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.
If you look at population weighted density (what is the average density at which people live) calculated by the Census for U.S. metros, here's the top 10:
1. New York-31,251 people per square mile
2. San Francisco/Oakland-12,145 people per square mile
3. Los Angeles--12,114 people per square mile
4. Honolulu--11,548 people per square mile
5. Chicago--8,613 people per square mile
6. San Jose--8,418
7. Boston--7,980
8. Philadelphia--7,733
9. Miami--7,395
10. San Diego--6,920
Not really a surprising list, except for San Jose and maybe San Diego. Note that Baltimore, Portland, and Seattle do not make the top 10.
If you look at population weighted density (what is the average density at which people live) calculated by the Census for U.S. metros, here's the top 10:
1. New York-31,251 people per square mile
2. San Francisco/Oakland-12,145 people per square mile
3. Los Angeles--12,114 people per square mile
4. Honolulu--11,548 people per square mile
5. Chicago--8,613 people per square mile
6. San Jose--8,418
7. Boston--7,980
8. Philadelphia--7,733
9. Miami--7,395
10. San Diego--6,920
Not really a surprising list, except for San Jose and maybe San Diego. Note that Baltimore, Portland, and Seattle do not make the top 10.
DC is not on the list either. I would think that DC and Baltimore would have greater density than LA, San Jose, and San Diego.
DC is not on the list either. I would think that DC and Baltimore would have greater density than LA, San Jose, and San Diego.
I think those numbers are for metro areas, so that is one benefit for Los Angeles and its very dense suburbs. However I believe the weighted density for city-alone also shows LA is denser than people realize, and over 10k ppsm.
The San Jose and San Diego metros are basically less-dense versions of Greater Los Angeles' layout, so no surprise they are on here over what are traditionally considered dense cities.
I think those numbers are for metro areas, so that is one benefit for Los Angeles and its very dense suburbs. However I believe the weighted density for city-alone also shows LA is denser than people realize, and over 10k ppsm.
It's 16k/ sq mile for Los Angeles*. DC is about the same.
*barely higher than the overall for the metro, which is strange. But considered LA's layout not so strange. I think LA - San Fernando Valley - parts of South Central is a weighted density of 22k/sq mile with a population a bit over 2 million.
It's 16k/ sq mile for Los Angeles*. DC is about the same.
*barely higher than the overall for the metro, which is strange. But considered LA's layout not so strange. I think LA - San Fernando Valley - parts of South Central is a weighted density of 22k/sq mile with a population a bit over 2 million.
L.A. has dense suburbs, with large borders that incorporate more of them. Then there are dense satelite cities like Long Beach, far away from DTLA but with a weighted density comparable to Washington. I'm guessing L.A.'s core 50 sq miles is in the 30k range.
What about non-CBD neighborhoods? I bet NYC would win by a large margin.
Yorkville in Manhattan has a population density over 150k ppsm
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.
