Real rank of cities if they all had the same area size (life, cons)

[dweebo2220]

^^ nothing.

[dweebo2220]

Originally Posted by kidphilly

My only argument here is that this methodology more gets at the metro than city. LA is hard to catagorize; not as dense or core centric but has more sustained/consitent density than just about any other city (maybe not NYC); an argument could made that on this aspect it would surpass NYC though

I think there a few ways cities can be compared; one is the true core, typically 10-30 sq miles and the UA or this density weighted metric is also an interesting way

You can even employ simple radius metrics, to me they hold weight because even if you say there is water or whatever, the fact of the matter is once you get past the measurement, these people are still that far away

But there is no perfect metric or way to compare cities and how they developed. Comparing boston to LA for example presents many challenges as there are disparate municipality sizes and vastly different development styles

Edit: on your list
I also think you are missing Detroit; it is actually still a very large area and has pretty densly developed burbs even as the city has lost a lot of density

Yeah, I'm from LA, and I'm into regional urban planning, so I guess I always think metro-centric. I feel most at home in polycentric places like LA, london, Mexico City, etc. and I never feel like I "know" a city until I know almost the entire metro.

I'm in agreement that as "big" cores go there's NYC, and then.... far far below that is Chicago. After Chicago, I've never come to a comfortable ranking. Philly and LA are a toss-up maybe for third if just looking at population (the central 130 sq. miles of the City of LA has almost 15% more people than the 135 sq. mile City of Philly).

Then maybe SF, Boston, DC?

But all US metros of course have the majority population and employment in the suburbs.. US cores are really just becoming places of consumption, like they are in Europe. (LA still has a ways to go, though... of the cities I've listed above its central city is by far the least gentrified. This is probably the main reason for its high density. As places get wealthier, they get less dense.)

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by nashvols

Well, that's an interesting point, too...because cities like Plano and Arlington are already pretty big (for suburbs!).

The main point I was making was not watering down the "density" of a city by including everything within the city boundaries. Some cities have the airport in the city limits...airports are massive amounts of land that have no permanent population. Same with industrial areas. You can't necessarily quantify how "dense" a city is based solely on the population per square mile throughout its borders.

That is true. Houston is heavily industrialized, has lots of rural land within the city limits, has three of the biggest city parks (not federal or state parks) in the country within city limits, has its share of airports in the city (not in suburbs) and a host of other stuff that detracts from its density. I am not saying that it is not a lower density city, but it does have lots of things that do distract from the density. One Million of Houston's 2.1M residents live on the SW quadrant of Town, that shows you how sparse the other 3 quads are.

[dtownboogie]

Originally Posted by HtownLove

That is true. Houston is heavily industrialized, has lots of rural land within the city limits, has three of the biggest city parks (not federal or state parks) in the country within city limits, has its share of airports in the city (not in suburbs) and a host of other stuff that detracts from its density. I am not saying that it is not a lower density city, but it does have lots of things that do distract from the density. One Million of Houston's 2.1M residents live on the SW quadrant of Town, that shows you how sparse the other 3 quads are.

Let me ask a question about this topic, what city can you do a 100 sq mile density estimation from its core without "dead zones" to bring down the density?

[kidphilly]

Originally Posted by dtownboogie

Let me ask a question about this topic, what city can you do a 100 sq mile density estimation from its core without "dead zones" to bring down the density?

precisely

[kidphilly]

Originally Posted by dweebo2220

Yeah, I'm from LA, and I'm into regional urban planning, so I guess I always think metro-centric. I feel most at home in polycentric places like LA, london, Mexico City, etc. and I never feel like I "know" a city until I know almost the entire metro.

I'm in agreement that as "big" cores go there's NYC, and then.... far far below that is Chicago. After Chicago, I've never come to a comfortable ranking. Philly and LA are a toss-up maybe for third if just looking at population (the central 130 sq. miles of the City of LA has almost 15% more people than the 135 sq. mile City of Philly).

Then maybe SF, Boston, DC?

But all US metros of course have the majority population and employment in the suburbs.. US cores are really just becoming places of consumption, like they are in Europe. (LA still has a ways to go, though... of the cities I've listed above its central city is by far the least gentrified. This is probably the main reason for its high density. As places get wealthier, they get less dense.)

Very fair points; also the city is really only as healthy as the metro so to speak or without would be much less significant; even in the case of NYC

Philly has great central core; a fairly troubled remainder of city including many close in burbs and a very healthy suburban area - the some of all these parts like other cities makes for what it is as even the city itself

[nashvols]

Originally Posted by dtownboogie

Let me ask a question about this topic, what city can you do a 100 sq mile density estimation from its core without "dead zones" to bring down the density?

That's true...my point was more along the lines of population density not necessarily reflecting city size. The older cities are going to have a lot more residential zones closer to town, because when many of them were built up, there were no automobiles. Cities like Houston are very built up in the center, but a lot of the population growth developed in an age of automobiles and suburbs. I'm just saying that you can't always judge a city by its city limits.

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by dtownboogie

Let me ask a question about this topic, what city can you do a 100 sq mile density estimation from its core without "dead zones" to bring down the density?

you are saying the same thing I agreed to. why take it out of context? The poster mentioned that it is hard to quantify based on density because of the dead zones, and I said that is true and mentioned the ones for my city??
why do you have to be so contrary?

It is like someone saying "oh it is cold in the US today"

and I replied "yes, it was 28 degrees this morning"

and you would go, "where in the US would it not be cold?"

geez man, you don't have to be so contradictory, look at the context of what I am saying.

I am not saying it is the coldest temp today, just carrying on with the conversation.

what, you want a prize or something for pointing out the obvious?

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by nashvols

That's true...my point was more along the lines of population density not necessarily reflecting city size. The older cities are going to have a lot more residential zones closer to town, because when many of them were built up, there were no automobiles. Cities like Houston are very built up in the center, but a lot of the population growth developed in an age of automobiles and suburbs. I'm just saying that you can't always judge a city by its city limits.

The poster thought it would be clever to disrupt what we were talking about to point out the obvious.

[phamb]

Can't wait to see the 2010 list of U.S. urban area. This shows continous urban population and density.