Should cities base their density on developed land or developed and undeveloped land? (houses, neighborhoods)

[TXTwizter]

Should cities base their density on developed land or developed and undeveloped land?
Some cities have large areas of undeveloped land, yet the developed areas are quite dense.
Would'nt it be more fair to base the cities density on just the developed areas only versus all of the developed and undeveloped land?

[Minnehahapolitan]

Density should be based on the density within a loop created by the front of developement. If you have a metropolitan area, this would include large parks but exclude undeveloped land at the fringe.

[txguy2009]

This happens with houston - when you look at the actual developed areas the density per square mile is MUCH closer to L.A., aroudn 7,000. L.A. on the other hand is fully developed.

Or galveston - it's density on developed part is closer to 5,000 rather than 2200 or whatever - 70% of the island is vacant!!!!

[toughguy]

If you want to cheat like that, then the official census population count for Houston should only consist of the people that reside within the high density neighborhoods.

[Ben Around]

Originally Posted by Minnehahapolitan

Density should be based on the density within a loop created by the front of developement. If you have a metropolitan area, this would include large parks but exclude undeveloped land at the fringe.

My thoughts exactly. But if you drew an imaginary line connecting all of the points of developed land from the center of the developed area, in many urban areas there would be islands of rural land that remain undeveloped within that line. Unless you excluded all such areas from the calculation... I don't know, just pondering. Any geographical geometrists here who can help us?

[TXTwizter]

Originally Posted by txguy2009

This happens with houston - when you look at the actual developed areas the density per square mile is MUCH closer to L.A., aroudn 7,000. L.A. on the other hand is fully developed.

Or galveston - it's density on developed part is closer to 5,000 rather than 2200 or whatever - 70% of the island is vacant!!!!

I agree.....Here in Waco, we have 95 square miles, 11 of that is water so were left with 84, about 2/3 of that is developed, so if we only factored in developed land, we would have a somewhat higher density.

[LivingInExiles]

I think the traditional method we're already using is fine.

What happens if you discount the "undeveloped" land from say Atlanta, but you count all the acres of parks in New York City? It won't work. Lots of cities have land that hasn't been developed, but the density is still there. A good examples of this would be Los Angeles.

Los Angeles is a city with a huge mountain range cutting right through the middle of it, separating the Los Angeles basin from the San Fernando Valley (virtually cutting the city in half popoulation-wise). The area that these mountains and desolate terrain make up a fairly large percentage of the total land area of Los Angeles, and this takes a toll on the average density of the city. But, the density of Los Angeles (especially in the basin) is still fairly dense compared to most large cities.

So, like I said before, this will not work. The only thing that will work is for cities to start building up and not out.....

[TXTwizter]

Originally Posted by LivingInExiles

I think the traditional method we're already using is fine.

What happens if you discount the "undeveloped" land from say Atlanta, but you count all the acres of parks in New York City? It won't work. Lots of cities have land that hasn't been developed, but the density is still there. A good examples of this would be Los Angeles.

Los Angeles is a city with a huge mountain range cutting right through the middle of it, separating the Los Angeles basin from the San Fernando Valley (virtually cutting the city in half popoulation-wise). The area that these mountains and desolate terrain make up a fairly large percentage of the total land area of Los Angeles, and this takes a toll on the average density of the city. But, the density of Los Angeles (especially in the basin) is still fairly dense compared to most large cities.

So, like I said before, this will not work. The only thing that will work is for cities to start building up and not out.....

Are the mountainous areas developed? If so then they could count it, if not then it shouldnt be considered.

[blkgiraffe]

Originally Posted by toughguy

If you want to cheat like that, then the official census population count for Houston should only consist of the people that reside within the high density neighborhoods.

Well people live outside the loop and also the Galleria area is outside the loop too. The population within the loop is about 500-600k in only 98 sqm which is very amazing for a southern city. When you factor in the whole 601 sqm you got flood plains, oil fields, bayous, etc. So I mean Houston does cover alot of land, but lots of it is undeveloped.

[hsw]

Let market forces prevail, not idiotic politicians or socialists

Well-run companies will move operations to cheapest poss locales for low-value-add work which often entails low-skill, low-wage workers....who generally are better off living somewhere cheap, e.g., in exurban Dallas somewhat near their company's suburban Dallas offices

Many middle-income families enjoy some of world's highest stds of living (for middle-income people) in places like Irvine CA, Plano TX, Naperville IL or Scarsdale NY

Affluent workers can easily afford to live in houses on >2acres of land each (and near numerous conservation lands) which might be a <20mins drive from their office in suburban SiliconValley or Greenwich

And some affluent singles will prefer to live in urban settings like City of SF or Manhattan, for proximity to young singles and better restaurants/bars...and are fine w/driving ~40mis each-way to offices in suburban SiliconValley or Greenwich

Any competitive, free-market economy will force regions to offer high QOL settings to consumers (and taxpayers), who will vote with their dollars and their choice of jobs and residence