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 01-04-2009, 07:28 PM
 
1,107 posts, read 2,686,834 times
Reputation: 473

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlantaGuy404 View Post
Haha that's part of why I love NJ. You have super urban dense areas like JC, Bayonne, Newark and then lots of rural countryside.
So basically nj is dense cause the small city masses while other cities are much bigger and have lot more land which decrease density making it unfair to say whoes densist. I live in NYC and if you counted each boro as a city you still have an unfair advatage except for manhattan at 71,000 people per sq mi at 22.96 sq mi.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-04-2009, 07:46 PM
 
5,859 posts, read 14,060,263 times
Reputation: 3486
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomDot View Post
San Fran would have to wipe out 75% of their housing stock and build highrises in their place for that to happen.

I live in Boston and I would not want to see the pop density shoot up like that. Lots of great neighborhoods with great houses would have to go.
True, but Boston's peak population right after WWII was much higher than today's population, and the city limits haven't changed. They just had larger households back then, and fewer parking lots and no expressways. There were tons of people living in the West End where today's ugly civic center now sits.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2009, 07:50 PM
 
5,859 posts, read 14,060,263 times
Reputation: 3486
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlantaGuy404 View Post
Haha that's part of why I love NJ. You have super urban dense areas like JC, Bayonne, Newark and then lots of rural countryside.
Me too. I prefer the densely settled cities and towns, with lots of unsettled space between them. And that's why I hate suburbs (the post-WWII sprawly ones). Suburbs combine the worst aspects of cities and rural areas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2009, 07:57 PM
 
Location: Concrete jungle where dreams are made of.
8,900 posts, read 13,252,967 times
Reputation: 1819
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlantaGuy404 View Post
Haha that's part of why I love NJ. You have super urban dense areas like JC, Bayonne, Newark and then lots of rural countryside.

So why not move there?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2009, 10:15 PM
 
Location: On the Great South Bay
7,138 posts, read 9,917,638 times
Reputation: 6424
Quote:
Originally Posted by lammius View Post
^ Yeah, the thing is those NJ municipalities are small in area. Guttenberg is 0.2 square miles. It's 4 blocks by 5 blocks, I think, and its population is only 10 or 11 thousand. So dense as it is, it covers a tiny area. But, immediately adjacent to Guttenberg are places like Union City, West New York, Weehawken, North Bergen, Hoboken, all are a bit larger, and all are very dense too. If Manhattan were carved into municipalities of 0.2 sq miles, you'd have some astronomical density figures in some of them.
I think that part of the reason these communities are so crowded is that they are so small. They cannot waste any land on typical surburban or semi suburban housing or even parks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2009, 10:22 PM
 
Location: On the Great South Bay
7,138 posts, read 9,917,638 times
Reputation: 6424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newarkbomb View Post
Union City, NJ is a little over 1 sq mile and its population is close to 63,000... thats DENSE
Hudson, Bergen, Essex, Union, Passaic, Mercer, Middlesex and Camden counties are really the real dense ones in nj out of the 21 counties overall.




NJ is so dense only because its a metro of 2 really big cities, Phili and NYC. Most of its population is really in the NE and SW. Central, SE, and NW jersey isnt really too close to either of the major towns which makes those sections not as densly populated.
LOL I grew up in a neighborhood in Queens (Woodhaven) that is a little over 1sq mile and only had a population of 35,000 in comparasion. And Woodhaven is right next to the 500+ acre Forest Park.

On your maps I am suprised to see Bergen County with such a high population density - I thought it was a nice spread out spacious suburban area? The wild Pine Barrens can be seen in the southern part of NJ.

Interesting to see how the population drops off from NYC as you move upstate. The darker green areas are the Adirondacks, Catskills and I think the Alleghanies in the west.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2009, 11:20 PM
 
Location: Newtown, Bucks County, Pennsylvania
463 posts, read 1,368,519 times
Reputation: 275
I wish more cities were as dense as New York, expecially Manhattan! I know half the people here would disagree with me, but I like dense cities like that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2009, 11:48 PM
 
Location: San Antonio, TX.
1,226 posts, read 2,716,002 times
Reputation: 607
I love the post, and have actually made these calculations with the same method in the past myself out of boredom, but I'd hate for it to be a reality. I've lived in Jacksonville, and Houston both and would not want to be in either if this were true. Put me on the next plane to Cathmandu....lol.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2009, 01:17 PM
 
Location: Alpharetta, GA (North Atlanta Metro)
64 posts, read 66,707 times
Reputation: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachael84 View Post
So why not move there?
Really high taxes, bad weather, higher cost of living, and my job and friends/family are in Atlanta which is a place I love more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2009, 01:21 PM
 
Location: Oak Park, IL
5,522 posts, read 12,295,641 times
Reputation: 3827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Around View Post
True, but Boston's peak population right after WWII was much higher than today's population, and the city limits haven't changed. They just had larger households back then, and fewer parking lots and no expressways. There were tons of people living in the West End where today's ugly civic center now sits.
And lot of those people were packed into tight living conditions that we as modern Americans would consider substandard if not slum-like.
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