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.
You asked about the maps, I wrote a couple of paragraphs on different patterns of cities mostly from the maps. I thought it was interesting and thought someone might respond with more, instead I got an annoyed two lines. Why did you bother ask if you weren't interested?
I also pointed out counties are a bad unit of comparison when many CA counties contain wilderness land in their boundaries, which you didn't acknowledge. I'm starting to wonder why I bother post. Here's Los Angeles County:
I'm puzzled why you're bothered by parts of Denver being referred to as not high density and suburban; you said you don't like density all that much anyway.
First of all, I know of no rule on CD that one has to answer everything another poster says. If that were the case, the two who accused me of not telling the truth on Thursday would have to apologize, and they have not. As is usually the case, they just go on. Both have posted again on Urban Planning.
I too though the maps were interesting. I looked at a lot of counties I'm familiar with. Denver County is more dense than Cook County, Illinois (Chicago), FWIW. Now what is the excuse for Cook? It's all urban/suburban. It's also denser than Allegheny Co. (Pittsburgh), PA, ditto. You can make all kinds of excuses, but the statistics are what they are.
I know that some California counties have wilderness land. So do many Colorado counties. In fact, that is probably the reason that Jefferson and Boulder counties have a lower density than it would appear if one were in Boulder or Lakewood. Adams and Arapahoe go way east, and become rural shortly east of Denver.
A point I was trying to make is that you have to look at the total picture. Denver and its burbs are more dense than anyplace else in the mountain west for sure, whether you "weight" for wilderness and rural areas or not. It's a city.
I too though the maps were interesting. I looked at a lot of counties I'm familiar with. Denver County is more dense than Cook County, Illinois (Chicago), FWIW. Now what is the excuse for Cook? It's also denser than Allegheny Co. (Pittsburgh), PA. You can make all kinds of excuses, but the statistics are what they are.
When you looked at the map, you were looking at counties? I forgot county-size places were on the map. What I did was zoom in and compare census tract sized places. I found that much more useful.
I too though the maps were interesting. I looked at a lot of counties I'm familiar with. Denver County is more dense than Cook County, Illinois (Chicago), FWIW. Now what is the excuse for Cook? It's all urban/suburban. It's also denser than Allegheny Co. (Pittsburgh), PA, ditto. You can make all kinds of excuses, but the statistics are what they are.
I know that some California counties have wilderness land. So do many Colorado counties. In fact, that is probably the reason that Jefferson and Boulder counties have a lower density than it would appear if one were in Boulder or Lakewood. Adams and Arapahoe go way east, and become rural shortly east of Denver.
A point I was trying to make is that you have to look at the total picture. Denver and its burbs are more dense than anyplace else in the mountain west for sure, whether you "weight" for wilderness and rural areas or not. It's a city.
Actually Cook County is 5,495 ppsm and Denver is 3,922 ppsm. MORE DENSE would be the larger number, not the smaller.
LA County is over 4,000 sq miles. Not logical to compare it to Denver County at 150 sq miles.
My mistake; I apologize, something some people on this forum don't do. It was late at night, and I mistook the "5" for a "3".
Define "logical".
Look at the last picture nei posted. That is a big part of LA County.
To compare the population density of a county of 4,000 sq miles to a county of 150 sq miles
without adjusting for uninhabited areas is not logical. Logical is in the dictionary.
Don't get hung up on city or county bounderies when discussing density or urban/suburban.
Denver is somewhat rare in that the city and county boundry are the same and other than the airport,
it does not have huge undeveloped areas.
All I'm saying is that Denver County has the highest population density in the western US, west of the Mississippi, outside of San Francisco County, CA. You have to look at the whole picture. Denver may not be dense by northeastern standards, but by any other standard it holds its own.
Counties are fairly useless from a practical standpoint. Many counties contain a variety of landscapes; LA County obviously has vast tracts of wilderness and uninhabitable land, as well as extremely urban tracts. Hennepin County in Minnesota contains the state's largest city (which is not all that dense, FWIW), a bunch of suburbs, and rural areas (and a bunch of lakes and marshes, for that matter). Comparing counties can be interesting, but overall density numbers doesn't really tell you anything about the density about the inhabitable land or the way it's laid out on the landscape.
All I'm saying is that Denver County has the highest population density in the western US, west of the Mississippi, outside of San Francisco County, CA. You have to look at the whole picture. Denver may not be dense by northeastern standards, but by any other standard it holds its own.
Wikipedia lists the following major cities (all west of the Mississippi) as MORE population dense than Denver.
San Francisco
Los Angelos
San Diego
Portland
Los Vegas
Fresno
Long Beach
Oakland
Honolulu
Anaheim
Stockton
Chula Vista
Modesto
Salt Lake City
Bakersfield
Oxnard
Mission Viejo
Add in smaller cities and those east of the mighty Mississippi and the list is over a hundred.
Denver is a great city and it has some great urban spaces, but for population density it's rather average.
For me it's a good mix of urban density, tree lined suburban neighborhoods and great parks.
Last edited by nei; 06-24-2012 at 03:25 PM..
Reason: rude
Wikipedia lists the following major cities (all west of the Mississippi) as MORE population dense than Denver.
San Francisco
Los Angelos
San Diego
Portland Los Vegas
Fresno
Long Beach
Oakland
Honolulu
Anaheim
Stockton
Chula Vista
Modesto
Salt Lake City
Bakersfield
Oxnard
Mission Viejo
Add in smaller cities and those east of the mighty Mississippi and the list is over a hundred.
Denver is a great city and it has some great urban spaces, but for population density it's rather average.
For me it's a good mix of urban density, tree lined suburban neighborhoods and great parks.
Neither is reading comprehension, or apparently spelling. I said the densest county. Salt Lake County: 1387.1 people/sq mi. for ex. from nei's link. And as usual, no link from you.
Last edited by nei; 06-24-2012 at 03:25 PM..
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.
