U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [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)
 
Old 01-16-2014, 05:55 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Western Massachusetts
45,740 posts, read 39,621,992 times
Reputation: 14671

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Some odd choices of cities to post graphs of. We don't have many posters from Detroit, St. Louis or Cleveland. How about some of you graphics people posting Denver? Please?
Some maps of Denver. Here's a 1950 vs 2010, like the twelves cities I posted previously. Same scale, too.



Most of Denver looks less dense than the rust-belt cities shown in the other page in 1950. Now in 2010:



Census tracts are a different size, so you can't compare exactly. Bit of an odd pattern: there's a relatively dense section right near downtown. Otherwise, it looks very decentralized, with little pattern on where the dense tracts are found with no denser quarter or continous decline with distance from the center. The scale isn't the best for Denver, as there's little or no tracts above 25k/sq mile. With a lower scale we can see the suburbs better, and separate suburban densities from rural densities. Zoomed out to see the burbs:



A rather strong edge between suburbia and undeveloped. Here's Long Island for comparison:



The southern part of Nassau, with a bit extending eastwards, is continuous development in the 5,000-10,000 range, similar to Aurora and much of Denver. Rest is less dense with pockets of higher density, or more developed sections. Near the Queens border you get more above 10,000+, and crossing into Queens very little is below 15,000. And the Boston area:



Nassau county like densities in some inner burbs, but then going out no real edge with a lot of low densities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-16-2014, 07:05 PM
 
Location: Thunder Bay, ON
2,604 posts, read 3,597,028 times
Reputation: 1604
New York-Newark 1950
Population: 9,519,885
Area: 389.4 sq mi
Standard Density: 24,448 ppsm
Weighted Density 74,956 ppsm

This doesn't include some suburbs such as those of Nassau and Bergen County. It also doesn't exclude Paterson/Passaic which appears to have been a separate metropolitan area (?).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2014, 10:54 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Western Massachusetts
45,740 posts, read 39,621,992 times
Reputation: 14671
did you include Westchester in those numbers?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2014, 02:04 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
84,961 posts, read 98,795,031 times
Reputation: 31371
Thanks for the Denver stuff, guys!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2014, 06:03 PM
 
Location: Thunder Bay, ON
2,604 posts, read 3,597,028 times
Reputation: 1604
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
did you include Westchester in those numbers?
Yep.

NYC+Newark+Elizabeth+Westchester+Hudson County

Chicago 1950
Population: 4,652,208
Area: 449.5 sq mi
Standard Density: 10,149 ppsm
Weighted Density: 27,099 ppsm
This makes Chicago #3 between Philadelphia and Baltimore in weighted density.

New Orleans 1950
Population: 548,228
Area: 42.7 sq mi
Standard Density: 12,839 ppsm
Weighted Density: 20,729 ppsm
*Data was only available for the city proper, but I'm pretty sure there was a fair bit of contiguous development in the suburbs.

Providence 1950
Population: 248,674
Area: 18.9 sq mi
Standard Density: 13,171 ppsm
Weighted Density: 19,225 ppsm
*data was available for city proper only

Milwaukee 1950
Population: 791,854
Area: 86.0 sq mi
Standard Density: 9,208 ppsm
Weighted Density: 18,034 ppsm
Looks like the difference between Milwaukee and Minneapolis was even bigger then.

Utica 1950
Population: 98,145
Area: 10.7 sq mi
Standard Density: 9,190 ppsm
Weighted Density: 17,109 ppsm
Surprinsingly dense for its size. City proper only though that probably only excludes Yorkville which is small enough not to make a too big difference.

Passaic County 1950

Population: 307,742
Area: 28.5 sq mi
Standard Density: 7,352 ppsm
Weighted Density: 15,725 ppsm
This appears to have been a separate metropolitan area, separate from NYC

Honolulu 1950
Population: 210,282
Area: 28.5 sq mi
Standard Density: 7,373 ppsm
Weighted Density: 15,408 ppsm

Rochester 1950
Population: 332,488
Area: 35.3 sq mi
Standard Density: 9,411 ppsm
Weighted Density: 14,850 ppsm
*city proper only

Richmond 1950
Population: 227,852
Area: 35.2 sq mi
Standard Density: 6,477 ppsm
Weighted Density: 13,141 ppsm

Springfield-Holyoke 1950
Population: 259,166
Area: 49.3 sq mi
Standard Density: 5,254 ppsm
Weighted Density: 10,541 ppsm

Richmond 1950
Population: 256,327
Area: 42.6 sq mi
Standard Density: 6,024 ppsm
Weighted Density: 10,481 ppsm

Memphis 1950
Population: 390,881
Area: 61.3 sq mi
Standard Density: 6,377 ppsm
Weighted Density: 9,919 ppsm

Seattle 1950
Population: 615,947
Area: 125.2 sq mi
Standard Density: 4,920 ppsm
Weighted Density: 9,123 ppsm
There's a few fairly dense tracts but it drops off after that.

Portland 1950
Population: 368,900
Area: 55.8 sq mi
Standard Density: 6,615 ppsm
Weighted Density: 8,819 ppsm

Miami 1950
Population: 447,402
Area: 104.2 sq mi
Standard Density: 4,295 ppsm
Weighted Density: 8,777 ppsm

Dallas 1950
Population: 437,631
Area: 79.8 sq mi
Standard Density: 5,484 ppsm
Weighted Density: 7,449 ppsm

Birmingham 1950
Population: 324,410
Area: 62.3 sq mi
Standard Density: 5,207 ppsm
Weighted Density: 7,245 ppsm
*city proper only

Nashville 1950
Population: 249,222
Area: 62.5 sq mi
Standard Density: 3,988 ppsm
Weighted Density: 6,850 ppsm
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2014, 06:58 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Western Massachusetts
45,740 posts, read 39,621,992 times
Reputation: 14671
Quote:
Originally Posted by memph View Post
San Jose and Los Angeles are the only urban areas I've looked at so far that have had their weighted densities increase. All four of these California cities were rather low density back then.
Interesting Los Angeles doesn't stand much from other western cities back then. I assume Vancouver has a higher weighted density today than 1950. Perhaps Calgary, but it was tiny back then.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2014, 08:56 PM
 
Location: Thunder Bay, ON
2,604 posts, read 3,597,028 times
Reputation: 1604
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Interesting Los Angeles doesn't stand much from other western cities back then. I assume Vancouver has a higher weighted density today than 1950. Perhaps Calgary, but it was tiny back then.
Maybe... the data is out there if anyone has GIS. abacus: Boundary files, 1951. [Census of Canada, 1951] [2013]
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2014, 11:30 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Western Massachusetts
45,740 posts, read 39,621,992 times
Reputation: 14671
so it looks like the larger Northeastern cities still had a bigger density gradient (weighted density / standard density ratio) than elsewhere. And that the Midwestern / "Rust Belt" cities were in between the densities of the largest, dense cities and western cities / smaller cities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2014, 12:46 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
84,961 posts, read 98,795,031 times
Reputation: 31371
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
so it looks like the larger Northeastern cities still had a bigger density gradient (weighted density / standard density ratio) than elsewhere. And that the Midwestern / "Rust Belt" cities were in between the densities of the largest, dense cities and western cities / smaller cities.
Math's not my strong suit, but it looks pretty much 2:1, or close to it, for almost all the cities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2014, 01:12 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Western Massachusetts
45,740 posts, read 39,621,992 times
Reputation: 14671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Math's not my strong suit, but it looks pretty much 2:1, or close to it, for almost all the cities.
It does, but the largest northeastern cities (Philly, Boston and NYC), are 3:1. A few western cities (Dallas, Portland) look like 1.5:1. Some cities are missing some of their suburbs, which affect the standard density more than the weighted one, making the ratio lower (I think NYC is probably like 4:1 once the missing counties are added in).
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 > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

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