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.
That is the point I was making. Who said DC did add more people? Who exactly were you responding to by saying that? I know I didn't say that so who were you talking to? There has got to be a reason you even said this to begin with.
You asked about the chart and timing; meaning that most cities were going to shift a bit at the bottom; was the point
Thats exactly right its arbitrary, my point being that the core densest areas of bigger cities is being compared to the entirety of San Francisco. Its core is smaller, but denser. Using 46 sq miles of XYZ city as a comparison to San Francisco is not fair or logical. San Francisco in its core I'd say 20-25 sq miles is the second densest and vibrant city in the US.
Well how about we bring it in a little more to 10 square miles heck even 5, I bet Miami heck even some TX cities can get in on that action, it's funny that you cisco guys always using density to your advantage but when the playing field is leveled all you guys cry foul LOL
He's not argueing with out numbers, I think, he's argueing with the relevancy of our numbers since it's unfair to smaller cities. Though seriously, the San Francisco metro is about the size of Boston's, it's really hard to calculate.
Take Vancouver. It's core is fairly dense, but it's urban area is only 2.3 million, less than half of Philadelphia's. On my 1.25 million graph it will do badly, and 46 square miles refers to about 1/3 of the city's population, far more than Los Angeles or Philadelphia.
Barcelona's line follows NYC closely (I'm guessing, hard to make an exact comparison). But it's urban area contains just over 4 million. At 46 square miles it does well (slightly more than 2 million), but it will look worse than NYC at bigger areas.
In some ways this is fine, bigger cities feel like they have bigger cores, but so do denser cities.
Understand your point; esp in reagrds to LA and Chicago. On the comparison to Philly they are likely much closer (as would be Boston) on size of the general metro/csa. I agree these are arbitrary but another way is adding Oakland and Berkely as extensions to SF which roughly cover the same land area where those adds actually are similar in total population to the 134 sq miles of Philly. I aslo dont feel that SF ends at its borders so to speak and is larger than the 46 sq miles.
I do think the "core" of SF feels a tad bigger and more dense though (I have actually lived in both places) and there was athread made to compare the core areas in a relative size to SF; which is where these calculations come from; somewhat accademic but did show that SF is not the 2nd densest space in this regard; likely though in the core 10 with based on my understanding only LA potentially exceeding
Well how about we bring it in a little more to 10 square miles heck even 5, I bet Miami heck even some TX cities can get in on that action, it's funny that you cisco guys always using density to your advantage but when the playing field is leveled all you guys cry foul LOL
Understand your point; esp in reagrds to LA and Chicago. On the comparison to Philly they are likely much closer (as would be Boston) on size of the general metro/csa. I agree these are arbitrary but another way is adding Oakland and Berkely as extensions to SF which roughly cover the same land area where those adds actually are similar in total population to the 134 sq miles of Philly. I aslo dont feel that SF ends at its borders so to speak and is larger than the 46 sq miles.
I do think the "core" of SF feels a tad bigger and more dense though (I have actually lived in both places) and there was athread made to compare the core areas in a relative size to SF; which is where these calculations come from; somewhat accademic but did show that SF is not the 2nd densest space in this regard; likely though in the core 10 with based on my understanding only LA potentially exceeding
That's a great idea kidphilly, lets stretch the boundaries to Philly's but wouldn't be surprised if bay residents would cry foul over it since it wouldn't be in their interest to do so.
You asked about the chart and timing; meaning that most cities were going to shift a bit at the bottom; was the point
Still not seeing what that has to do with what downtowns have more people than DC. That is basically all you said. Seeing as how I was not comparing total population across downtowns, I was asking why you decided to compare them in your response to me.
I wonder why there's all this comparison and commotion? I mean the question was "Is LA more urban than people would think?"... I'd say that's a mighty yes. I mean people have the concept of just a "concrete jungle" (whatever the hell that means) and all freeways and just suburbia.
But there really is several very urban areas to LA and the surrounding area that people either ignore or don't know about.
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.
, I bet Miami heck even some TX cities can get in on that action, it's funny that you cisco guys always using density to your advantage but when the playing field is leveled all you guys cry foul LOL
