View Single Post
  #82  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2012, 4:07 AM
nei nei is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 515
Quote:
Originally Posted by CyberEric View Post
I find that graph a lot easier to read for some reason, easier than those bell curve graphs. Looks great!
I am actually surprised to see Staten Island even as close as it is, it looks extremely residential to me.
I wish we could see similar to NY sized cities in a graph. Chicago just isn't close in size.

Could we see a similar graph for SF and Toronto?
Thanks for all of this cool stuff.
Yeh, I'd like to see London, Paris and Tokyo. I haven't seen census tract numbers, but I have looked up neighborhood sized tracts so I can make good guesses on what the graphs will look like. London's densest boroughs are around 30 k /square mile. At the census tract level, you'll get some denser numbers, but I don't think it'll will change much; London is long blocks of rather identical row houses with few big apartment buildings, so there shouldn't be much variation at smaller scales. So, London's densest sections should similar to that 22 square miles of the North Side, maybe a bit denser, past that London drops in density much less than Chicago, the outer sections feel similar to the lower density parts of Queens. (I've spent a lot of time in Outer London).

Tokyo lacks any neighborhoods above 50,000 per square mile or so, but it has a bunch of them at that density; a 22 square mile area in the core of Tokyo would have about that density. After the first 3 million or so, Tokyo declines a bit, but not by that much. By the outer sections of Tokyo (Tokyo and New York City have roughly the same city populations) Tokyo is quite a bit denser than New York City and of course London. Past the city limits, Tokyo probably stays flat at about the same; probably at the average density of Queens?

Paris is probably the closest to New York City; its core neighborhood have similar densities to New York City; the center city nabes are mostly 5 story low rise apartments on narrow streets; similar to older parts of Manhattan.

Midtown Manhattan probably the highest daytime density of any of these, but it's hard to find data.

Going back to your question, I could do a graph of San Francisco, not so much Toronto as I don't have the data handy. But a graph of just San Francisco defined by the city limits would be misleading, as the city limits of San Francisco are small while Chicago's are large; Chicago contains a higher percentage of its urban area population. I made a graph of the densest 1.25 million of a number of cities; a good indicator of how a big core a city has but it gives bigger cities an advantage.



I don't bother include New York as it'd be mostly off the chart (its line would reach the top of the graph at 110,000 ppsm). Boston's lower density than the other dense cities, probably because a lot of its housing stock (except for what contains the first few hundred thousand people) is triple deckers and two family homes on small lots compared to row houses (for Philadelphia), something that kinda resembles rowhouses / almost connected multifamily homes ? (Chicago and San Francisco; dunno how to describe them) or lots of freestanding apartment buildings (Los Angeles). San Francisco is interesting looking, right near the center it's a lot of 4-5 story connected apartment buildings.
Reply With Quote