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.
although there are some dense parts, cities in the "sunbelt" just aren't that dense compared to other cities
you can argue the importance of density - but you can't argue what density is
you can't say a figure is invalid because a place has more people on less land or even the same amount of people on less land ...... it's not invalid, it's the definition!
harris county is the 3rd most populous county in the nation - however, it only has half the density of suburban nassau county on long island ....... it's about 1/30th as dense as NY county, 1/17th as dense as kings county, 1/10th as dense as queens county and 1/15th as dense as bronx
yes because comparing a city with over 600 sqm to a city with like 90 sqm (probably less) is a good comparison.
doesn't change the fact that it is more dense and not only by a little bit
the comparison comes because the cities are in the top 5 in population - density comes from how that population is allocated
they have different development paterns, barriers, etc that can all influence density
you also have the question of how important is density
but you can't argue against what density is
you can't say that one place is only more dense because it has less land ........well duh - less land and more population will lead to more density - what's your point?!
bexar county has a similar density to monroe county although san antonio has about twice as many people as rochester - just because bexar has more land and more people doesn't change the fact that the density is similar
doesn't change the fact that it is more dense and not only by a little bit
the comparison comes because the cities are in the top 5 in population - density comes from how that population is allocated
they have different development paterns, barriers, etc that can all influence density
you also have the question of how important is density
but you can't argue against what density is
you can't say that one place is only more dense because it has less land ........well duh - less land and more population will lead to more density - what's your point?!
bexar county has a similar density to monroe county although san antonio has about twice as many people as rochester - just because bexar has more land and more people doesn't change the fact that the density is similar
Actually it does. The more land the more the density is averaged with that land. A city with more land may lose its number in density because more land was added to it. It doesnt mean the city itself loses density but the number being recorded does.
if the land is part of the city than that is the cities density
boundaries and land use are issues in how reflective density is of the true situation - however, you cannot change the definition of what density is
if you had a two boxes, both the same size - in one box you stack 1000 pennies into five 200 penny stacks and stick them in the corner you get the same density as if someone used 100 ten penny stacks and spread them out over the whole box ....... the density of pennies in the box is the same, even if one area has higher stacks
or you could have one box that is 2x the times of another and the pennies are distrubuted the same - the box with the tall stacks will have less density, although at it's peak it's more dense and in one given area it's more dense
so that is why you can look at the realities of density - however, you can't argue the actual formula - it is what it is
in this example you'd be hard pressed to find any of the sunbelt cities that have the real density of NY, Chi, Philly, etc
sure those areas are smaller in geography, but that's kind of the point - if they were larger they wouldn't be as dense by definition
you can't put the density of houston and NYC on the same plane - you just can't .......... the numbers are very lopsided and if you look at the distribution behind the #s it doesn't change anything
if the land is part of the city than that is the cities density
boundaries and land use are issues in how reflective density is of the true situation - however, you cannot change the definition of what density is
if you had a two boxes, both the same size - in one box you stack 1000 pennies into five 200 penny stacks and stick them in the corner you get the same density as if someone used 100 ten penny stacks and spread them out over the whole box ....... the density of pennies in the box is the same, even if one area has higher stacks
or you could have one box that is 2x the times of another and the pennies are distrubuted the same - the box with the tall stacks will have less density, although at it's peak it's more dense and in one given area it's more dense
so that is why you can look at the realities of density - however, you can't argue the actual formula - it is what it is
in this example you'd be hard pressed to find any of the sunbelt cities that have the real density of NY, Chi, Philly, etc
sure those areas are smaller in geography, but that's kind of the point - if they were larger they wouldn't be as dense by definition
you can't put the density of Houston and NYC on the same plane - you just can't .......... the numbers are very lopsided and if you look at the distribution behind the #s it doesn't change anything
We all know even if Houston was the same size as NYC, we still wouldn't match it's density (thank god), but your comparing an area that is like 10 times bigger than some of those areas. Texas cities usually have more land than NY cities. Houston is built pretty dense, but we have so much land.
it's not built that dense, not at all when compared to NE cities ...... a big reason why is that it's a newer city an there is a lot of land
it's not like the city has all the population crammed into one giant dense area and then nothing but vacant land surrounding it in the rest of the city limits - there may be some open land and future development, but when a city develops during a time of horse & buggy / early autos it's going to be a lot different than a city that develops after the acceptance of the auto and implementation of the freeway system
it's not built that dense, not at all when compared to NE cities ...... a big reason why is that it's a newer city an there is a lot of land
it's not like the city has all the population crammed into one giant dense area and then nothing but vacant land surrounding it in the rest of the city limits - there may be some open land and future development, but when a city develops during a time of horse & buggy / early autos it's going to be a lot different than a city that develops after the acceptance of the auto and implementation of the freeway system
it's not built that dense, not at all when compared to NE cities ...... a big reason why is that it's a newer city an there is a lot of land
it's not like the city has all the population crammed into one giant dense area and then nothing but vacant land surrounding it in the rest of the city limits - there may be some open land and future development, but when a city develops during a time of horse & buggy / early autos it's going to be a lot different than a city that develops after the acceptance of the auto and implementation of the freeway system
not saying it's good or bad, it is what it is
See the difference between NYC and HOU is that NYC builds up, while Houston builds out ( Of course it would considering it encompasses so much land) However, Houston does not waste any space and is known to throw in all types of developments in small areas.
To say this isn't density is crazy:
You also missed it when Rachael stated that even NYC's suburbs are much more dense than Houston. Of course they are when you throw in land size, and also the fact that NYC suburbs aren't made up of high-rises like NYC. Comparing the density of Houston to NYC is crazy, but the suburbs to Houston just isn't a good comparison imo.
See the difference between NYC and HOU is that NYC builds up, while Houston builds out ( Of course it would considering it encompasses so much land) However, Houston does not waste any space and is known to throw in all types of developments in small areas.
To say this isn't density is crazy:
You also missed it when Rachael stated that even NYC's suburbs are much more dense than Houston. Of course they are when you throw in land size, and also the fact that NYC suburbs aren't made up of high-rises like NYC. Comparing the density of Houston to NYC is crazy, but the suburbs to Houston just isn't a good comparison imo.
True dat, True dat.
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.
and humid in the east 
.
