Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-31-2013, 12:15 PM
 
Location: City of Angels
2,918 posts, read 5,606,342 times
Reputation: 2267

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by sregorat3 View Post
I would think that three times the population wouldn't be considered "barely" larger. NY's land area is only slightly more than double DF- 5 times would be 10,000.
according to the link

new york city urban area: 20,673,000 in 11,642 km2 for population density of 1,800/km2

mexico city urban area: 20,032,000 in 2,046 km2 for pop density of 9,800/km2.

so NY urban area covers 5.69 times more land area than DF urban area but barely bigger population. completely ridiculous.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-31-2013, 12:18 PM
 
Location: City of Angels
2,918 posts, read 5,606,342 times
Reputation: 2267
Quote:
Originally Posted by MPLS_TC View Post
It's interesting to see how dense the us metro's are not. New York City is completely dominated by cities around the world in that category. I didn't realize that so many cities around the world were that much more dense. Did New York lead the way? Many large cities around the world appear to have become huge within the second half of the 20th. I always thought that east coast cities were dense because they were booming at a time when automobiles were still uncommon, yet so many cities around the world in the last 50 years or so have extreme density.
NY's urban core is as dense as anywhere in the world. its suburbs are what bring it down.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2013, 05:52 PM
 
Location: Washington D.C. By way of Texas
20,514 posts, read 33,519,512 times
Reputation: 12147
Quote:
Originally Posted by foadi View Post
NY's urban core is as dense as anywhere in the world. its suburbs are what bring it down.
In reality, the United States is a suburban nation. Most people not only lives in the suburbs. But post world war 2 suburbs and post world war devolopment type cities. As much as we love how our cities are now starting to reinvent and urbanize itself, the suburban model still reigns and its starting to creep into our inner cities. It sucks but that's how this country is developing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2013, 06:20 PM
 
573 posts, read 1,049,805 times
Reputation: 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by foadi View Post
NY's urban core is as dense as anywhere in the world. its suburbs are what bring it down.
on that list there are 28 urban areas over 10,000,000 people. NYC is the least dense. [MOD CUT] It takes NYC 4,000 quarter miles to attain 20,000,000. I just thought that was extremely impressive to have 20 million residents in 300 square miles. There is no place in the us that can match that insane density.

Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 03-31-2013 at 06:23 PM.. Reason: Please don't talk about cities outside North America
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2013, 07:19 PM
 
46 posts, read 79,218 times
Reputation: 69
Demographia's urban area estimate's are a joke. How could they possibly add Trenton to New York City when it's clearly part of the Philadelphia urban area. The Concord urban area is seperated from San Francisco and New Haven is clearly not part of the New York City urban area. Does anyone know what's Demographia's formula for the calculation of urban areas and are they using the same formula for all urban areas. It just seems strange that the United Nations and the US census have smaller numbers while Demographia's numbers seem to liberal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2013, 07:27 PM
 
Location: NYC/LA
484 posts, read 871,188 times
Reputation: 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by checkup View Post
LA is 15M? They obviously didn't leave anything out in SoCal. Probably included inland empire, all of Orange County, and maybe even San Diego

Also, for SF, they probably excluded SJ and/or parts of East Bay

And Houston is significantly smaller than Dallas?
Huh? What in the world are you talking about? You do realize the Los Angeles urban area (aka Greater Los Angeles) is actually 18 million right? So Demographia actually left many areas out. Yes, the LA area is that populated. And why wouldn't they include the Inland Empire and Orange County? It's common knowledge that both (plus Ventura County) are part of the LA urban area and CSA.

"...and maybe even San Diego" No. When did San Diego become part of the Los Angeles urban area? When has San Diego ever factor into any LA urbanized area-MSA-CSA-related discussions? If San Diego (County) was included, you would know it. The LA number from this study would jump to 18.2 million. San Diego is listed separately.

If you had actually read the report, Demographia did include San Jose for the San Francisco urban area.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2013, 07:44 PM
 
Location: Underneath the Pecan Tree
15,982 posts, read 35,199,026 times
Reputation: 7428
Why is having 20 million people in 300 sq miles impressive??? That's horrible!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2013, 07:47 PM
 
6,843 posts, read 10,956,393 times
Reputation: 8436
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyanti View Post
Demographia's urban area estimate's are a joke.
So are the ones from the United States: List of United States urban areas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So yeah, let's stop defining the urbanization at MSA lines. Give me a reason why that's more justifiable, Los Angeles has thick, wide, continuous development straight into the Inland Empire.

- Logic inspired by our dear, dear, dearest United States government/OMB

LOLANL
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2013, 08:18 PM
 
573 posts, read 1,049,805 times
Reputation: 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by blkgiraffe View Post
Why is having 20 million people in 300 sq miles impressive??? That's horrible!
it's my opinion. Your entitled to your own opinion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2013, 08:29 PM
 
Location: Willowbend/Houston
13,384 posts, read 25,732,359 times
Reputation: 10592
Quote:
Originally Posted by blkgiraffe View Post
Why is having 20 million people in 300 sq miles impressive??? That's horrible!
I would never in a million years live in a city like that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top