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.
LA population density is a little distorted due to very large average household size. Its household density is just 2,800 per sq mile, lower than Seattle at 3,700/sq mile, and much lower than San Francisco at 7,800/sq mile.
Is this for city limits? Los Angeles is many times larger than San Francisco and Seattle, incorporating hundreds of sq miles of bedroom communities those latter two cities do not.
Household size
Los Angeles (city): 2.83
San Francisco/Oakland/Fremont: 2.65
Seattle/Tacoma/Bellevue: 2.48
Even if we controlled for household size, Los Angeles is significantly more dense than San Francisco and FAR more dense than the Seattle region.
For a more equal comparison:
Los Angeles(city) (3.8 million, 8300ppsm)
San Francisco UA: (3.3 million, 6300ppsm)
Seattle UA: (3.1 million, 3000ppsm)
In fact, "locals" actually AVOID such streets, typically.
Yeah, it depends though. Sometimes it's unavoidable and it depends really. I live a few blocks west of Michigan Avenue and if I need to get somewhere east of it, then I'll walk along a parallel street for as long as possible. However, there are sometimes where I just take a stroll down Michigan Ave when a lot of people are out.
This thread is about any street though and there are streets in Chicago that get a lot of traffic. Not necessarily the level of Michigan Avenue but still pretty good. On a nice summer weekend day/evening, go from Rush & Chestnut and walk up Rush to Division Street. You'll know what I'm talking about. The area of State, Bellevue, and Rush can get very vibrant.
That's definitely not true. SF is denser than LA by any reasonable measure. SF has significantly more people living in high density than LA.
I rarely agree with NOLA101, but I have to here, it's pretty obvious by any metric the city of San Francisco is almost infinitely more dense than the city of Los Angeles. Facts back that up.
I don't know the stats, but I'd wager that even when comparing the MSA of each city San Francisco still has a higher density. San Francisco is almost twice the density of Chicago.
Yeah, it depends though. Sometimes it's unavoidable and it depends really. I live a few blocks west of Michigan Avenue and if I need to get somewhere east of it, then I'll walk along a parallel street for as long as possible. However, there are sometimes where I just take a stroll down Michigan Ave when a lot of people are out.
This thread is about any street though and there are streets in Chicago that get a lot of traffic. Not necessarily the level of Michigan Avenue but still pretty good. On a nice summer weekend day/evening, go from Rush & Chestnut and walk up Rush to Division Street. You'll know what I'm talking about. The area of State, Bellevue, and Rush can get very vibrant.
State street does see a lot of foot traffic from what I've noticed. And residential housing in a downtown area is only going to promote more foot traffic overall. The locals knowing the area and in their own routine will likely always avoid the busier streets, but the streets they frequent are also frequented by other locals, which is still going to add to the overall number of pedestrians traversing a city's streets.
I rarely agree with NOLA101, but I have to here, it's pretty obvious by any metric the city of San Francisco is almost infinitely more dense than the city of Los Angeles. Facts back that up.
I don't know the stats, but I'd wager that even when comparing the MSA of each city San Francisco still has a higher density. San Francisco is almost twice the density of Chicago.
Where are you getting your information on this?
NEI has a really great graph that shows household density moving from the core to the periphery. IFIRC it shows Los Angeles is slightly below Chicago and SF, right up there with Boston and Philly, and way, way ahead of Seattle.
That Market Street study is pretty astounding. According to the graph on p. 16, Market gets over 63,000 on Saturdays and over 56,000 on weekdays. Market benefits from really wide sidewalks, being both a business hub and tourist hub, and being where more than 100,000 people pour off BART. The study is also over five years old. With the growth of SF and mid-Market (with Twitter HQ, etc.), I'm sure it's gotten even more crowded.
But the most remarkable number in that study is Embarcadero by Pier 39 on Saturdays: almost 84,000!
That's definitely not true. SF is denser than LA by any reasonable measure. SF has significantly more people living in high density than LA.
It depends where you put the cut-off for high density. If you put it at 75K or 100K then SF wins by a decent margin. If you put it at 30K or 40K, LA wins by a decent margin. If you put it at 50K the cities are about equal
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.
