents with 3+ household vehicles who
take public transportation to work, 2008

New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT 167,887
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA 57,321
Chicago, IL-IN 56,124
Washington, DC-VA-MD 44,769
San Francisco-Oakland, CA 41,394
Boston, MA-NH-RI 26,885
Seattle, WA 22,025
Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD 21,446
Minneapolis-St Paul, MN 10,068
Bridgeport-Samford, CT 9,619
Denver-Aurora, CO 9,455
Houston, TX 9,278
Miami, FL 8,903
San Diego, CA 8,379
Portland, OR-WA 8,607
Atlanta, GA 8,354
Baltimore, MD 7,832
Concord, CA 7,484
Honolulu, HI 6,606
Phoenix-Mesa, AZ 6,566
Pittsburgh, PA 6,315
San Jose, CA 6,061
Dallas-Ft Worth-Arlington, TX 5,458
Riverside-San Bernardino, CA 4,389
Sacramento, CA 4,331
Cleveland, OH 4,054
Salt Lake City, UT 3,398
Las Vegas, NV 3,144
St Louis, MO-IL 2,797
Poughkeepsie-Newburgh, NY 2,556
San Antonio, TX 2,290
Detroit, MI 2,275
Ogden-Layton, UT 2,258
Antioch, CA 2,229
Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN 2,044
Kansas City, MO-KS 2,013
Austin, TX 1,991
Providence, RI-MA 1,763
New Haven, CT 1,700
Charlotte, NC 1,682
Hartford, CT 1,668
St Charles, MD 1,563
Fredericksburg,VA 1,504
Provo-Orem, UT 1,460
Bremerton, WA 1,400
Milwaukee, WI 1,256
Richmond, VA 1,239
Columbus, OH 1,175
Rochester, NY 1,118
Hightstown, NJ 1,090
Davis, CA 1,084
Santa Cruz, CA 1,052
Tuscon, AZ 1,033
Fairfield, CA 1,032
Round Lake Beach-McHenry-Grayslake, IL-WI 1,031
Bellingham, WA 1,006
Kailua-Kaneohe, HI 1,002
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2009, 09:13 PM
 
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
24,570 posts, read 29,948,526 times
Reputation: 10346
Households Earning $200,000+ Annually, 2008
New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT 567,053
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA 250,257
Washington, DC-VA-MD 194,644
Chicago, IL-IN 188,951
San Francisco-Oakland, CA 135,760
Boston, MA-NH-RI 131,200
Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD 111,030
Atlanta, A 93,080
Miami, FL 92,750
Houston, TX 89,322
Dallas-Ft Worth-Arlington, TX 85,009
San Jose, CA 76,511
Seattle, WA 73,494
Minneapolis-St Paul, MN 57,209
San Diego, CA 56,037
Detroit, MI 52,837
Bridgeport-Stamford, CT 52,182
Baltimore, MD 45,514
Phoenix-Mesa, AZ 44,448
Denver-Aurora, CO 41,237
St Louis, MO-IL 34,146
Concord, CA 32,497
Tampa-St Petersburg, FL 29,510
Portland, OR-WA 28,786
Mission Viejo, CA 28,581
Pittsburgh, PA 26,060
Cleveland, OH 23,998
Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN 22,706
Charlotte, NC-SC 21,953
Austin, TX 21,681
Sacramento, CA 20,500
Indianapolis, IN 20,464
Columbus, OH 20,270
Kansas City, MO-KS 20,015
Orlando, FL 17,470
Hartford, CT 17,370
Milwaukee, WI 17,231
Nashville-Davidson, TN 16,878
Raleigh, NC 16,610
Virginia Beach, VA 16,567
Las Vegas, NV 16,353
Memphis, TN-MS-AR 15,571
Providence, RI-MA 14,852
Honolulu, HI 14,839
Richmond, VA 14,439
Jacksonville, FL 13,485
San Antonio, TX 12,408
New Haven, CT 12,095
Birmingham, AL 11,659
Salt Lake City, UT 11,606
Thousand Oaks, CA 11,106
Riverside-San Bernardino, CA 11,050
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2009, 10:57 PM
 
Location: South Beach and DT Raleigh
7,737 posts, read 8,797,693 times
Reputation: 5680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Around View Post
Yup, used to live there. Any development west of Krome Ave yet?
You have to go pretty far South to see development west of Krome. Down toward the Homestead area of the county, there is some development but it's not necessarily new and it's not significant. From what I remember, it's mostly farms and some old homes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-05-2009, 12:40 PM
 
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
24,570 posts, read 29,948,526 times
Reputation: 10346
Urban Areas by Foreign Born Residents Per Square Mile, 2008
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA 2,568
San Francisco-Oakland, CA 1,997
Miami, FL 1,741
New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT 1,568
Washington, DC-VA-MD 855
Houston, TX 832
San Diego, CA 784
Chicago, IL-IN 749
Phoenix, AZ 711
Dallas-Ft Worth-Arlington, TX 667
Minneapolis-St Paul, MN 655
Seattle, WA 522
Boston, MA-NH-RI 416
Tampa-St Petersburg, FL 338
Atlanta, GA 329
Detroit, MI 270
Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD 267
St Louis, MO-IL 128
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 $79,000 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

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

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 - Top