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.
If this was density, SF would have a sharper taller peak.
Minneapolis would have been taller than DFW etc.
Although the map says it is density, it is clear that it shows metro totals. Dunno why people would be proud of the density based on chart. All you have to do is look up the relative densities and you can see that DFW would not be the tallest peak in the south. It has the most people in the south, the densest?? nope.
To the points earlier it is density of space but not in small incements, why SF doesnt peak higher but proxity population. Why Philly looks larger than DFW or DC or Hosuton
Why Detroit looks large and the area around cleveland goes head to head with a place like Houston; because as many people live as close.
This is actually a very interesting visual. It is density but not to the tract but spacial
Does DFW really have that many more people in the area when compared to Houston, it looks it on the map. And Atlanta, wow, is soooooo spread when this is apllied relative to a Houston or DFW. it looks more like charlotte
This map looks like 25 or sq mile chunks on density not tracts
This probably does do a better job visually than just about any other visual on where population is in the broader sense,
It's obvious NY is the largest followed by LA and Chicago closely after with the next being either SF, Boston, or Philly then DC, Houston, Miami, Dallas, Seattle, Detroit. Again Atlanta is looking rather small for its size in 2000 compared to Miami/Houston/Dallas/DC IMO. Why is that?
I'll have to look at this on the laptop, because right now I am looking at it on my Pad and it is no where near as impressive as the OP, even if it is 10 years more recent!
To the points earlier it is density of space but not in small incements, why SF doesnt peak higher but proxity population. Why Philly looks larger than DFW or DC or Hosuton
Why Detroit looks large and the area around cleveland goes head to head with a place like Houston; because as many people live as close.
This is actually a very interesting visual. It is density but not to the tract but spacial
Does DFW really have that many more people in the area when compared to Houston, it looks it on the map. And Atlanta, wow, is soooooo spread when this is apllied relative to a Houston or DFW. it looks more like charlotte
This map looks like 25 or sq mile chunks on density not tracts
This probably does do a better job visually than just about any other visual on where population is in the broader sense,
the commentary itself says this reflects the city's population, not its density. The only density comparison you can draw from that map is the density of peaks, as in the number in the east vs the west.
a more populated city will have a taller peak. Common sense
the commentary itself says this reflects the city's population, not its density. The only density comparison you can draw from that map is the density of peaks, as in the number in the east vs the west.
a more populated city will have a taller peak. Common sense
Actually less about the city or even metro this more purely shows how many people live in an area regardless of any census lines on a map and their relative concentration
It's obvious NY is the largest followed by LA and Chicago closely after with the next being either SF, Boston, or Philly then DC, Houston, Miami, Dallas, Seattle, Detroit. Again Atlanta is looking rather small for its size in 2000 compared to Miami/Houston/Dallas/DC IMO. Why is that?
Are you sure it is from 1990? DC would make zero sense as it has grown dramatically since then, this map shows it just below Philly which would align with 2010 and not 1990.
I looked for the reference and all I could find was 2010; which in looking at the data it makes FAR more sense for 2010 than 1990 on a number of cities
Actually less about the city or even metro this more purely shows how many people live in an area regardless of any census lines on a map and their relative concentration
well yeah you can put it that way. same thing
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly
Are you sure it is from 1990? DC would make zero sense as it has grown dramatically since then, this map shows it just below Philly which would align with 2010 and not 1990.
I looked for the reference and all I could find was 2010; which in looking at the data it makes FAR more sense for 2010 than 1990 on a number of cities
in the top left hand corner, right above Seattle, it says :
Quote:
The relative height of each major city reflects its population in 1990
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slyman11
Again Atlanta is looking rather small for its size in 2000 compared to Miami/Houston/Dallas/DC IMO. Why is that?
The peaks are short for ATL because there are no million plus city in ATL metro. lots of smaller ones tho. Again if each peak was density of the area as a whole ATL would be taller. but the heights in these graphs don't show density, they show population
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.
Pc view?
