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 12-24-2008, 11:39 AM
 
Location: DFW Texas
3,096 posts, read 6,776,263 times
Reputation: 2141

Advertisements

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?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-24-2008, 12:12 PM
 
2,506 posts, read 7,758,215 times
Reputation: 828
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-24-2008, 12:14 PM
 
395 posts, read 904,310 times
Reputation: 194
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!!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-24-2008, 12:29 PM
 
1,992 posts, read 6,035,535 times
Reputation: 805
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-24-2008, 12:34 PM
 
5,859 posts, read 14,051,512 times
Reputation: 3485
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minnehahapolitan View Post
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?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-24-2008, 10:12 PM
 
Location: DFW Texas
3,096 posts, read 6,776,263 times
Reputation: 2141
Quote:
Originally Posted by txguy2009 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-24-2008, 10:42 PM
 
196 posts, read 568,328 times
Reputation: 106
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.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2008, 12:52 AM
 
Location: DFW Texas
3,096 posts, read 6,776,263 times
Reputation: 2141
Quote:
Originally Posted by LivingInExiles View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2008, 12:05 PM
 
Location: Underneath the Pecan Tree
15,989 posts, read 30,683,987 times
Reputation: 7281
Quote:
Originally Posted by toughguy View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2008, 12:55 PM
hsw
 
2,144 posts, read 6,351,538 times
Reputation: 1518
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
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.
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