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.
It's not "manipulated."
The poster specifically stated that if we know of better zip codes to center the radius around, to post it (I did for Tampa and Orlando.)
Most cities have barriers too, whether water or forest/swamp. Orlando has a million lakes and massive inhabitable swamps, Tampa has a giant bay, Miami has the Everglades AND Biscayne Bay, making it just as "longitudinal" as Seattle.
I don't see the issue.
My goodness... What's the deal with Seattle posters? I thought Nashville was bad.
Seattle posters reacted differently than others who did what was asked and plotted for themselves.
I did plot for myself and found a zip code (98103) that added 100K and put Seattle at #8, above Baltimore but below DC, which is probably about right.
That said, there are definitely some water-oriented cities that are majorly disadvantaged by this method, with Seattle as an isthmus being at the top of that list.
I prefer just looking at population density, which you can calculate using census tracts if you want to include areas that don't align with city boundaries. All I know is between 2010 and 2020 Seattle went from 7,300 ppsm to nearly 9,500 ppsm.
I did plot for myself and found a zip code (98103) that added 100K and put Seattle at #8, above Baltimore but below DC, which is probably about right.
That said, there are definitely some water-oriented cities that are majorly disadvantaged by this method, with Seattle as an isthmus being at the top of that list.
I prefer just looking at population density, which you can calculate using census tracts if you want to include areas that don't align with city boundaries. All I know is between 2010 and 2020 Seattle went from 7,300 ppsm to nearly 9,500 ppsm.
Boston's downtown is right on the water so I hear you. Nothing much east of downtown really.
Population density tells us its 1.NYC 2.SF 3.Boston.
Miami and Minneapolis are out of the top 10, unless someone knows denser zip starting points.
Miami shouldn't have to do any explaining for itself because it already has 470,000 people in less land area by its small (36m2) city limits alone.
This 50m2 circle thing is arbitrary and statistically diminishes cities that have their densest development along substantial bodies of water.
Certainly one can pull back the circle to be out of the water in Miami, but that means that it doesn't capture the densest parts of it since that action would center the circle around less dense areas, while only capturing a fraction of the densest parts. Isn't the point to understand the how large and dense the cores of these cities are, or is this just a game being played to elevate some cities over others for homer egos?
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.
