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)
 
Old 10-07-2020, 01:01 AM
 
1,449 posts, read 2,190,218 times
Reputation: 1494

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne999 View Post
Before even opening this thread I assumed Boston would be top 6 easily. Three is hardly boosting..density is what Boston does
I would say Boston is number 5, its just not ahead of Philadelphia or San Francisco.

Added this chart because this is relevant to this discussion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-07-2020, 01:11 AM
 
Location: Katy,Texas
6,476 posts, read 4,079,302 times
Reputation: 4522
Thanks Boston Shudra, for the tool. The dude never said it's definitive so all you folk out there arguing like he said it is don't make sense.

The densest I could find for Houston

77036, Sharpstown- 435,162
77074, Braeburn- 415,452
77081, Gulfton- 392,048,

Uptown is probably the true center of the denser part of Houston but it's very close to a large park and lower density mansions, which will throw of the tools. Gulfton is still very close to said park so Sharpstown has the best overall numbers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2020, 01:22 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles
5,864 posts, read 15,250,592 times
Reputation: 6767
Quote:
Originally Posted by nephi215 View Post
I'm not surprised. Sometimes LA can be depicted as the second 2nd most dense large city from a purely statistical standpoint. Its just that LA is not that dense in a traditional urban sense leading (due to LA autocentric and architectural attributes for example) to the overwhelming well reasonably supported subjective views of LA's lack of urbanity.
I lived back east and quite familiar with those cities. LA looks different architecturally but it's quite dense and urban in the 50 square miles we're talking about.
Those 960,000 people live somewhere within those boundaries.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2020, 03:37 AM
 
1,394 posts, read 862,618 times
Reputation: 771
Quote:
Originally Posted by nephi215 View Post
I would say Boston is number 5, its just not ahead of Philadelphia or San Francisco.

Added this chart because this is relevant to this discussion.
Here’s what you’re missing. This thread doesn’t say city limits. Picking an area code in back bay allows Boston to exclude its least dense areas (West Roxbury) and include Cambridge, Somerville, other high density urban suburbs. For purposes of this thread I’d say your graph depicting only city limits is even more misleading than Boston shudras tool.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2020, 04:15 AM
 
Location: Chicago
4,745 posts, read 5,577,999 times
Reputation: 6009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Losfrisco View Post
If you start from a radius that makes sense in Los Angeles like 90005 (Koreatown), you get 960,000 which puts L.A. behind NYC (where it belongs) with Chicago a pretty distant third. If someone doesn’t think that is fair, we still get over 900,000 from 90017 (DTLA).
Actually, Los Angeles is a very distant number two and much closer to Chicago in this metric than it is to New York.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2020, 05:16 AM
 
2,305 posts, read 1,716,165 times
Reputation: 2282
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwright1 View Post
It should look like this:

1) NYC (pop 1,997,622 & zip 11211)

2) Los Angeles (pop 960,000 & zip 90005)

3) Chicago (pop 831,738 & zip 60612)

4) Boston (pop 713,858 & zip 02116)
5) Philadelphia (pop 680,939 & zip 19123)
6) San Francisco (pop 658,482 & zip 94102)
7) Washington, DC (pop 551,330 & zip 20005)

8) Baltimore (pop 405,989 & zip 21201)
9) Miami (pop 396,418 & zip 33128)
10) Minneapolis (pop 348,762 & zip 55402)
Seattle zip code 98103 has 410,000 so that would.put it at number 8, above Baltimore. But I think a lot of these could have zip codes that are more optimal.

Last edited by Vincent_Adultman; 10-07-2020 at 05:27 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2020, 05:36 AM
 
2,305 posts, read 1,716,165 times
Reputation: 2282
Quote:
Originally Posted by nephi215 View Post
I would say Boston is number 5, its just not ahead of Philadelphia or San Francisco.

Added this chart because this is relevant to this discussion.
What year is that data from? If it's 2010 or even one of the ACS 5-year rolling averages, Seattle is going to look very different now. In 2010 Seattle had 608K people for an average density of 7,200 ppsm. In 2020 in has 775K for an average density of 9,200 ppsm. I'd be curious what the chart would look like now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2020, 06:36 AM
 
Location: OC
12,851 posts, read 9,583,014 times
Reputation: 10641
Welp though Boston Sudra was bringing real days but maybe he’s another East coaster that doesn’t like Seattle? Lived in both Seattle and Denver. Seattle felt denser all around
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2020, 07:56 AM
 
Location: Baltimore
21,650 posts, read 12,800,939 times
Reputation: 11226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guineas View Post
Basically Boston Shudra's method is a bunch of BS and easily manipulated by whichever zipcode you pick, especially in cities with large bodies of water.

I'm still laughing that he is here arguing with a straight face that Seattle has about the same 50 sq mi urban mass as Milwaukee.
then just pick whatever zip code you want really. But I get it- density/settlement isnt only circular.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2020, 08:08 AM
 
Location: Baltimore
21,650 posts, read 12,800,939 times
Reputation: 11226
Quote:
Originally Posted by nephi215 View Post
I would say Boston is number 5, its just not ahead of Philadelphia or San Francisco.

Added this chart because this is relevant to this discussion.
That chart makes sense but when you take the 50 square miles around downtown Bostons core that number will go up some. You'd have to include the cities to the north of downtown. I could see either city winning on various metrics cs but i do agree I feel Philly has a more urban 50 square miles. Boston has cooler bridges, tunnels, skywalks etc but Philly residentially/structurally is tough to top.
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