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.
DC will always appear lower due to the National Mall and how massive that land mass is. Really the "city" part of DC's density numbers could keep up with most of them if the Mall wasn't a factor, but it is, and also is what makes DC equally or more unique than some of the others. The density is strong in DC, but doesn't get the credit it should on paper because it has the largest amount of national park space per capita out of these cities.
Absolutely, when you factor in all of that, I believe DC's average pop density is around 14,000 ppsm excluding the mall and military installations.
DC will always appear lower due to the National Mall and how massive that land mass is. Really the "city" part of DC's density numbers could keep up with most of them if the Mall wasn't a factor, but it is, and also is what makes DC equally or more unique than some of the others. The density is strong in DC, but doesn't get the credit it should on paper because it has the largest amount of national park space per capita out of these cities.
Is that case for Philadelphia as well? A sizable portion of the city is Fairmount Park, (bigger than Central Park), and another sizable chunk is dedicated to the refineries and airport.
Cherry picked tiny tracts or 30 square miles of a 47 square mile city is another cool story.
Rhodes compared San Francisco's density statistics with what he dubbed "Central LA," a S.F.-sized superimposition on the City of Angels. "The surprising result? San Francisco and the 'city' of central LA (a subset of the larger municipality) are equal in population density over those 47 square miles, with about 837,000 people in both cities (all of SF and the core of LA). Not only that, but the LA core has about 85% as many jobs as San Francisco does, making it a substantial center of employment."
That's 4 years ago and I'm pretty sure DTLA has been growing at a faster rate than SF since.
Once again your including the HUGE amount of park space in your measurement for SF. Central LA has nowhere near the amount of park soace as SF. Take away park space and compare city to city. SF density blows LA out of the water
Will Any City Ever Replace SF as 2nd Most Dense US City?
Manhattan as an island and San Francisco as a peninsula offer the two best platforms for density. If island and peninsula and 1 and 2 respectively, there is only one that is left and it would be 3rd: isthmus. And with an isthmus having connections to its two opposite sides, it is definitely weaker than the other two. Seattle could not densify the way SF or Manhattan do. SF and Manhattan would be unimaginable without the grids.
Based on location, I can think of only one city that could (it won't....but it could) surpass SF in density. You'll think it is a joke, but it is not: Madison.
Unlike Seattle, the main portion of Madison is on an incredibly narrow peninsula. The peninsula is narrow enough that its downtown area could be defined by the lakes north and south of it. And if you were to drive in downtown Madison, you would have a feel in being in a much larger city because density is forced here, perhaps in a way unmatched anywhere else.
Also keeo in mind that Jersey City has the 2nd highest weighted density while SF is 3rd right behind JC but its not the core city of its metro, NYC is. We're talking principal major cities only. Also SF metro has the 2nd highest weighted density behind nyc but is not a top 10 metro size, its top 12. It has no more room to grow from geographical reasons
Once again your including the HUGE amount of park space in your measurement for SF. Central LA has nowhere near the amount of park soace as SF. Take away park space and compare city to city. SF density blows LA out of the water
There’s probably a fairly reasonable blob of Central LA that includes a good chunk of Griffith Park that isn’t too far off from SF’s density. The same goes with Chicago. San Francisco does have the highest peak density in small parts, but over its 47 square miles or so and factoring in something like a fifth to a quarter of it being greenspace, SF, LA, Chicago and probably Philadelphia are in close range with Boston not too far behind.
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.
