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.
you think the Philly/Houston debate wasn't his intention to start with? he just didn't realize density would have popped up
Oh...I don't know. I just kinda lost interest on page 2. No offense, but when it gets to be such a personal debate like this one has, it's bound to be lost on most of the rest of us. I know it's easy to get dragged into, but it has droned on for many a page.
you think the Philly/Houston debate wasn't his intention to start with? he just didn't realize density would have popped up
Haven't you told me not to nitpick Htown? What have you been doing for the past 10+ pages? It doesn't matter if Houston has surpassed Philadelphia in population in all aspects, Philadelphia is still by far the better city.
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?
The US census definition of UA is based on joined Census blocks from the core that maintain 1,000 ppsm or greater density. It also allows for jumps of 2.5 miles (I believe with census blocks that are at least 500 ppsm) to account differances in development patterns. It also does not stop counts for water, parks, national preserves or military bases. So would allow for those areas to be within a sorrounding UA space.
To your question question though census blocks are built on population cluster so areas of industry where there is no population are co joined with population to fit the census block and the 2.5 miles jumps are allowed so long as it is sorrounded by census blocks meeting the criteria and are meant to attempt to account for such development.
As an example I show the UA map of Atlanta, i do not know the areas well enough to say whether the undustrial development would be misleading but outside of the yellow shaded areas are the pinkish areas which are UA qulifying on density but not on cohesion/connectivity.
I would be curious on the below map if there are connected areas from your perspective than might be missing. But the census desgination is purly based on population and not developed area. UA is a population metric more than a developed metric. I know on the Philly map the Fairless Steel works in Bucks county which is huge is not considered UA though there is no population in the industrial area, which is actually is now closed.
There is a good description but i need to track it down with a more articulate description i will see if i can track it down.
Map below is 185 miles accross and based on 2000 census qaulifying Census blocks (I have the 2008 estimates in the original post) 185 miles across
Haven't you told me not to nitpick Htown? What have you been doing for the past 10+ pages? It doesn't matter if Houston has surpassed Philadelphia in population in all aspects, Philadelphia is still by far the better city.
/discussion
better how? better on crime? okay, i will give you that. Better on decay? I will give you that too. Better on dirt and filth? Yeah you are right. Philly is better at a lot of things.
The US census definition of UA is based on joined Census blocks from the core that maintain 1,000 ppsm or greater density. It also allows for jumps of 2.5 miles (I believe with census blocks that are at least 500 ppsm) to account differances in development patterns. It also does not stop counts for water, parks, national preserves or military bases. So would allow for those areas to be within a sorrounding UA space.
To your question question though census blocks are built on population cluster so areas of industry where there is no population are co joined with population to fit the census block and the 2.5 miles jumps are allowed so long as it is sorrounded by census blocks meeting the criteria and are meant to attempt to account for such development.
As an example I show the UA map of Atlanta, i do not know the areas well enough to say whether the undustrial development would be misleading but outside of the yellow shaded areas are the pinkish areas which are UA qulifying on density but not on cohesion/connectivity.
I would be curious on the below map if there are connected areas from your perspective than might be missing. But the census desgination is purly based on population and not developed area. UA is a population metric more than a developed metric. I know on the Philly map the Fairless Steel works in Bucks county which is huge is not considered UA though there is no population in the industrial area, which is actually is now closed.
There is a good description but i need to track it down with a more articulate description i will see if i can track it down.
Map below is 185 miles accross and based on 2000 census qaulifying Census blocks (I have the 2008 estimates in the original post)
185 miles across
Wow...great, informative answer! I didn't realize there was that much information on defining urban areas - you can learn new things on city-data sometimes if you give it a chance.
I'm not sure I totally agree with the way UA is defined with so much of it depending on population density, but it is what it is (and no one asked me for my opinion I guess). As far as particular areas of Atlanta, I wouldn't really know how to answer your question. Maybe another Atlanta resident could do better? Anybody?
better how? better on crime? okay, i will give you that. Better on decay? I will give you that too. Better on dirt and filth? Yeah you are right. Philly is better at a lot of things.
now can you count to five?
Better public transportation. Way more history. Better downtown. Better street vibrancy. Better neighborhoods. Better suburbs/metro. Better architecture. Better colleges. Better housing stock. Better location. Better restaurants. More unique culture. Better sports teams. Better climate. Better night life. Better parks. Better local brews. Better film industry. And so on and so forth. The only things houston has better are roads/highways/ parking, and better job market/economy due to big oil and years of bush favoritism economics.
Better public transportation. Way more history. Better downtown. Better street vibrancy. Better neighborhoods. Better suburbs/metro. Better architecture. Better colleges. Better housing stock. Better location. Better restaurants. More unique culture. Better sports teams. Better climate. Better night life. Better parks. Better local brews. Better film industry. And so on and so forth. The only things houston has better are roads/highways/ parking, and better job market/economy due to big oil and years of bush favoritism economics.
better how? better on crime? okay, i will give you that. Better on decay? I will give you that too. Better on dirt and filth? Yeah you are right. Philly is better at a lot of things.
now can you count to five?
You're right, Philadelphia is really a GREAT example of a decaying, trashy, crime infested city
Better public transportation. Way more history. Better downtown. Better street vibrancy. Better neighborhoods. Better suburbs/metro. Better architecture. Better colleges. Better housing stock. Better location. Better restaurants. More unique culture. Better sports teams. Better climate. Better night life. Better parks. Better local brews. Better film industry. And so on and so forth. The only things houston has better are roads/highways/ parking, and better job market/economy due to big oil and years of bush favoritism economics.
And that's a fantastic answer as well
Now, Htown, I would love to believe we have reached a maturity level where we don't have to try to insult another persons intelligence to make a point effectively. Sadly, I can't because well, you're posting here
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.
No offense, but when it gets to be such a personal debate like this one has, it's bound to be lost on most of the rest of us. I know it's easy to get dragged into, but it has droned on for many a page.
185 miles across 
