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.
And I don't know why you are acting like this hasn't been hashed into oblivion on this forum over and over and over and over again.
I really blame myself for responding to Toure's post filled with delusions of grandeur.
Gawd I can't believe I actually spent time to read this.
Hahahahahahaahahahahahahahaha....so I am being arbitrary by using pesky city boundaries but you are 'real world' because you are slicing up sections of Chicago and Philadelphia that are supposedly more densely populated than SF?
Oh and BTW, Philadephia does NOT have a solid 46 square miles that is 17,000+ppsm. Nope, it does not.
It's strange you'd still bring up a nonpoint when the same thing has been shown over and over. I don't think Philadelphia has a contiguous block that will give an overall density of 17000+ over the same footprint of SF. Chicago definitely does though. I think you miss the point--the people are actually already there in my example. There's already businesses, residences, traffic patterns, infrastructure, etc.--the difference is the change of what we decide are boundaries.
What your example has is taking numbers divorced from what is actually on the ground and then scaling them up and down for a what if that simply doesn't exist. I do love it that you can't help but answer though.
So long as we're denser than your city, that's all that matters.
And 1,600,000 is bigger then 800,000. You proved my point smarticles. You SF posters are crazy!!!!! I proved my point completely and you re still fighting.
And I don't know why you are acting like this hasn't been hashed into oblivion on this forum over and over and over and over again.
I really blame myself for responding to Toure's post filled with delusions of grandeur.
Gawd I can't believe I actually spent time to read this.
Hahahahahahaahahahahahahahaha....so I am being arbitrary by using pesky city boundaries but you are 'real world' because you are slicing up sections of Chicago and Philadelphia that are supposedly more densely populated than SF?
Oh and BTW, Philadephia does NOT have a solid 46 square miles that is 17,000+ppsm. Nope, it does not.
Oh your right about that! At the core Phillys highest tract is 128k ppsm. After that its 60k from the core and goes into 15-30k in south and west Philly. Northeast Philly is the low density part with 10k bringing it down. Your so confused.
Ah, I found nei's post. SF's 17000 ppsm is for a population of 805,000 (2010 census because that's what the graph was based on). That would be notch right above 750 on the y-axis. It looks like Philly is actually over SF at that particular point. The issue with using that would be, as noted by nei, that these tracts don't consider whether or not its contiguous. Where they're useful is the relatively safe assumption that at those densities, that vast majority of those tracts are going to be in the city for both SF and Philadelphia and fairly close to the core.
In terms of Boston versus San Francisco, it's pretty obvious that San Francisco has a lead over Boston on population density the entire way. The difference between the two curves also corroborates what other posters have said about Boston being fairly close when it comes to the denser parts, but at certain points start diverging more and more from SF/the Bay Area.
These graphs were the MSA. I'm guessing for the CSA, Boston and the Bay Area would again follow the same kind of curve, but Boston would actually get closer to the Bay Area in the higher density tracts due to multiple cities in the Boston metro with dense cores--it's conceivable at some point along the curve it might intersect the Bay Area's for a little bit before dipping below it again. However, it'd overall start following the same trend as the MSA graphs where Boston would increasingly drop off at mid and lower densities.
And I don't know why you are acting like this hasn't been hashed into oblivion on this forum over and over and over and over again.
I really blame myself for responding to Toure's post filled with delusions of grandeur.
Gawd I can't believe I actually spent time to read this.
Hahahahahahaahahahahahahahaha....so I am being arbitrary by using pesky city boundaries but you are 'real world' because you are slicing up sections of Chicago and Philadelphia that are supposedly more densely populated than SF?
Oh and BTW, Philadephia does NOT have a solid 46 square miles that is 17,000+ppsm. Nope, it does not.
Yes Philadelphia does have a 47 continuous square miles that is denser than San Francisco. This is a quote from another thread which a poster used a continuous 47 square miles based on 2000 census population of zip codes to compare with San Francisco.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gateway Region
Philadelphia - 956,884 population within 54.3 sq mi = 17,622 ppsm
San Francisco - 805,235 population within 46.87 sq mi = 17,180 ppsm
As you can see Philadelphia has 151,649 more people while having 442 more ppsm. On top of this I used the 2000 census information for Philadelphia, not 2010 because I couldn't find it
Then some bay area posters didn't like the truth and then accused the poster of cherry picking zipcodes even though the were not cherry picked because they were in fact a continuous set of Philadelphia zip codes.
Yes Philadelphia does have a 47 continuous square miles that is denser than San Francisco. This is a quote from another thread which a poster used a continuous 47 square miles based on 2000 census population of zip codes to compare with San Francisco.
Then some bay area posters didn't like the truth and then accused the poster of cherry picking zipcodes even though the were not cherry picked because they were in fact a continuous set of Philadelphia zip codes.
What shape were those continuous square miles for Philadelphia though? Was it some wonky one with a few connecting strips to get to a few patches of higher density here and there? Did it include a good portion of parks and non-residential development (since SF has one of the highest percentages of greenspace for a major US city)? I think the two would probably come in pretty close, but I'd believe it if SF turned out to be a bit denser than Philly if the area in Philly being compared was a roughly rectangular or, uh, convex polygon-y and included a similar area of non-residential development.
And 1,600,000 is bigger then 800,000. You proved my point smarticles. You SF posters are crazy!!!!! I proved my point completely and you re still fighting.
No, you've proved nothing.
Philadelphia does not have 46 contiguous square miles of 17,000+ persons per square mile-period.
yes philadelphia does have a 47 continuous square miles that is denser than san francisco.
show us them on a map.
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.
