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.
Even that number isn't very representative of Denver. Denver did acquire a large part of rural land that the only development on it is the large airport. The population density would be much higher if you didn't include the land acquired for DIA.
IMO, population density is a poor measure of a city's urban character. Take the small city of Edgewater. Population density is 7,245 people/sq mile. I would say it is hardly more urban in nature that much of Denver.
I think it is fair to say that most cities have neighborhoods that are very urban in nature and others that are suburban in nature.
Edgewater is much less "urban" than Denver. It's mostly single family houses. Denver has a fair number of apt. buildings.
Edgewater looks like it's about as dense as the average census tract in Denver. Edgewater is small, only the size of a census tract or two. But there are a lot of spots of Denver somewhat denser (> 9 k / sq mile) and some less. Most aren't denser by a lot, but some are. Interestingly, outside of right near downtown, Aurora has some of the densest census tracts in the entire metro (~ 15 k /sq mile).
I don't think so. Not X and Y seems complete and logical.
Quote:
Yes, Denver and Boston look different. That's not surprising. One is much older than the other, and they are in different parts of the country. Denver also includes its airport (~50 sq. mi) in its city limits, so 1/3 of the city is not occupied at all, which brings down its density stats.
That's why I prefer weighted density (averaging the density of each census tract weighted by where each person lives) to ignore relatively sparsely occupied areas and reflect where each person lives. Nassau County (western half of Long Island) has a bit higher weighted density than Denver, but obviously Denver has some more urban sections than Nassau since Denver has a downtown and center city neighborhood.
Well Boston is still denser and its commercial streets are more pedestrian oriented and less auto oriented so I'd say Boston provides more "urban living". Not meant as an insult towards Denver…
Not all newer cities are lower density. Vancouver, BC isn't that much and neither is Los Angeles though it's rather autocentric. Much of Boston outer suburbs are much lower density than Denver outer suburbs, but neither provide much in the way of "urban living".
What about small cities (e.g. Champaign-Urbana, IL), and small towns? There are too many exclusions.
I looked up the stats on Vancouver on CD. They don't give the density (or at least I didn't see it). They do give the percent of workers who drive alone to work, it's 74%, higher than Denver. Denver has a pie chart but doesn't list percentages, but it's clearly less than 74%.
Edgewater looks like it's about as dense as the average census tract in Denver. Edgewater is small, only the size of a census tract or two. But there are a lot of spots of Denver somewhat denser (> 9 k / sq mile) and some less. Most aren't denser by a lot, but some are. Interestingly, outside of right near downtown, Aurora has some of the densest census tracts in the entire metro (~ 15 k /sq mile).
Trust me, it's far less "urban". No downtown, period. Just the Edgewater Inn, which is a great pizza parlor!
Was it this thread that someone said that structural density should be what's measured? You're obviously not going to see a lot of structures in a rural area. Yet you'll see a lot of buildings in a downtown core, yet none of them might be residential (which is the case in a lot of downtowns).
You'll also have to factor in industrial buildings, parkland, and other non-residential development. I'd go as far as to say it should be measured by the average floor height of buildings within an area though that's pretty flawed as well. Then again, how many suburban areas have homes with more than 4 floors? (not including the basement).
What about small cities (e.g. Champaign-Urbana, IL), and small towns? There are too many exclusions.
Don't know enough about Champaign. The classification doesn't work. Though if there are spots that are quite dense, then a small city could have an "urban" section. Where I live comes close to my urban definition in some ways but not others. But it doesn't really belong with suburbia, either. Because of New England boundaries are drawn, within the limits there are old urban-ish areas, suburban ones, and rural ones. Many European cities don't really decline in density with size. Take a look at this link (the guy's a bit of a nut, and I don't agree with many of his idea, but I like some and think he did a good presentation, especially with the photos):
But anyway you define it, small cities/towns are a bit of an exception. You could just could call them city, but they're rather different from your typical city or suburb. Was discussed earlier in the thread:
looked up the stats on Vancouver on CD. They don't give the density (or at least I didn't see it). They do give the percent of workers who drive alone to work, it's 74%, higher than Denver. Denver has a pie chart but doesn't list percentages, but it's clearly less than 74%.
I don't think CD has stats on non-American cities, you probably looked at Vancouver, WA (a suburb of Portland). Easy mistake to make. Comparison of the cities of Denver, Boston and Vancouver (BC):
Standard Density of city proper:
Boston: 12,752 per square mile (increases slightly if you include some of the "urban" sububan ogre mentioned)
Denver: 3,874 per square mile
Vancouver: 13,590 per square mile
Weighted Density of city proper:
Boston: 24,543 per square mile (a few thousand less if you include some of the "urban" sububan ogre mentioned)
Vancouver: 20,397 per square mile
Denver: 7,527 per square mile (2000 numbers)
Weighted Density of Metro:
Vancouver: 11,312 per square mile
Boston: 7,711 per square mile
Denver: 5,231 per square mile
Standard Density of Metro:
Vancouver: 4,453 per square mile
Boston: 2,322 per square mile
Denver: 3,979 per square mile
Weighted density is the density is the density the average person in an are lives at. The difference between weighted and unweighted density says a lot about how the metro is laid out (a more even density distribution gives a higher standard density but a lower weighted density.)
Transit ridership (for entire metro):
Vancouver: 17% ? (eyeballed off a graph)
Boston: 13%
Denver: 5%
I've visited Seattle, Portland and Vancouver, all briefly. Vancouver gave a little less of a big city feel than Boston but not by much. Seattle and Portland much less. I not sure which of the 3 I like best. Portland is less dense than Denver any way you measure it.
Don't know enough about Champaign. The classification doesn't work. Though if there are spots that are quite dense, then a small city could have an "urban" section. Where I live comes close to my urban definition in some ways but not others. But it doesn't really belong with suburbia, either. Because of New England boundaries are drawn, within the limits there are old urban-ish areas, suburban ones, and rural ones. Many European cities don't really decline in density with size. Take a look at this link (the guy's a bit of a nut, and I don't agree with many of his idea, but I like some and think he did a good presentation, especially with the photos):
But anyway you define it, small cities/towns are a bit of an exception. You could just could call them city, but they're rather different from your typical city or suburb. Was discussed earlier in the thread:
I don't think CD has stats on non-American cities, you probably looked at Vancouver, WA (a suburb of Portland). Easy mistake to make. Comparison of the cities of Denver, Boston and Vancouver (BC):
Standard Density of city proper:
Boston: 12,752 per square mile (increases slightly if you include some of the "urban" sububan ogre mentioned)
Denver: 3,874 per square mile
Vancouver: 13,590 per square mile
Weighted Density of city proper:
Boston: 24,543 per square mile (a few thousand less if you include some of the "urban" sububan ogre mentioned)
Vancouver: 20,397 per square mile
Denver: 7,527 per square mile (2000 numbers)
Weighted Density of Metro:
Vancouver: 11,312 per square mile
Boston: 7,711 per square mile
Denver: 5,231 per square mile
Standard Density of Metro:
Vancouver: 4,453 per square mile
Boston: 2,322 per square mile
Denver: 3,979 per square mile
Weighted density is the density is the density the average person in an are lives at. The difference between weighted and unweighted density says a lot about how the metro is laid out (a more even density distribution gives a higher standard density but a lower weighted density.)
Transit ridership (for entire metro):
Vancouver: 17% ? (eyeballed off a graph)
Boston: 13%
Denver: 5%
I've visited Seattle, Portland and Vancouver, all briefly. Vancouver gave a little less of a big city feel than Boston but not by much. Seattle and Portland much less. I not sure which of the 3 I like best. Portland is less dense than Denver any way you measure it.
CD does have stats on Canadian cities. Here is the website I used:
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.
