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 02-27-2015, 09:21 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
45,983 posts, read 41,929,314 times
Reputation: 14804

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marv101 View Post
The difference between transit riders in LA as opposed to NYC, Chicago and many other major US cities is that transit riders in LA are at the bottom of the rankings as it relates to income, and being in a city where bus riders outnumber rail system riders 3 to 1 means that they're being sacrificed thanks to this rail building spree.
Can't low income riders make use of the rail system, too? Or is bus service getting cut as well?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-27-2015, 06:36 PM
 
9,701 posts, read 7,244,373 times
Reputation: 9846
A good illustration of the ridiculousness of not weighting density can be seen if we take a metro area, and relocate the people from high density to low density. This will actually create a "denser" metro. Basically regions are punished for concentrated population.

Take the NYC area. Let's pretend we vacate Manhattan, and force all its residents to live in exurban sprawl. Guess what, according to the metric used in this thread, we just increased the metro area's density. We made the denominator (land area) smaller, while maintaining the numerator (population). So relocating 100% of Manhattan to exurban McMansions actually has the perverse result of making NYC more "dense".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2015, 07:44 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
9,832 posts, read 7,672,514 times
Reputation: 6288
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
A good illustration of the ridiculousness of not weighting density can be seen if we take a metro area, and relocate the people from high density to low density. This will actually create a "denser" metro. Basically regions are punished for concentrated population.

Take the NYC area. Let's pretend we vacate Manhattan, and force all its residents to live in exurban sprawl. Guess what, according to the metric used in this thread, we just increased the metro area's density. We made the denominator (land area) smaller, while maintaining the numerator (population). So relocating 100% of Manhattan to exurban McMansions actually has the perverse result of making NYC more "dense".
According to Demographia the New York Urban Area is 4495 sq miles. Even if we remove NYC's land mass from the equation and transfer all 8.3 million residents to the suburbs, you're still looking at a 4190 sq mile footprint, with a standard density of 4900ppsm. Yes, the region's density increases a bit, but not enough to overtake LA's UA density (15.06 million, 6200ppsm). Sorry, you'd need to add the population of Jakarta to make a dent on that enormous footprint.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2015, 07:49 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: Long Island / NYC
45,983 posts, read 41,929,314 times
Reputation: 14804
Huh? Why would you remove NYC to compare the density? And not look at weighted density, NOLA was arguing unweighted density is a useless number.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2015, 07:58 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
9,832 posts, read 7,672,514 times
Reputation: 6288
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Huh? Why would you remove NYC to compare the density? And not look at weighted density, NOLA was arguing unweighted density is a useless number.
Because weighted density is useless in a thread about sprawl. Unweighted density is slightly more useful, but the key number to look at is landmass. Why would you ignore that?

Would you argue that Tokyo is more compact than the Bay Area simply because it's more dense?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2015, 08:06 PM
 
2,388 posts, read 2,953,386 times
Reputation: 1953
As I mentioned here - http://www.city-data.com/forum/38533013-post40.html - the suburbs of NYC aren't radically different in density from the suburbs of LA. It's just that the "urban area" of NYC includes a lot of what most people would call the exurbs. It's simply easier to cast a neater net around where development is in LA - mostly because of the historical abundance of water in the NY area and a lack of the large wetlands areas that exist all over the NYC metro.

It's quite clear looking at density maps that the NY "urban area" includes a whole lot of swamps, forests, farms, and wetlands.
http://nj.usgs.gov/nawqa/linj/workpl...ures/pop2a.gif

Seriously though, this is part of the "urban area" https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ja...f28bd99288a399

Last edited by drive carephilly; 02-27-2015 at 08:28 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2015, 08:57 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: Long Island / NYC
45,983 posts, read 41,929,314 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives View Post
Because weighted density is useless in a thread about sprawl. Unweighted density is slightly more useful, but the key number to look at is landmass. Why would you ignore that?
It is useless? It's unclear what exactly people mean here by sprawl, with some posters having very different ideas in mind. Maybe not compact, I'd argue the Bay Area is more sprawling than Tokyo.

Last edited by nei; 02-27-2015 at 09:06 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2015, 09:05 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: Long Island / NYC
45,983 posts, read 41,929,314 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by drive carephilly View Post
It's quite clear looking at density maps that the NY "urban area" includes a whole lot of swamps, forests, farms, and wetlands.
http://nj.usgs.gov/nawqa/linj/workpl...ures/pop2a.gif


Seriously though, this is part of the "urban area" https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ja...f28bd99288a399
That view is not part of the urban area. See the definition files, it's on map 19.

Index of /geo/maps/dc10map/UAUC_RefMap/ua/ua63217_new_york--newark_ny--nj--ct

Most of those marshes in the gif aren't either, the urban area boundaries are deliberately to exclude low density area unless surrounded by higher density areas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2015, 04:18 AM
 
2,388 posts, read 2,953,386 times
Reputation: 1953
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
That view is not part of the urban area. See the definition files, it's on map 19.
Ah, you're right, that one isn't - but this one is - https://www.google.com/maps/place/Be...a061fc780e367a

and so is this one -
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ru...fbee0f3a490552

. . . and no one in their right mind would call them urbanized. In the first one the area is zoned that way as a municipal extension of the Pinelands Act which mandates large lot sizes and clustering of units on <50% of the land area and limits the amount of impervious surface to protect groundwater . . . even though this part of that municipality isn't technically in the Pinelands (and if it was even the number of trees you could clear would also be restricted).

In the second one it's part of a broader area of parks, preserved forest and farmland. Partly the legacy of Whitman's 1 million acres. Going back to this map - http://nj.usgs.gov/nawqa/linj/workpl...ures/pop2a.gif when you look at the light gray areas that's largely what you get - scattered housing around parks, farms, forests, wetlands or other protected areas, a whole bunch of that gets included in the urbanized area but not many people live there. It's not that Metuchen/Edison is more sprawling than Irvine - it's that the "urban area" of greater NYC still includes farms and other undeveloped areas.

You're not going to find this scene in suburban LA - but it's everywhere in suburban NJ.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Vo...6b5fad01c138a8

Quote:
Most of those marshes in the gif aren't either, the urban area boundaries are deliberately to exclude low density area unless surrounded by higher density areas.
Not sure which marshes you're talking about but all 8,400 acres of wetlands in the Meadowlands, 13,000 acres in NYC, 13,500 in Nassau, etc are well within the urban area boundary - that's ~55 square miles before we get to Suffolk, Middlesex, Monmouth or Ocean which would easily double those numbers. The only wetlands that are excluded from the urban area are those inside Jamaica Bay.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2015, 12:35 PM
 
9,701 posts, read 7,244,373 times
Reputation: 9846
I used to live in Corona del Mar, which is adjacent to Irvine. Anyone who thinks that Irvine is less sprawly than NJ is seriously on drugs.

Orange County is basically 100% sprawl, and there is nothing in OC remotely comparable to the urban centers in NJ. Not one square inch of Irvine is remotely urban or walker friendly. In fact there is not one attractive, sizable downtown anywhere in OC, and we're talking a county of 3 million people.
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
Similar Threads
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