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.
Yet, looking at my graph, it is more dense than Chicago by a large margin at every portion.
I never argued that NYC was less urban than Chicago. I argued that if we're looking at only the percentage of the built environment which is urban (rowhouses on up), that both NYC and Chicago may be beaten by cities like Baltimore.
Found this neat image of NYC population density. As we have said, density doesn't equal built environment. But it shows only portions of Northwest Queens and Flushing are really high density.
Though keep in mind that 20K to 40K per square mile (which is the second least dense on the gradient here) rivals the density of what would be average high density neighborhoods in the other cities mentioned. Meanwhile, the top density on there (100K or greater per square mile) shows up in several neighborhoods in Queens, but only in one or two tracts or not at all in the other cities.
Though keep in mind that 20K to 40K per square mile (which is the second least dense on the gradient here) rivals the density of what would be average high density neighborhoods in the other cities mentioned. Meanwhile, the top density on there (100K or greater per square mile) shows up in several neighborhoods in Queens, but only in one or two tracts or not at all in the other cities.
Again I'm not sure what this tells us about the built environment. I have a friend who lives in southern Brooklyn in what would at another time be a modest, detached SFH which has been converted into six apartments. There are still immigrants who rent a mattress in a room somewhere - which someone else working another shift is sleeping in when they aren't present. I actually wonder how much this may play a role, as hyper-density in Queens closely corresponds to Asian/Latino neighborhoods.
Again I'm not sure what this tells us about the built environment. I have a friend who lives in southern Brooklyn in what would at another time be a modest, detached SFH which has been converted into six apartments. There are still immigrants who rent a mattress in a room somewhere - which someone else working another shift is sleeping in when they aren't present. I actually wonder how much this may play a role in the hyper-density Queens closely correspond to Asian/Latino neighborhoods.
This hyper-dense Queens neighborhood is mostly white:
You centered the map on Northwest Queens, which is urban in character. I've dropped dozens of pins, and I can say:
Outside of Flushing, Northeast Queens is essentially detached single-family housing.
Southern Queens doesn't start looking urban until you get East of the Van Wick. Even here it's mainly closely-spaced SFH with street setbacks, not rowhouses.
I stand by my statement. Only around a third of Queens looks classically urban.
Edit: And has been said repeatedly in this thread, population density does not equal built character. So even though the majority live in dense areas, it says nothing about if all those dense areas or urban, or if they comprise the majority of the territory. Indeed, given the slope of the graph, I'd say it's guaranteed that the top 50% by population density live on a whole lot less than 50% of Queens' land area.
Fair enough, if by "Northwest Queens" you meant the entire area west of Grand Central and north of Jackie Robinson then I see what you mean.
Your schematic shows that most of the northeastern and southeastern portions are below 20k/sq mile... however, 20k is still a long way from suburban density levels so it's hard to say what percentage even of those areas are suburban in nature. It could very well be 50% or more, but as a percentage of the whole borough I wouldn't expect it to be more than 1/3 given that, as Nei's graphs show, there is only 10-15% of Queens' total population living at suburban density levels.
I was referring to the red portions. What looks to be portions of Jackson Heights and Elmhurst are far, far denser, at least in terms of population. Both are certainly urban in built character.
I was referring to the red portions. What looks to be portions of Jackson Heights and Elmhurst are far, far denser, at least in terms of population. Both are certainly urban in built character.
Those links are in a red portion; rather wide one too.
Your schematic shows that most of the northeastern and southeastern portions are below 20k/sq mile... however, 20k is still a long way from suburban density levels so it's hard to say what percentage even of those areas are suburban in nature. It could very well be 50% or more, but as a percentage of the whole borough I wouldn't expect it to be more than 1/3 given that, as Nei's graphs show, there is only 10-15% of Queens' total population living at suburban density levels.
Once again, suburban versus urban is not a reference to density here, it's a reference to built character. Virtually all of Queens is on some sort of grid. Much of it is detached housing (even if the gaps are only a few feet) which was at least originally built with single-family occupancy in mind, although it may have been subdivided later. In a lot of neighborhoods in the South and Northeast, you'll even see driveways. IMHO there's no way you cannot call detached housing with personal driveways suburban in character.
Those links are in a red portion; rather wide one too.
I don't think so. On the 2D minimap you can see Meadow and Widow Lakes. Forest Hills is immediately to the west of this, and yellow/orange, not red, except for possibly one tract. The red areas are pretty clearly north of the Long Island Expressway.
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.
