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.
I didn't mean for you to compare SF with Hoboken or Union City what I meant was subsitute SF with any of the 4 I mentioned.
And that's pointless because those are anomolies(meaning an exception to the rule) in that they are not major cities but hyper dense small cities near very, very large megacities.
Outside of Chicago, Philly, LA, and Boston (obviously NYC would surpass) none will come close. I have looked in the past at an equivelent space within Philly at that sq milage and it typically is about 1-1.5K less than the SF density over that space. I imagine Chicago might have an equivelent or even larger density if one worked at it but more a guesstimate
Philadelphia in 1950 for the 134 sq miles actually was higher than SF of today and would assume that a concentrated equivelent sq miles would have exceeded 20K ppsm; but no longer
I guarantee you NYC will be the only one with a higher Pop density.
So you're really not going to find much else close to SF's 17,462 PPSM other than Boston/Hudson County.
Outside NYC, I think really only 3 cities can come close to matching SF's 47 mile density.
Chicago- I'm not sure, but I think it is possible Chicago could have density greater than SF if you skim off the densest 47 miles.
Boston- if you exclude some of the outer neighborhoods and instead count parts of Cambridge/Brookline/Somerville/Chelsea you could get close to SF levels.
Philly- I could imagine it also coming close to SF. Philly has tons of 20k/sm row hours neighborhoods.
Other than that??
Maybe LA, it has some pretty suprisingly dense areas. Although I don't know enough about the city to make a guess.
Outside of Chicago, Philly, LA, and Boston (obviously NYC would surpass) none will come close. I have looked in the past at an equivelent space within Philly at that sq milage and it typically is about 1-1.5K less than the SF density over that space. I imagine Chicago might have an equivelent or even larger density if one worked at it but more a guesstimate
Philadelphia in 1950 for the 134 sq miles actually was higher than SF of today and would assume that a concentrated equivelent sq miles would have exceeded 20K ppsm; but no longer
My point in this thread is not to out do SF but to simply make a point that a lot of cities can rival SF's density when given the same amount of sq miles, I think that SF's small footprint is overlooked when people talk about it's density. Again I am not taking anything away from SF because only a fool would say it is not dense my only intentions is to level the playing field.
but to simply make a point that a lot of cities can rival SF's density when given the same amount of sq miles.
Yes, but your trying to deliberately pick the most dense square miles of other cities when San Francisco is not just wall to wall density-there are plenty of neighborhoods in SFs farflung western neighborhoods that are not dense like the Northeastern quadrant of the city.
Sorry, but this seems like some sour grapes if you ask me.
Why dont we compare our most dense neighborhoods instead? Ahem, I wont hold my breath.
^^ To add to my post, whether your city falls short or not does not matter, it's just interesting to see how much densities rise with 47 sq miles.
Yeah it is interesting because Houston densest 40 sq miles gives you almost 500,000 people while the city of Miami is about the same physical size and has the same population. But Miami gets praised and Houston gets slammed
Yes, but your trying to deliberately pick the most dense square miles of other cities when San Francisco is not just wall to wall density-there are plenty of neighborhoods in SFs farflung western neighborhoods that are not dense like the Northeastern quadrant of the city.
Sorry, but this seems like some sour grapes if you ask me.
Why dont we compare our most dense neighborhoods instead? Ahem, I wont hold my breath.
What's wrong 18Montclair afraid that big bad SF may not look so dense after other cities are given your cities' foot print
What's wrong 18Montclair afraid that big bad SF may not look so dense after other cities are given your cities' foot print
Actually I think someone is still bitter from the SF vs Philly vs Boston thread when they were shocked to see pics of absolute density in SF they werent expecting to see.
Just admit it and move on.
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.
