U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-04-2009, 11:53 AM
 
Location: Piedmont, CA/São Paulo, Brazil
33,613 posts, read 57,616,696 times
Reputation: 16763

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago60614 View Post
Nice. Do you know where those come from?
Onboard LLC(Its a paid service)
Onboard Informatics: Providing Real Estate Data, Content, Local Information and Technology Services
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-04-2009, 12:04 PM
 
Location: Somerville, MA
8,962 posts, read 17,076,375 times
Reputation: 10519
Quote:
Originally Posted by nature's message View Post
Dhaka is pretty small (about 154 km²) but INSANELY dense. It's like 113,000/sq mi (43,000/km²).
Good point. I spent 2 days in Dhaka (my sister swam competitively for an International School in Chennai, India) and noticed the density there. It's a VERY different set up though. In those Southeast Asian countries, people tend to live in a much smaller square footage than we do here in the U.S. in even our most densely populated cities. In fact, it's not uncommon for people over there to be living 6 or more in less than 500 square feet and that's "comfortable" to them. It's a real interesting contrast from how we live.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2009, 03:13 PM
 
Location: Cardboard box
1,909 posts, read 3,398,074 times
Reputation: 1328
I don't see what density means in relevance to SF's 'importance'. All that means is there is alot of people in a small space. There are suburbs of NYC that are statistically more dense than SF.

Sf culturally, politically, and economically is not relevant at all. Everything relevant is in Silicon Valley. No politicians make it to the executive level, from SF... too looney(nancy pelosi ring a bell). Most people doubt SF's mayor will even be able to become governor in the next election.

Infact the only thing that I think that is relevant about SF is that the largest plurality of people are Asian. I think that's pretty neat but come on the only people who care about SF are people in SF. Heck most people in Oakland and San Jose really don't care much for SF.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2009, 03:26 PM
 
177 posts, read 440,111 times
Reputation: 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
Simple Division reveals a lot.

Population Density Per Square Mile
Chicago
Rogers Park 34,315
Lakeview 30,015
Edgewater 22,783
Uptown 27,511
humbolt park 27,689
Near North 26,768
Logan Square 25,608
hermosa 22,998
Lincoln Park 20,163
Avondale 21,541
West Ridge 20,736
south lawndale 20,511
belmont craigin 19,833
Near West 19,132
Lincoln Square 17,343
Lower West 15,725
North Center 15,408


Population Density Per Square Mile
San Francisco
Tenderloin 87,037
Lower Nob Hill 86,345
Chinatown 66,645
Nob Hill 58,432
Downtown 55,099
Little Saigon 52,431
Polk Gulch 44,430
NOMA 43,184
Telegraph Hill 46,618
North Beach 38,726
Hayes Valley 36,699
Alamo Square 35,291
NOPA 32,041
Russian Hill 31,634
Lower Pacific Heights 30,830
Noe Valley 26,030
Pacific Heights 25,344
Castro 22,040
Civic Center 20,070
Duboce Triange 20,351
These numbers seem completely innaccurate. Besides, nowhere in Chicago is there an officaly census-defined neighborhood less than 1 square mile. All you are doing is taking extremely small areas, less than .5 sq miles, and comparing them with Chicago census tracts 1-4 sq miles. Apples to oranges. With chicago you could take east lakeview, or just the gold coast which is likely close to 70k/sq mile, but only .5-1sq mile. Not big enough for a census tract either, but pumps up the numbers to manhattan levels quite nicely as well.

Actually, this are your numbers:

San Francisco:
Neighborhood /Population (Census 2000) /Area /Density
Chinatown /13,716 /0.26 /52,754
Polk/Russian Hill (Nob Hill) /56,322 /1.23 /45,790
Hayes Valley/Tenderloin/North of Market /28,991 /0.65 /44,602
North Beach/Chinatown /26,827 /0.67 /40,040
Inner Mission/Bernal Heights /74,633 /2.37 /31,491
Western Addition/Japantown /33,115 /1.12 /29,567
Haight-Ashbury /38,738 /1.41 /27,474
Marina /22,903 /1 /22,903
Castro/Noe Valley /30,574 /1.36 /22,481
Ingelside-Excelsior/Crocker-Amazon /73,104 /3.28 /22,288
Inner Richmond /38,939 /1.79 /21,754
Sunset /55,492 /3.09 /17,959
South of Market /23,016 /1.33 /17,305
Visitacion Valley/Sunnydale /40,134 /2.33 /17,225
Parkside/Forest Hill /42,958 /2.55 /16,846
Outer Richmond /42,473 /2.96 /14,349
Twin Peaks-Glen Park /27,897 /2.14 /13,036
St. Francis Wood/Miraloma/West Portal /20,624 /1.88 /10,970
Lake Merced /26,291 /3.57 /7,364
Potrero Hill /17,368 /2.46 /7,060
Bayview-Hunters Point /33,170 /4.84 /6,853
ZCTA 94105 /2,058 /0.34 /6,053
ZCTA 94111 /2,727 /0.51 /5,347
ZCTA 94104 /374 /0.08 /4,675
ZCTA 94131 /1,453 /0.9 /1,614
ZCTA 94129 /2,228 /2.37 /940
ZCTA 94128 /0 /3.45 /0
TOTAL /776,125 /49.94 /15,541

source: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet...ZI-1&-_lang=en

I can post Chicagos full numbers as well, but its a long list and the point has been made. Still, the densest tracts for San Francisco are comparitively very smaller than Chicagos densest, as many have been saying all along.

Chicago's densest tracts (Census 2000):
Neighborhood /Population /Size (Sq Miles) /Density
Near North Side /72,811 /1.5 /48,541
Edgewater /62,198 /1.7 /36,587
Rogers Park /63,484 /1.8 /35,269
Lake View /94,817 /3.1 /30,586
Albany Park /57,655 /1.9 /30,345

Source: census 2000

Bottom line, I like SF a lot and it has very dense areas, and is dense by American standards, but it is not 'insane', nor is it rare for American big cities like Chicago, (and im sure) Philly, Boston and even LA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2009, 03:29 PM
 
53,689 posts, read 48,659,809 times
Reputation: 16726
So what if SF is dense, there alot to do, a good trolley system, and more walkable than many cities. It's not NYC, but in its own way its like the NYC of the West. Dense cities that can be fun. Places like NYC, Tokyo, SF,etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2009, 04:07 PM
 
Location: Cardboard box
1,909 posts, read 3,398,074 times
Reputation: 1328
Sfs transit is laughable. The trollies and Muni are really nothing more than glorified buses with zero carbon emission. Thats all thats really cool about them, zero carbon...yay. Bart isnt so hot..doesn't really go anywhere. Caltrain is about all that makes sense if you ask me. Sf is walkable in parts, but I don't really consider a city a good walkable city when you have to scale multiple hills in the course of walking a mile. Not fun. The density is all that really makes SF urban. With out it, it really isn't much of a city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2009, 04:26 PM
 
210 posts, read 785,701 times
Reputation: 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by LakeShoreSoxGo View Post
Sfs transit is laughable. The trollies and Muni are really nothing more than glorified buses with zero carbon emission. Thats all thats really cool about them, zero carbon...yay. Bart isnt so hot..doesn't really go anywhere. Caltrain is about all that makes sense if you ask me. Sf is walkable in parts, but I don't really consider a city a good walkable city when you have to scale multiple hills in the course of walking a mile. Not fun. The density is all that really makes SF urban. With out it, it really isn't much of a city.
You are such a hater. Stop bashing nor cal man.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2009, 06:18 PM
 
Location: Piedmont, CA/São Paulo, Brazil
33,613 posts, read 57,616,696 times
Reputation: 16763
Quote:
Originally Posted by roboto View Post
Besides, nowhere in Chicago is there an officaly census-defined neighborhood less than 1 square mile. All you are doing is taking extremely small areas, less than .5 sq miles, and comparing them with Chicago census tracts 1-4 sq miles.
Actually I just tallied numbers provided by Chicago60614.

Quote:
Apples to oranges. With chicago you could take east lakeview, or just the gold coast which is likely close to 70k/sq mile, but only .5-1sq mile. Not big enough for a census tract either, but pumps up the numbers to manhattan levels quite nicely as well.
San Francisco doesnt need to pump up numbers. Its just really dense at its densest areas.

Quote:
Bottom line, I like SF a lot and it has very dense areas, and is dense by American standards, but it is not 'insane', nor is it rare for American big cities like Chicago, (and im sure) Philly, Boston and even LA.
But SF is more dense than all of the above mentioned cities. Whether or not its 'insane' is really subjective.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2009, 06:19 PM
 
Location: Piedmont, CA/São Paulo, Brazil
33,613 posts, read 57,616,696 times
Reputation: 16763
Quote:
Originally Posted by LakeShoreSoxGo View Post
Sfs transit is laughable. The trollies and Muni are really nothing more than glorified buses with zero carbon emission. Thats all thats really cool about them, zero carbon...yay. Bart isnt so hot..doesn't really go anywhere. Caltrain is about all that makes sense if you ask me. Sf is walkable in parts, but I don't really consider a city a good walkable city when you have to scale multiple hills in the course of walking a mile. Not fun. The density is all that really makes SF urban. With out it, it really isn't much of a city.
LOL...you mean there are truly urban cities that arent densely populated? Such as where?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2009, 06:32 PM
 
Location: Lower East Side, Milwaukee, WI
2,945 posts, read 4,342,456 times
Reputation: 1113
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
LOL...you mean there are truly urban cities that arent densely populated? Such as where?
Phoenix, Houston, Denver, Charlotte, Orlando, Atlanta, Nashville, Dallas, Albuquerque, Kansas City, San Antonio, Las Vegas, Memphis, Indianapolis, Portland, Austin, Oklahoma City, Tampa, Little Rock, Louisville, Salt Lake City, Omaha... Pretty much the entire Southern US, the Great Plains, and all of the Rocky Mountain states.
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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, 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