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.
Via Twitter, New Jersey now has two 100K+ tracts, as well.
Tract 31.01 in Jersey City, aka The Beacon and fka JC Medical Center, has 106,325 ppsm.
Tract 150.01 on the Guttenberg waterfront has 102,670 ppsm.
Guttenberg / Bulls Ferry waterfront is a good example of why census tracts are basically meaningless. It's not a walkable area. You need to drive to the grocery store. It's right along a highway. People live there looking for a suburban-ish lifestyle, but still have access to manhattan. obviously the pop density is so high because of the galaxy towers, but I struggle to see the appeal of somewhere like that outside of the view from the high up floors (I get why the townhouses are popular, having a small backyard and the ferry there is a big boon for those that want that).
Peak density by census tract density is one of the most pointless metrics considering most of the ”most dense” tracts are super small with a purely arbitrary size of 1-3 square blocks that are projected to a much larger full square mile density. If you actually want to discuss peak neighborhood population per square mile density, then zip code density would be a more appropriate metric because zipcodes are typically much larger and many are the actual size of a square mile or even larger square miles.
Post the tract sizes! It's hard to get an idea of whether it's an odd statistical anomaly for single-buidling or complex tracts in a tiny area without tract size.
Peak tracts are usually small because they try to keep tract populations within a certain range. While it's an unfair measurement for a bunch of reasons, zips are no better...zip codes often have a dense spot and a not-dense spot, and are just as arbitrary. It's useful to measure peaks too.
A decade ago there were threads where people aggregated large areas that were collectively above minimum densities, or contiguous areas of similar size. A lot of interesting comparisons are possible. But for a second it's fun to just see where we stand.
Peak density by census tract density is one of the most pointless metrics considering most of the ”most dense” tracts are super small with a purely arbitrary size of 1-3 square blocks that are projected to a much larger full square mile density.
Every boundary will be "purely arbitrary" in some sense. ZIP boundaries, city boundaries, state boundaries, country boundaries, most continent boundaries, heck even the boundary between the earth and outer space -- they're all arbitrary, so why bother getting upset?
Tracts are meant to be small -- just a few thousand people -- and most importantly, they're basically the only comparable geometries that exist at that scale.
In the instance I posted above, the tract contains five blocks which are mostly high-rise residential. It's nice to know that this compares favorably to other high-rise residential areas.
Peak tracts are usually small because they try to keep tract populations within a certain range. While it's an unfair measurement for a bunch of reasons, zips are no better...zip codes often have a dense spot and a not-dense spot, and are just as arbitrary. It's useful to measure peaks too.
A decade ago there were threads where people aggregated large areas that were collectively above minimum densities, or contiguous areas of similar size. A lot of interesting comparisons are possible. But for a second it's fun to just see where we stand.
I think people like ZIP codes because they give you a better feel for the area. As opposed to where 3 rather large apartment building happen to be like tracts.
Because Parkland for example, is land that impacts how congested an area feels. (In fact that’s the design purpose of parks)
Every boundary will be "purely arbitrary" in some sense. ZIP boundaries, city boundaries, state boundaries, country boundaries, most continent boundaries, heck even the boundary between the earth and outer space -- they're all arbitrary, so why bother getting upset?
Tracts are meant to be small -- just a few thousand people -- and most importantly, they're basically the only comparable geometries that exist at that scale.
In the instance I posted above, the tract contains five blocks which are mostly high-rise residential. It's nice to know that this compares favorably to other high-rise residential areas.
I think tracts have some usefulness as a unit of measure in terms of looking at which neighborhoods produce the most density the most effectively. But I think it's important to also acknowledge that they are really just one piece of a large urban puzzle. For one, they're definitely not intended to show broader trends of city's density in a holistic sense.
Two four-block tracts east of Rittenhouse Square in Philadelphia just below the 100K mark:
8.05: 92,754
8.06: 95,593
So close!
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.
