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.
here is the post again: click on his link for the 2010 and see what you get. you are acting like I calculated stuff, it is from his link, I didn't calculate anything. no numerator denominator nonsense. Only Phillies have the energy for all that nonsense
HTown since I started posted I have ALWAYS said UA is a better metric to compare urban place sizes. DMA is the best to describe area population. And for the record again I will state because neither if contiginent on municipal boundary (well UA is but they are built on census block which is a like characteristic accross all metros)
MSA, CSA, and City are dissimilar between areas because they combine areas that are influenced by municipal land area.
so if UA is a better metric why don't you use it to compare the city's aspect? you never do, you only compare the relative UA size.
Read back three pages HTown - I did - you responded and commented. WTF
You posted a list to show that your UA density was higher than what the list of your fellow PA poster stated. you have never once compared density at the UA level during any of your other density comparisons.
and after the list you still had the nerve to say that your city density was bigger at the UA level even though your own stats said otherwise.
You posted a list to show that your UA density was higher than what the list of your fellow PA poster stated. you have never once compared density at the UA level during any of your other density comparisons.
and after the list you still had the nerve to say that your city density was bigger at the UA level even though your own stats said otherwise.
@ y'alls Nefarious attempts at deception
Please show WHERE exactly I said this HTOWN, WTF are you talking about. I said the population of the UA was bigger. I really think you can not comprehend things, WTF read back and please do NOT accuse me of theings I NEVER said!
Please read back, and show me exactly where I made such a statement or please apologize for making a false statement directed at me for something I absolutely did not say!
In fact i further clarified it again which you repsonded earlier, I am thinking I understand where the true dense issue is here
Please do not make personal claims against me that are just flat out incorrect, that is slanderous
Please show WHERE exactly I said this HTOWN, WTF are you talking about.
right here, plain as daylight:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly
Here is the density ranking from the Census listing
6. Phoenix 3638 (SUNBELT who is always slammed)
11. Houston 2951 (SUNBELT)
12. Dallas 2946 (SUNBELT)
13. Philly 2861
So yes you are right the density of the UAs in Philly, Houston and Dallas are all very comprable, just Philly is sizably larger
you said the density is comparable but philly's is much larger
you said the density is comparable but philly's is much larger
Yes much larger on population of the UA, comparable on the density of the UA populations. I also reiteraterated and clarified this in a post right after when you first misread HTown
Yes much larger on population of the UA, comparable on the density of the UA populations. I also reiteraterated and clarified this in a post right after when you first misread HTown
I did not misread it, you send it clearly. next time say what you mean and mean what you say.
Wow...12 pages of a debate over Philly vs Houston. Let's move on?
kidphilly, I asked you a question about the definition of urban area back on page one, but you probably didn't even see it or you forgot about responding in the flurry of the off-topic discussion - I'm not sure which. Anyway, I was wondering if urban area density isn't more reflective of the built environment rather than of population...or in other words, isn't the more important characterstic that of the density of buildings instead of the density of people? An urban area has SO many different districts that are zoned with particular types of buildings in mind, so lots of urban area districts won't be very densely populated. Of course, mixed-use is the way to go, but there seem to be many urban areas of every city that are more inclined to a single use - commercial, warehouse, industrial, residential, etc.
It just seem as if there are several different aspects to an urban area, and population density is only one way to define it. What do you think?
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.
@ y'alls Nefarious attempts at deception
and mean what you say. 
