Densities of the United States' largest cities

[sopas ej]

Thank you, Steely Dan, for this link, that you provided in the now closed Chicago thread: https://www.socialexplorer.com/a9676d974c/explore

Being that I'm a map freak, and this is an interactive map, it can provide me entertainment for hours.

Anyway, I thought it was interesting to see the densities of the US' largest cities, specifically the top 5.

So, I did screen grabs of those cities and sized them all to scale for comparison, and included their city limits outlined in blue. I thought it was interesting to see that NYC, Chicago and Philly all are dense core cities to their suburbs, whereas LA has a kind of checkerboard density through its metro area. Houston doesn't look all that dense from this map, and I didn't realize how whacked Houston city limits are! I assume those are shoestring annexations that just go along single streets? And I thought **LA's** shoestring annexation of San Pedro/Wilmington was odd, but now, not so much, looking at Houston's city limits.

So in descending order by size of city... and this is by the official 2010 census.

New York City:



Los Angeles:



Chicago:



Houston:



Philadelphia:

[sopas ej]

Here are the densities of cities 6 through 10 (according to the 2010 census), to scale. They don't look too dense, or large, in comparison with the top big cities of the US.

Phoenix:



San Antonio:



San Diego:



Dallas:



San Jose:



I was kind of surprised to see how not so dense the Washington, DC area looks, to scale, as compared with the others:

[bobbyv]

Seattle's density is pathetic.

[JManc]

New York really needs to get after that big empty space in the middle of Manhattan.

[Pedestrian]

If you are talking about density, it's strange you left out this one:


https://www.socialexplorer.com/a9676d974c/explore

Because:

Of the 100 most populous cities, the following had the highest population density (shown in persons/square mile) in 2010:

New York, N.Y.: 27,012.4
San Francisco, Calif.: 17,179.2
Jersey City, N.J.: 16,736.6
Boston, Mass.: 12,792.7
Santa Ana, Calif.: 11,900.8
Chicago, Ill.: 11,841.8
Newark, N.J.: 11,458.3
Philadelphia, Pa.: 11,379.5
Miami, Fla.: 11,135.9
Hialeah, Fla.: 10,474.2

http://www.governing.com/blogs/by-th...-data-map.html

[Crawford]

The maps aren't inaccurate, but they are misleading, because the top-end of the scale is set very low.

Any somewhat dense suburb is set at the same scale of Hong Kong, so there's really no differentiation except kinda dense and not dense.

[The North One]

I wish Montana would grow a large city.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

If you are talking about density, it's strange you left out this one:


https://www.socialexplorer.com/a9676d974c/explore

I wanted to compare the US' 10 largest cities' (cities proper) densities and see their city limits and their surrounding areas, to scale. It's more interesting to me to see how the largest cities in the US compared in terms of density and area, and how that density might decrease/increase/stay the same as you get out to their suburbs. It's also more interesting to see them at scale, because what some people in one city or metro area think of as near or far distances will be different to other people in other cities and metro areas. In short, I wanted to see the varying densities among the largest cities of the US, not just maps of the densest cities of the US. That, to me, wouldn't be as interesting.

Seeing San Jose's density to scale with the other cities was interesting to me too, being that it's the 10th largest city in the US, and is a newbie in terms of a city having more than a million people. I was kind of surprised, too, at the (small) size of its city limits. And, the map really shows how the areas south/southeast of San Jose are really sparse.

I threw DC in there just because it's the US' capital. One would think that it would be really dense, but the density of its metro area didn't particularly strike me as being all that dense. I'm aware of the population of the DC metro area, though, so it shouldn't surprise me I suppose, but looking at it on a map showing the density, it doesn't look all that dense to me.

[dc_denizen]

DC never had mass immigration from overseas, or large amounts of manufacturing. it expanded in the postwar era. the suburbs are cul de sac-y with large lots, except DC has lots of 1970s-1990s vintage rowhouses. many residential towers at suburban nodes, concentrating the density somewhat

[schaalman]

I'm pretty sure L.A. has the highest density of any US metro, eclipsing even NYC. Simply because, even if you go out 60 miles from DT L.A., you still have 6,000 or 8,000 thousand per square mile. Its density is more uniform than other cities.

I know, it all depends on how the metro is defined and this will ultimately lead to a stalemate. But anyways.....

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by schaalman

I'm pretty sure L.A. has the highest density of any US metro, eclipsing even NYC.

Almost all the western cities have higher unweighted density, because they're mostly uniform sprawl. But they have much lower weighted density than eastern cities (i.e. where people actually live).

Regional density stats aren't very useful if you aren't weighting. Hong Kong has about the same density as SF, and lower than some NJ suburbs, if you aren't weighting.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The maps aren't inaccurate, but they are misleading, because the top-end of the scale is set very low.

Any somewhat dense suburb is set at the same scale of Hong Kong, so there's really no differentiation except kinda dense and not dense.

This.

[Sun Belt]

Metro Area Density Moving Outward From City Hall is another great way to visualize the density of a metropolitan region.

This is important to non hub and spoke cities because people aren't forced to commute to a hub for everything. -- In contrast a hub and spoke = dense cores surrounded by low density sprawl, requiring many to commute to the core, requiring public transit usage and longer commute times.

https://www.census.gov/dataviz/visualizations/054/

PPSM at Mile 17 [the distance that L.A. density exceeds New York]:
N.Y. - 9900
L.A. - 13700
Chicago - 4900
Dallas - 4050
Phila. - 2200
Houston - 4000
D.C. - 3400
Miami - 8800
Atl. - 2000
Boston - 2500
S.F. - 6900
Detroit - 3500
Riverside - 5600
Phoenix - 4300
Seattle - 6100

Fast forward to mile 59:
N.Y. still has 2000 ppsm
L.A. has zero.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by JManc

New York really needs to get after that big empty space in the middle of Manhattan.

lol

But really, I've often wondered how much that land would be worth and how many more people could fit on the island if they developed the whole park.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Metro Area Density Moving Outward From City Hall is another great way to visualize the density of a metropolitan region.

PPSM at Mile 17 [the distance that L.A. density exceeds New York]:

S.F. - 6900

Wow. I'm considering this concept and thinking about how 17 miles from San Francisco City Hall there's a lot of people-free Pacific Ocean but also, just across the Golden Gate, people-free National Seashore. Only heading east or south to you encounter suburbs (other than the thin strip in Marin along US 101).

[10023]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

lol

But really, I've often wondered how much that land would be worth and how many more people could fit on the island if they developed the whole park.

If you developed the park then the surrounding land wouldn’t be as valuable.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Wow. I'm considering this concept and thinking about how 17 miles from San Francisco City Hall there's a lot of people-free Pacific Ocean but also, just across the Golden Gate, people-free National Seashore. Only heading east or south to you encounter suburbs (other than the thin strip in Marin along US 101).

I thought about that before I posted and the only thing I could come up was that the census' data excludes those areas.

Otherwise, Miami would not have 8800 ppsm 17 miles away from their city hall.

17 miles west of L.A. city hall and you're in the Pacific Ocean and places like Topanga State Park, Angeles National Forest.

E] Of the populated urban areas:
I went 17 miles south of S.F. on the peninsula and the census tracts just south of central San Mateo are 1700 to 12900 ppsm
17 miles east of S.F. and you're in Lafayette with density tracts of 1300 [and less] up to 3800 ppsm.
Then over to the East Bay, just north of Hayward in San Lorenzo and the densities are 10000-13000 ppsm.

[urbanadvocate]

[QUOTE=sopas ej;8359055] Seeing San Jose's density to scale with the other cities was interesting to me too, being that it's the 10th largest city in the US, and is a newbie in terms of a city having more than a million people. I was kind of surprised, too, at the (small) size of its city limits. And, the map really shows how the areas south/southeast of San Jose are really sparse.

That has to do with topography--it is land that is not easily developed (i.e. mountains and hills)

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by The North One

I wish Montana would grow a large city.

You might be one of the only ones that think that about Montana. Though to be fair to Montana, there is a Manhattan, Montana.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Wow. I'm considering this concept and thinking about how 17 miles from San Francisco City Hall there's a lot of people-free Pacific Ocean but also, just across the Golden Gate, people-free National Seashore. Only heading east or south to you encounter suburbs (other than the thin strip in Marin along US 101).

Using that website, I did a map of San Francisco to scale with the others, and density-wise, the Bay Area's density is concentrated in they City itself and the part of Alameda County closest to San Francisco Bay (and those areas of San Jose). Everything else is kind of thinned out. Density-wise, looking at the map, the Bay Area overall doesn't really look all that dense, and traveling around the Bay Area, I get that feeling too. I'm aware of the topography of the area, as was pointed out to me regarding San Jose by urbanadvocate, but, going from Walnut Creek (a college friend of mine was from there) to Berkeley, both by car and by BART, you really do feel like you're out in the boonies in Walnut Creek, and then it's not until you get to Oakland/Berkeley that you feel like you've entered a major metropolitan area.

San Francisco:


bobbyv mentioned Seattle; here's the density map of it to scale with the others:


Overall it's not very dense; I didn't realize how small the city limits of Seattle are. I guess I'm just so used to LA. Like I mentioned earlier, I was even surprised at how small San Jose's city limits are, because when I've been there, I feel that it's somehow sprawled out. I thought it would be at least as large area-wise as San Diego.

Here's Portland, OR, to scale with the other maps:


Not very dense, and again, it doesn't look very big to me, either, at least not on the map.

For the record, I've never been to Portland, Seattle, San Antonio, Houston, or Dallas (not yet, anyway), so I don't know how they "feel" in terms of that "big-city feel." San Francisco, DC and Philly, though small in city limit area, definitely feel like big cities to me when you're in them.