View Single Post
Old Posted Mar 8, 2012, 2:40 AM
memph memph is offline
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,172
Originally Posted by dave8721 View Post
Using that method (I did #2) I got ~15,900.

The method I had done to get my number before was simply to get the actual density number at which 50% of the population lives at or above (select the tracts above this density, what percentage of the population is this, play around with a few numbers until you get to 50%).
Ah ok, what you did was mean density, which can also be an interesting statistic but weighted density is an average, not a mean. The mean density would almost always be lower than the weighted density. I also finished Los Angeles, which doesn't appear that dense, but includes a lot of somewhat low density in the West San Fernando Valley, West LA and the area West of Long Beach. The sheer number of people living at high densities is rivalled mostly just by NYC and Toronto with SF coming out ahead only in the 75,000 ppsm+ range.

New York City: 64,025 ppsm (8.008 million)**
San Francisco: 30,005 ppsm (0.805 million)
Boston: 24,543 ppsm (0.617 million)
Montreal: 22,064 ppsm (1.648 million)
Vancouver: 20,397 ppsm (0.618 million)
Philadelphia: 20,283 ppsm (1.526 million)
Toronto: 20,124 ppsm (2.615 million)
Chicago: 19,826 ppsm (2.703 million)*
DC: 17,459 ppsm (0.602 million)
Los Angeles: 16,964 (3.791 million)
Miami: 15,900 ppsm (0.399 million)
Mississauga: 12,736 ppsm (0.712 million)

*I think I added an extra census tract but it doesn't make much of a difference and would take too long to find
**2000 values for NYC, 2010 values for other US cities, Canadian cities use 2011 census values
Reply With Quote