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.
That would favor DC substantially because DC has the lowest intensity outer neighborhoods in comparison to the rest of the list dominated by large single family homes. The inner 36 square miles is very dense. Also, losing Rock Creek park and many of the military bases would really increase density numbers.
so in this list which in the core 36 would be less benefited when compared to DC?
so in this list which in the core 36 would be less benefited when compared to DC?
NYC
LA
Chicago
SF
Philly
Boston
I don't know if DC would pass any of those cities, but the gap would close by a pretty wide margin. Many of these cities have a 2,000-1,000 people per square mile lead on DC in total city density. Also, DC has added more housing in the core than any of them other than NYC since the 2010 census and I don't think it's close.
so in this list which in the core 36 would be less benefited when compared to DC?
NYC
LA
Chicago
SF
Philly
Boston
Here is a website that will allow you to compare cities from any area you choose. I believe D.C. from the MidCity/U street neighborhood going out a mile is denser than any area in all of Philadelphia. Correct me if I'm wrong though.
I don't know if DC would pass any of those cities, but the gap would close by a pretty wide margin. Many of these cities have a 2,000-1,000 people per square mile lead on DC in total city density. Also, DC has added more housing in the core than any of them other than NYC since the 2010 census and I don't think it's close.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDAllstar
Here is a website that will allow you to compare cities from any area you choose. I believe D.C. from the MidCity/U street neighborhood going out a mile is denser than any area in all of Philadelphia. Correct me if I'm wrong though.
I don't know if DC would pass any of those cities, but the gap would close by a pretty wide margin. Many of these cities have a 2,000-1,000 people per square mile lead on DC in total city density. Also, DC has added more housing in the core than any of them other than NYC since the 2010 census and I don't think it's close.
DC has added 57,170 people since 2010 Census. Using that compound daily growth rate, DC in 2020 could reach over 750K people and have a density of 12,241 ppsm.
Using the same methodology for San Francisco, which has added 47,234 people since the 2010 Census and could reach 920K people by 2020, the lead SF has now on density (which is 7,457 ppsm) could be reduced to 7,378 ppsm.
The same growth rate gets DC almost to 950K by 2030, which in 61.4 sq mi compared to SF's area of 46.87 sq mi is still going to be less dense then than SF is now by a margin of nearly 3k ppsm.
You'll have to shoot for Boston, Philly, and Chicago. The latter two are stagnant in population or even losing population in Chicago's case (well, Chicago's core county...).
DC has added 57,170 people since 2010 Census. Using that compound daily growth rate, DC in 2020 could reach over 750K people and have a density of 12,241 ppsm.
Using the same methodology for San Francisco, which has added 47,234 people since the 2010 Census and could reach 920K people by 2020, the lead SF has now on density (which is 7,457 ppsm) could be reduced to 7,378 ppsm.
The same growth rate gets DC almost to 950K by 2030, which in 61.4 sq mi compared to SF's area of 46.87 sq mi is still going to be less dense then than SF is now by a margin of nearly 3k ppsm.
You'll have to shoot for Boston, Philly, and Chicago. The latter two are stagnant in population or even losing population in Chicago's case (well, Chicago's core county...).
I agree, I was not talking about San Fran or NYC. They are way denser than DC and their development is more compact. I was talking about Boston and Philly. Mainly Philly though.
It's your burden of proof, please back up your assumption with data.
2010 Census Data for 14th and V street, NW Washington D.C.
Total Population: 96,494 people
Population Density: 31,200 people per square mile
Land Area Sq. Miles: 3 miles
That core area is ground zero for D.C. development. I guess we will see how many people this part of the city has added by 2020. My guess is over 40,000 people.
2010 Census Data for 14th and V street, NW Washington D.C.
Total Population: 96,494 people
Population Density: 31,200 people per square mile
Land Area Sq. Miles: 3 miles
That core area is ground zero for D.C. development. I guess we will see how many people this part of the city has added by 2020. My guess is over 40,000 people.
actually building out from 19147 (Really Broad and Christian) by tract
at 2.9 sq miles 118K and 41K ppsm
at 3.1 sq miles 122K and 40K ppsm
at 4.1 sq miles 149K and 37K ppsm
And you believe 30K people will move into that 3 sq mile area in 5 years? (while the area already already has impressive density and is growing at last years run rate for all of the DC that would represent nearly 65% of people moving into DC? Sometimes your math and projections confuse me to be honest)
Edit - saw you removed the reference that no area in Philly would surpass that density in 3 sq miles - but yes there are - I stopped at 4 sq miles aggregating tracts
Last edited by kidphilly; 03-26-2015 at 07:45 AM..
I agree, I was not talking about San Fran or NYC. They are way denser than DC and their development is more compact. I was talking about Boston and Philly. Mainly Philly though.
if DC continues to boom for another decade or more it may pass Philly and Chicago on average city density - doubtful on Boston as like DC its small sq mile wise relatively and Boston is denser. I don't see DC being more dense then Philly or Chicago if either of those were limited to 60 sq miles in their core - Philly and Chicago today are over 1 million in their core 50-60 sq miles - both are today more dense SF in the same core footprint when compared to SF at ~48 sq miles. So yes as a city could be denser but the land area of Philly is more than twice that of DC and chicago is more than 3 times larger in terms of total land area
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.
