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.
I think that it should be done by the actual urban limits of a city where the people are or least the inhabitable/developable parts. Either way I think it will still be inacurate and a challenge.
There's really no way to do it and not be comparing apples to oranges in some way. You just have to do the best you can.
Perhaps but at what point do we measure density? If not by municipal boundaries than how? I dont know.
I do see your point though.
Many eastern cities are dragged down by underpopulated industrial zones.
However many western cities are dragged down by undeveloped rugged zones within city limits.
I don't know that we have to measure such density.
I'm not saying that population density doesn't give insight into the character of a city, I'm just saying that it is not an effective tool for elucidating the tightness and physical structure of a city--something that, IMO, defines the true density of a city.
I was thinking, maybe you take the metro area and divide by the population. But then it occurred to me, two counties in metro Denver have significant land in the Rocky Mountains (Jefferson and Boulder) and one has significant agricultural land (Weld). So I don't have the answer.
I don't know that we have to measure such density.
I'm not saying that population density doesn't give insight into the character of a city, I'm just saying that it is not an effective tool for elucidating the tightness and physical structure of a city--something that, IMO, defines the true density of a city.
You'd be hard pressed to find a city where there are humongous residential high rises surrounded by low density sprawl that skews the density figures. Cities are just not designed like that. I know you used that as an extreme example, but my point is that density is density, regardless of it's layout. Seattle is an example of a western city that is less urban than an older NE city, but still manages to maintain a decent level of density in the core and the central neighborhoods. In fact, it has much of the same physical characteristics as Pittsburgh, with the additional restricting factor of large bodies of water.
And I disagree. This picture depicts part of the Lawrenceville neighborhood in Pittsburgh. This neighborhood represents the kind of structure found in the core of Pittsburgh. Now, the population density of this neighborhood is only about 8000/sq. mi. This is because people moved out of the neighborhood and the area of Lawrenceville includes that mountain you see in the background. Now, structurally, this neighborhood represents a density of about 45,000 people/sq. mi. But, looking at population density figures, you would never know how structurally dense this area is. And for that reason, population density figures can be grossly inaccurate for measuring density.
You'd be hard pressed to find a city where there are humongous residential high rises surrounded by low density sprawl that skews the density figures. Cities are just not designed like that. I know you used that as an extreme example, but my point is that density is density, regardless of it's layout. Seattle is an example of a western city that is less urban than an older NE city, but still manages to maintain a decent level of density in the core and the central neighborhoods. In fact, it has much of the same physical characteristics as Pittsburgh, with the additional restricting factor of large bodies of water.
Ever been to Denver? It's like that all over the city, though the average density is lower than in some of the old eastern cities.
So your argument is that the built density trumps people density. I guess I can see where you are coming from, but to discount cities like L.A. or Seattle because the built environment is not quite as dense seems disingenious.
So your argument is that the built density trumps people density. I guess I can see where you are coming from, but to discount cities like L.A. or Seattle because the built environment is not quite as dense seems disingenious.
I think population density figures are fine for measuring population density. But the density of a city, I feel should be measured by actually visiting it and seeing structure for yourself. But, yes, I do think structural density trumps population density when taking about how dense a city is.
if there are 2 cities. one with an evenly spread pop. of 500,000 and an area of 400 square miles and another city with the same pop. and area of 600 but the population is crammed into 150 square miles of the 600, which population would you consider denser? which would the pop/area formula consider?
ainulinale, That is a awesome photo of lawrenceville (one of my favorite neighborhoods).
Densities are so hard to compare and contrast. Cities like the Burgh have hillsides and forested areas that have very low density if any at all. Then you have your extremely high dense neighborhoods like Lawrenceville or Shadyside.
Some cities like Denver or Kansas City seemed to have a more homogenous density (not including the Rocky Moutain Wildlife area to the far east of the city).
My favorite way is to fly over cities with google earth. I spend more time on google earth than I do the programs I should be using for work.......
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.
