Urban Density Comparisons (schools, Cleveland, names, electric)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Well, Boston core is not unusually dense compared to the most urban/dense cities in the USA (Philly, SF, LA, Chicago, NYC), but I think it has and had more dense areas than DC, Baltimore, Providence, Wilmington, Pittsburgh, and from the graph, the densest 100,000 of Boston seems to be even denser than Philadelphia. I agree that those 100-200k people are probably not going to have as much of an effect as the 500k living at more moderate (eg triple decker) densities though.
Back to Boston though, I meant 4 or more stories, not more than 4 stories. Most of the areas in Boston I was thinking of are 4-5 stories. These are the areas that make up the densest parts of Boston and I think there is not much that's equivalent outside NYC.
Boston has about 15% of it's population living at densities of 20,000 ppsm or more, so around 500-600k people and around 200k at 30,000 ppsm or more. Since Pittsburgh's urban area is less than half the size of Boston's, it would have to have around 80k people at 30k ppsm and 200-250k people at 20k ppsm to match Boston in terms of percentages. I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case if Pittsburgh didn't decay.
I forgot that Pittsburgh is about half the size of Boston, but even from the percentage chart it's much less dense. Relative to its metro population (when the cities where at peak population), Pittsburgh annexed more; which could explain why the city limits seem like they have lots more single family homes. Still outside of the Oakland neighborhood, no census tracts reach 20k/ square mile, and it seems like dense housing doesn't last that long; row houses neighborhoods just end randomly into less dense ones or just open space (what happened to northeast of downtown?!). This neighborhood (South Boston) is a little over 30k/square mile (some streets have single family homes):
The Boston tracts don't look any denser than the Pittsburgh ones you posted; so maybe the Pittsburgh line would slope less steeply if it weren't for population loss; with still a smaller percentage of above 20k/sq mile tracts but the difference at least half as small.
Boston has few rowhouses and apartment buildings above 4 stories. Those hold at most the densest 50,000. Most of Boston's density is from short mulit-unit dwellings (such as triple deckers, semi-detached homes on small lots together with a few townhouses ) placed close together. Pittsburgh looks like it has more single family home in the center, and a lot more in the outlying areas of the city compared to Boston and its adjancent suburbs. There are some dense row house sections though, but a lot of them don't appear to continue for that long; topography is likely part of the cause. Boston isn't exceptionaly dense in the core; this chart I made shows that:
NYC is not on the chart, as it would mostly be off the chart.
It would, though it seems like I would have to press add for each 75 groups of census tracts. Would have been much faster than programming it out. Not going to bother now.
Your method would have made sense...
On this chart; is it SF and Philly that mimic or Boston
So many blues maybe my resolution is bad but cant tell which is which
Yes, at the top part of the chart. Though SF and Philly are mostly identical. At the very bottom, the order switches, mostly from Boston and especially San Francisco (for the first 50,000 it's higher than all the others). Might be partly why San Francisco gets tossed around as a very dense city; visitors just seeing the center would think it's especially dense.
Yes, at the top part of the chart. Though SF and Philly are mostly identical. At the very bottom, the order switches, mostly from Boston and especially San Francisco (for the first 50,000 it's higher than all the others). Might be partly why San Francisco gets tossed around as a very dense city; visitors just seeing the center would think it's especially dense.
Actually this makes sense; thought Boston would be a little closer at the middle and top of the chart to SF/Philly and less so to DC
Seattle is a real outlier; oustide of the core the density goes down
Did you do the others, Atlanta Houston etc in this format. To me this is quite interesting in terms of viewing
Also is amazing to see how close Chicago and LA really are on this metric and that LA is that far ahead of the likes of SF/Philly/Boston
I would imagine NYC to your earlier point would be off the charts so to speak and dramatically different than any of these lines; maybe aimed at 11 o clock on a clock from the bottom right at like 170K ish
Actually this makes sense; thought Boston would be a little closer at the middle and top of the chart to SF/Philly and less so to DC
Seattle is a real outlier; oustide of the core the density goes down
Did you do the others, Atlanta Houston etc in this format. To me this is quite interesting in terms of viewing
Also is amazing to see how close Chicago and LA really are on this metric and that LA is that far ahead of the likes of SF/Philly/Boston
I would imagine NYC to your earlier point would be off the charts so to speak and dramatically different than any of these lines; maybe aimed at 11 o clock on a clock from the bottom right at like 170K ish
I could add Atlanta and Houston; the code's all written; so the work to add new cities is minimal (type Atlanta, tell program to look only in Georgia tracts). But, I assumed the lower densities wouldn't be very interesting, there's not much of a core to look at it; the cities would lie at the edge of the chart. I only included Seattle mainly to show a contrast; it's not really an outlier amongst American cities, it's only one because the other cities I selected are the only ones (I think) that have dense cores.
LA has an advantage over the other American cities (besides NYC), it's bigger. Bigger cities have bigger cores. I guess surprising since a lot of people (including myself) thought of LA as nothing but low density sprawl, with no dense core. Here's one of the densest districts of Los Angeles:
NYC has a number of tracts above 170k, with the Upper East Side having the most. The first 1.5 million of NYC will be a lot of tracts that happen randomly to have some tall buildings. Much of the East Village is 90k-110k /square mile, with the West Village a little lower. If NYC was included in the graph, the top edge would be at 109 k / sq mile (as in 1.25 million live at greater than 109 k /sq mile). As a comparison, the Brooklyn brownstone neighborhoods are about 50-55k / sq mile; though some tracts have some apartment buildings scattered amongst the row houses, but not many. The city labels these neighborhoods "medium density"; they won't be medium density in any of the other cities in the chart.
Census tracts can undercount residential density if a neighborhood is adjancent to non-residential land. For example, two South Boston contain just about only residential land and have a density near 30k/sqmile. But several others are much lower because the boundaries contain nearby non-residential land (think it's old ports and waterfront). Though, if there is vacant land scattered around the lowering of density makes sense. If a residential neighborhood continues about the same for a large area (like Brooklyn brownstone nabes, the numbers are usually accurate). Most of the time, I think census tracts are fine for large cities; the odd boundaries should even out. The North End gets underestimated for the same reason, but it's around 70k /sq mile. And there's a Beacon Hill tract at 80k / sq mile.
There are plenty of neighborhoods of all types of density with varying levels of wealth.
I see a similar enough frequency between high-income high density/middle class high density/low income high density/ high-income medium density/middle class medium density/low income-medium density/high income low density/middle class low density/and low income low density.
That is why I would not be quick to stereotype what density types for neighborhoods are the most wealthy or low income. That can also vary in significant amounts by region and country.
I think earlier in this thread (or maybe in another thread) somebody posted a picture of Hong Kong and said that the density was about 140K ppsm, but that had a lot of apartment buildings IIRC. But that doesn't make sense to me: There are areas in Manhattan that are pretty wealthy and with smaller buildings and their population density is well above that.
I think earlier in this thread (or maybe in another thread) somebody posted a picture of Hong Kong and said that the density was about 140K ppsm, but that had a lot of apartment buildings IIRC. But that doesn't make sense to me: There are areas in Manhattan that are pretty wealthy and with smaller buildings and their population density is well above that.
I only managed to see the first minute of that youtube video; either my internet connection was poor or I was in a public place where I couldn't really watch videos, especially with sound. Nice music from what I could hear, but looks rather unpleasant to live in.
Those Lima barrios look dense and packed together, but I'd be surprised if they were as dense as Manhattan or dense European cities such as Paris or Barcelona. Most of the Lima buildings look no more than 3 stories. Manhattan has mostly 5-6 stories buildings with some taller mid-rise and high rise buildings mixed in. Paris and Barcelona are similar (I think) but lack the taller buildings but make for those in density by having narrower streets. It's really hard to guess population density, though, since if they're overcrowded (for example, 5 people to a 1 bedroom apartment ); probably likely for that neighborhood you should. The Lower East Side / East Village has a third its population density of 100 years ago; but they're definitely not abandoned and they still feel rather populated.
(multiply by 2.59 to get density per square mile). Manhattan Community Board 8 includes Roosevelt Island; you'll get higher number if you subtract it. Manhattan has nothing denser than 140k / sq mile; you'll get census tracts denser than that; usually because their boundaries include taller buildings than average. The list include some really small size districts which make for an unfair comparison. New York City, Barcelona (and one of its suburbs) and Paris have numerous entries on the list; but Tokyo and Seoul are absent. There are a bunch of third world neighborhoods but I suspect the list is incomplete (maybe Lima could make it but the author didn't look at every city?). I'm not sure if the third world neighborhoods are slums or non-slums; but in many of those cities, non-slum neighborhoods are still very dense (I've been in Mumbai and visited someone in a well off area and it felt very crowded).
So, Hong Kong has a lot undeveloped land and forest land right next to built up land, perhaps that makes the density numbers misleading? I remember that "suburb" of Hong Kong full of very tall high rises density posted a bit ago was lowered if you include the surrounding areas; there were tall high rises and then immediately next to it land barely developed. But officially, the densest Hong Kong neighborhood according to that table is 140k / sq mile; barely higher than the Upper East Side.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 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 1.5 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.
); probably likely for that neighborhood you should. The Lower East Side / East Village has a third its population density of 100 years ago; but they're definitely not abandoned and they still feel rather populated. 
