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.
^^^So autocentric density in one of the world's greatest/largest cities. That doesn't speak "urban" to me; quite the contrary.
I never said anything about "urban." I said it's a fact that's it's denser. Does it get any more objective than taking total population and dividing it by land area? It's a very straightforward statement of fact.
The issue here is whether the appropriate denominators are 468 and 61. Personally, I don't think either tells you the true density of either city as Los Angeles easily whips DC from 0.01 square miles up to 61 square miles. It's only until you get to maybe square mile 300 or so that Los Angeles slowly loses its density advantage vis-a-vis DC.
There's no "logic" to it. It's simply fact. Los Angeles is much, much denser than Florence.
Honestly, I think this all very mindblowing for you because Los Angeles is rather auto-centric. But that has nothing do with measuring density. The only relevant question is how many people are there in a similarly-sized area.
We need to be able to look beyond arbitrary political boundaries to see just how dense cities really are. Using invisible lines as a cut off doesn't change the reality.
How's LA "much, much denser" than Florence when Florence has a higher average density? I am totally lost.
I never said anything about "urban." I said it's a fact that's it's denser. Does it get any more objective than taking total population and dividing it by land area? It's a very straightforward statement of fact.
The issue here is whether the appropriate denominators are 468 and 61. Personally, I don't think either tells you the true density of either city as Los Angeles easily whips DC from 0.01 square miles up to 61 square miles. It's only until you get to maybe square mile 300 or so that Los Angeles slowly loses its density advantage vis-a-vis DC.
Exactly, now we are getting somewhere. Florence is about 9,600/sq mile while Los Angeles is 8,200/sq mile. So I am still confused how you concluded that LA is "much much denser".
Exactly, now we are getting somewhere. Tyne City of Florence is about 9,600/sq miles while the City of Los Angeles is 8,200/sq mile. So I am still confused how you concluded that LA is "much much denser".
Because Los Angeles has more than double the population of Florence in the same land area. I don't have stats for Florence but I would suspect that LA has higher peak densities as well. Los Angeles also has much higher peak densities than DC.
The only way your argument would have any substance is if DC had, say, a 10 square mile area (its core) that was denser than LA's 46 square mile area. But it doesn't. LA has higher peak densities than DC and sustains higher densities all the way throughout its MSA. It's just that DC's 61 square miles is denser than LA's 468, but that's frankly a very rigid way of looking at it, imo.
Because Los Angeles has more than double the population of Florence in the same land area. I don't have stats for Florence but I would suspect that LA has higher peak densities as well. Los Angeles also has much higher peak densities than DC.
The only way your argument would have any substance is if DC had, say, a 10 square mile area (its core) that was denser than LA's 46 square mile area. But it doesn't. LA has higher peak densities than DC and sustains higher densities all the way throughout its MSA. It's just that DC's 61 square miles is denser than LA's 468, but that's frankly a very rigid way of looking at it, imo.
If you had said that "the highest density 40 sq miles of LA are much much denser than Florence" then I would agree with you. But that's not what you said. You said "LA is much much denser than Florence". If you are gonna say that then you can't just look at its highest density area while ignoring the rest! You are absolutely right on one thing -- this a simple question of empirical fact. Except you are contradicting yourself. The FACT is that the City of Florence has a higher population density than the City of Los Angeles. Period. I am not sure where there can be room for disagreement on this.
I think people confuse "density" with "urban". Two separate concepts that often have correlation, but not always. A city like LA is one of the relatively few where density doesn't necessarily correspond with urbanity. Not to say it's not urban at all, but it's definitely not Top 5, and I wouldn't put it over DC, or Seattle, for #6. In terms of autocentric cities with high density, it's much more urban than Miami. I'll give it that.
Who is talking about peak density though? If you had said that "the highest density 40 sq miles of LA are much much denser than Florence" then I would agree with you. But that's not what you said. You said "LA is much much denser than Florence". If you are gonna say that then you can't just look at its highest density area while ignoring the rest! You are absolutely right on one thing -- this a simple question of empirical fact. Except you are contradicting yourself. The FACT is that the City of Florence has a higher population density than the City of Los Angeles. Period. I am not sure where there can be room for disagreement on this.
LOL. Okay.
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.
