U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-01-2012, 05:44 PM
 
Location: So California
8,548 posts, read 8,881,299 times
Reputation: 4641

Advertisements

What I do find interesting is the densities. If you asked Joe Blow off the street the density stats would be the opposite of what they would expect. If you ranked all these metros by population density you would find that the western particularly California metros are the densest.

In fact of the 25 densest urban areas 20 are in California and 23 of them are in western states including Honolulu. Is the criteria different or is it simply the built environment. I know many of the east coast cities that have high density cores, spill out into extremely low density sprawl.
If you look at the ranking by land area also only 5 California urban areas make the top 50, so they are smaller and denser.
One theory I have is that in California there are so many development constraints between geography and agriculture that cities have a fair density and there isnt that massive low density sprawl because there cant be due to those factors.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-01-2012, 05:47 PM
 
Location: M I N N E S O T A
14,800 posts, read 17,718,331 times
Reputation: 9029
16. Minneapolis-St. Paul - 2,650,890 -1,021.8 sq mi - 2,594.3/sq mi
you're going down San Diego
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2012, 07:03 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,989 posts, read 41,979,923 times
Reputation: 14805
Quote:
Originally Posted by slo1318 View Post
What I do find interesting is the densities. If you asked Joe Blow off the street the density stats would be the opposite of what they would expect. If you ranked all these metros by population density you would find that the western particularly California metros are the densest.

In fact of the 25 densest urban areas 20 are in California and 23 of them are in western states including Honolulu. Is the criteria different or is it simply the built environment. I know many of the east coast cities that have high density cores, spill out into extremely low density sprawl.
If you look at the ranking by land area also only 5 California urban areas make the top 50, so they are smaller and denser.
One theory I have is that in California there are so many development constraints between geography and agriculture that cities have a fair density and there isnt that massive low density sprawl because there cant be due to those factors.
A lot of the extremely low density sprawl in east coast metros contain few people. Weighting by the census tracts where people actually live gives a more reasonable result.

Density calculations for U.S. urbanized areas, weighted by census tract - Austin Contrarian

here's the list. CD user memph added in Canadian metros (some really small):


1. New York: 33,029 (17,799,861)
2. San Francisco-Oakland: 15,032 (2,995,769)
3. Montreal: 14,169 (3,265,164)
4. Toronto: 14,030 (4,753,394)
5. Los Angeles: 12,557 (11,789,487)
6. Honolulu: 11,989 (718,182)
7. Vancouver: 11,312 (1,986,358)
8. Chicago: 10,270 (8,307,904)
9. San Jose: 8,766 (1,538,312)
10. Philadelphia: 8,457 (5,149,079)
11. Hamilton: 7,862 (654,914)
12. Boston: 7,711 (4,032,484)
13. Ottawa: 7,671 (952,328)
14. Winnipeg: 7,503 (648.632)
15. San Diego: 7,186 (2,674,436)
16. Baltimore: 6,952 (2,076,354)
17. Washington: 6,835 (3,933,920)
18. Miami: 6,810 (4,919,036)
19. Las Vegas: 6,662 (1,314,357)
20. Quebec City: 6,537 (671,886)
21. Calgary: 6,485 (992,638)
22. Edmonton: 6,411 (800,927)
23. Victoria: 6,130 (279,921)
24. London, ON: 6,106 (365,255)
25. Regina: 6,023 (181,595)
26. Oshawa: 5,882 (270,684)
27. Milwaukee: 5,830 (1,308,913)
28. Kitchener: 5,777 (434,936)
29. St Catharines-Thorold: 5,434 (151,333)
30. Windsor: 5,390 (287,320)
31. Saskatoon: 5,264 (202,330)
32. Halifax: 5,261 (309,735)
33. Phoenix: 5,238 (2,907,049)
34. Denver: 5,231 (1,984,887)
35. Sacramento: 5,043 (1,393,498)
36. Cleveland: 5,033 (1,786,647)
37. Detroit: 4,955 (3,903,377)
38. Seattle: 4,747 (2,712,205)
39. Dallas-Fort Worth: 4,641 (4,145,659)
40. Riverside-San Bernardino: 4,514 (1,506,816)
41. Houston: 4,514 (3,822,509)
42. Portland: 4,383 (1,583,138)
43. Minneapolis-St Paul: 4,196 (2,388,593)
44. San Antonio: 4,090 (1,327,554)
45. Austin: 3,904 (901,920)
46. Virginia Beach: 3,883 (1,394,439)
47. Pittsburgh: 3,698 (1,753,136)
48. St Louis: 3,566 (2,077,662)
49. Tampa: 3,558 (2,062,339)
50. Cincinnati: 3,274 (1,503,262)
51. Kansas City: 3,041 (1,361,744)
52. Atlanta: 2,362 (3,499,840)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2012, 07:31 PM
 
Location: Shaw.
2,226 posts, read 3,144,623 times
Reputation: 809
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
A lot of the extremely low density sprawl in east coast metros contain few people. Weighting by the census tracts where people actually live gives a more reasonable result.

Density calculations for U.S. urbanized areas, weighted by census tract - Austin Contrarian

here's the list. CD user memph added in Canadian metros (some really small):
Is there anyway to get the standard density of the Canadian metros (from the same year that the other numbers came from)? I want to calculate the density gradient, but am not getting reliable numbers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2012, 07:50 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,989 posts, read 41,979,923 times
Reputation: 14805
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgm123 View Post
Is there anyway to get the standard density of the Canadian metros (from the same year that the other numbers came from)? I want to calculate the density gradient, but am not getting reliable numbers.
Already done by memph:

http://www.city-data.com/forum/22455728-post31.html

Much of that thread is devoted to weighted density. It's interesting that Canadian metros don't really reach the lowest densities standard or weighted that the US metros on the bottom list.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2012, 10:20 PM
 
Location: Shaw.
2,226 posts, read 3,144,623 times
Reputation: 809
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Already done by memph:

http://www.city-data.com/forum/22455728-post31.html

Much of that thread is devoted to weighted density. It's interesting that Canadian metros don't really reach the lowest densities standard or weighted that the US metros on the bottom list.
Sweet, thanks. I was trying to find that online and I couldn't find it anywhere.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-02-2012, 08:35 AM
 
Location: So California
8,548 posts, read 8,881,299 times
Reputation: 4641
Good stuff nei......

Makes more sense.

I wonder why they include a lot of that low density sprawl in east coast urban areas
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-02-2012, 08:37 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,989 posts, read 41,979,923 times
Reputation: 14805
Quote:
Originally Posted by slo1318 View Post
Good stuff nei......

Makes more sense.

I wonder why they include a lot of that low density sprawl in east coast urban areas
You mean why low density sprawl exist in east coast urban areas or why it's counted as part of the urban area?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-02-2012, 08:42 AM
 
Location: The City
22,331 posts, read 32,166,272 times
Reputation: 7738
Quote:
Originally Posted by slo1318 View Post
Good stuff nei......

Makes more sense.

I wonder why they include a lot of that low density sprawl in east coast urban areas

it is an artifact of the cutoff in ppsm for the denominator (cutoff is at 1,000 ppsm).

The exurbs in the east are not very dense at all. CA especially generally develops more dense away from the core

There is an awful lot of area with 1kppsm and few people

Look at the gradient difference too



For example the Philly UA has the first 4 million in like 480 sq miles or something then another 1.5 million in 1500 sq miles

There are less natural borders (mountains) so the lower cost sprawl just happens

Also the average densities are also skewed as there is much open space that sorround old cores even in the burbs relative to the WC. A differnt makeup
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-02-2012, 02:46 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,989 posts, read 41,979,923 times
Reputation: 14805
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly View Post
For example the Philly UA has the first 4 million in like 480 sq miles or something then another 1.5 million in 1500 sq miles

There are less natural borders (mountains) so the lower cost sprawl just happens

Also the average densities are also skewed as there is much open space that sorround old cores even in the burbs relative to the WC. A differnt makeup
I'm not sure if lower cost sprawl is the right description. Some suburbs of east coast metros (Boston one of the most) mandate large lot homes to preserve the bucolic semi-rural feel and sometimes to prevent low-cost housing. The density also gets underestimated if there are small nature preserves within census tracts.
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.
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

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