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)
View Poll Results: Which city is more Urban
Chicago 114 79.17%
Los Angeles 30 20.83%
Voters: 144. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-01-2013, 05:29 PM
 
Location: Portland, Maine
457 posts, read 436,796 times
Reputation: 253

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup View Post
Chicago has the densest census tract in the United States, a 500k ppsm anomaly: https://www.flickr.com/photos/beyond...7633049989738/

But really, I think this graph shows that Chicago is heads and shoulders above Los Angeles, at least in the core. Ignoring NYC, San Francisco seems to be the only other city that is close to Chicago in its housing units per square mile.

The good news is Los Angeles is no slouch either, and is just about even with Philadelphia, Boston and DC.
Boston is denser in many of the inner core areas than Chicago. I don't know how number of housing units per square mile compares but I know that the population density is higher than Chicago's in most census tracts excluding the one that is above 500,000. The North End, Chinatown, South End, South Boston, Back Bay, Beacon Hill, Fenway-Kenmore, Allston-Brighton Charleston, and East Boston all have large areas of at least 35,000 people per square mile and the Back Bay, Beacon Hill, Chinatown, North End South End South Boston, East Boston, Fenway-Kenmore, and Allston-Brighton all have large areas that have more than 40,000 people per square mile.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-01-2013, 05:47 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 13,103,705 times
Reputation: 3979
Quote:
Originally Posted by citylover94 View Post
Boston is denser in many of the inner core areas than Chicago. I don't know how number of housing units per square mile compares but I know that the population density is higher than Chicago's in most census tracts excluding the one that is above 500,000. The North End, Chinatown, South End, South Boston, Back Bay, Beacon Hill, Fenway-Kenmore, Allston-Brighton Charleston, and East Boston all have large areas of at least 35,000 people per square mile and the Back Bay, Beacon Hill, Chinatown, North End South End South Boston, East Boston, Fenway-Kenmore, and Allston-Brighton all have large areas that have more than 40,000 people per square mile.
Yeah both of the census tracts which I lived in Allston-Brighton were 34k and 40k. It's definitely up there at the peak / in the core with Chicago and Los Angeles. However it can't compete with the size of those two cities and how dense they are for a huge span of square miles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2013, 10:51 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
9,832 posts, read 7,672,514 times
Reputation: 6288
Quote:
Originally Posted by citylover94 View Post
Boston is denser in many of the inner core areas than Chicago. I don't know how number of housing units per square mile compares but I know that the population density is higher than Chicago's in most census tracts excluding the one that is above 500,000. The North End, Chinatown, South End, South Boston, Back Bay, Beacon Hill, Fenway-Kenmore, Allston-Brighton Charleston, and East Boston all have large areas of at least 35,000 people per square mile and the Back Bay, Beacon Hill, Chinatown, North End South End South Boston, East Boston, Fenway-Kenmore, and Allston-Brighton all have large areas that have more than 40,000 people per square mile.

Yeah, but do you have any random internetz polls to back up your claims? Google street views? You invite a loss of credibility when you bring facts and statistics into the conversation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2013, 07:13 AM
 
Location: In the heights
22,119 posts, read 23,634,230 times
Reputation: 11611
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives View Post
Yeah, but do you have any random internetz polls to back up your claims? Google street views? You invite a loss of credibility when you bring facts and statistics into the conversation.
The stats he's posted and graphs nei's made are showing things in much higher resolution since they're looking at census tracts of a few blocks at a time. That really does give much higher detail (as does google street view when you go over enough stretches and walkscore) than getting density stats for large areas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2013, 04:36 PM
 
Location: Upper West Side, Manhattan, NYC
14,798 posts, read 19,003,355 times
Reputation: 6800
Quote:
Originally Posted by citylover94 View Post
Boston is denser in many of the inner core areas than Chicago. I don't know how number of housing units per square mile compares but I know that the population density is higher than Chicago's in most census tracts excluding the one that is above 500,000. The North End, Chinatown, South End, South Boston, Back Bay, Beacon Hill, Fenway-Kenmore, Allston-Brighton Charleston, and East Boston all have large areas of at least 35,000 people per square mile and the Back Bay, Beacon Hill, Chinatown, North End South End South Boston, East Boston, Fenway-Kenmore, and Allston-Brighton all have large areas that have more than 40,000 people per square mile.
No it's not and I already showed in another thread at least for density that Boston is not denser than most of Chicago even if you include most of the south side and even when you include all of the dense suburbs of Boston. People who think they can compare a city of 46 sq miles to a city of 227 sq miles are naive. It's impossible to compare them, which is why you have to compare either all of one versus parts of another or visa versa.

Boston may very well have areas of 35,000 per sq mile, but they are not that big of an area, which is the problem. You can bring up statistics you want like that, but it doesn't matter unless you mention how big of an area and how many people it holds. There is a zip code in Boston that is 60,000 per sq mile, but what nobody is mentioning is the fact that it is for about 2500 people just like that census tract in Chicago has 500,000 people per sq mile - it is probably only for a few hundred people.

Chicago has four entire neighborhoods of 30,000+/sq mi density totaling 286,364 people, or about 46% of Boston's total population living in 9.44 sq miles. That is a population density of 30,355 per sq mile over 9.44 sq miles. If Boston can match that exactly, then the rest of boston would have to be an average population density of around 9200 per sq mile to fill in the other 300,000+ people.

In fact, on the north side of Chicago, if you take the continuous area of the official community areas of Near North Side, Lincoln Park, Lakeview, Uptown, Edgewater, Rogers Park, North Center, Lincoln Square, Irving Park, Avondale, and Albany Park...you get 622,365 in 26.78 miles. There are 77 official community areas too, so these 11 community areas, or only 14% of the overall neighborhood makeup of Chicago, have a larger population as Boston (617,594 as of the 2010 Census) in 20 less sq miles...There are many other dense ones denser than the average of Boston and usually its densest suburbs.

Boston density = 12,752 people per sq mile
Above area for Chicago = 23,240 per sq mile

You can do the same exact thing on the south side and it's still slightly more dense than Boston even though those areas are known more as residential neighborhoods usually.

Anybody who thinks Boston is denser or more Urban than Chicago is fooling themselves.

Last edited by marothisu; 05-04-2013 at 05:00 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2013, 10:13 AM
 
940 posts, read 1,737,720 times
Reputation: 732
Has anyone done weighted density for the City of Chicago? I can't seem to find it on here anywhere.

I did some calculations with some census data I had and found a 227 sq. mi. circle within LA County that encompasses most of LA's key job centers/parks/cultural sites/etc and that pretty neatly matches Chicago's population numbers.

Los Angeles - 8.75 mi Radius from Densest Census Tract (in Koreatown)
Area: 227 sq mi.
Population: 2,630,153
Housing Units: 1,003,953
Standard Pop Density: 11,565
Weighted Pop Density: 19,762
Standard Hous. Density: 4,423
Weighted Hous. Density: 8,127

Chicago
Area: 227 sq mi.
Population: 2,695,598
Housing Units: 1,198,408
Standard Pop. Density: 11,874
Weighted Pop. Density: ?
Standard Hous. Density: 5,279
Weighted H. Density: ?

As you can see, the housing situation is very different in each City. I'm sure if we had weighted housing and population densities for Chicago we'd be able to see how the two contiguous urban cores--while comparable in population and standard density--are quite different when it comes to the built environment and experienced density.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2013, 01:36 AM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
9,832 posts, read 7,672,514 times
Reputation: 6288
From another site. They're not my calculations, so I can't verify their accuracy.

Boston: 24,543 ppsm (0.617 million)
Montreal: 22,064 ppsm (1.648 million)
Vancouver: 20,397 ppsm (0.618 million)
Philadelphia: 20,283 ppsm (1.526 million)
Toronto: 20,124 ppsm (2.615 million)
Chicago: 19,826 ppsm (2.703 million)
DC: 17,459 ppsm (0.602 million)
Miami: 15,900 ppsm (0.399 million)

For Los Angeles, I found a 300 sq mile chunk of land in the 11,000 ppsm range, and a 500 sq mile chunk (pretty much the basin as a whole) clocking in at 10,000 ppsm. Even the SFV has a 60 sq mile chunk in the 10k range.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2013, 08:10 AM
 
940 posts, read 1,737,720 times
Reputation: 732
^^Thanks. Interesting again that Chicago and the central 227 mile radius in LA are so similar (in terms of everything but housing density and household number).

LA's 227 mile radius has 934,642 households, Chicago has 1,045,460. So LA, as is expected, has larger and fewer households, and fewer housing units.

Housing Units / Household:

LA 227: 1.07
Chicago: 1.14
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2013, 08:17 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: Long Island / NYC
45,985 posts, read 41,929,314 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by dweebo2220 View Post
As you can see, the housing situation is very different in each City. I'm sure if we had weighted housing and population densities for Chicago we'd be able to see how the two contiguous urban cores--while comparable in population and standard density--are quite different when it comes to the built environment and experienced density.
I'll calculate weighted housing density but it'll have to wait for another day.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2013, 06:52 PM
 
940 posts, read 1,737,720 times
Reputation: 732
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
I'll calculate weighted housing density but it'll have to wait for another day.
Thanks. What about weighted housing density (weighted to the number of housing units in the tract)? Weighted housing density will tell you what kind of environment the "average" housing unit is located in. Also would love to see weighted density by households.

I wish there was an easy way just to choose "census tracts by city" in factfinder...

I'll run weighted housing density for LA's 227 mile circle.
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.

2005-2019, 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