Largest US and Canadian Cities by Population Density

[jd3189]

^^^ You’re right, but I mainly thinking of the Southeastern/Southern Sunbelt cities from Texas/ Oklahoma to the Atlantic. The Western Sunbelt cities like Las Vegas, San Diego, and other California cities are sorta their own categories. Miami is the main outlier in the South.

[memph]

Originally Posted by Dariusb

I found it odd that Arlington, Tx, a suburb of Dallas was the densest of the Texas cities on the list.

I don't think there's much of a difference between the density of a typical Texas subdivision and an inner city neighbourhood, so it'll mostly come down to which city limits contain more undeveloped land, industrial areas, parks, airports, etc.

Being sandwiched between Dallas and Fort Worth might've meant slightly smaller lot sizes too, and I think there's a fair bit of immigrants making for larger household sizes.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

There is no point to this discussion thread. Population density is determined by how the city boundary is drawn.

Precisely. The list is comparing apples to oranges. For one city they're using a small dense central area of 100km that excludes less dense suburbia beyond and for others they use an area many times larger that includes all of these places.

It's impossible to conclude anything from the list shown.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

No I just dont know how else to respond to people who refute basic math and say data is 'misleading', everyone knows cities have denser areas within their borders.

In the beginning of 1998 the City of Toronto had a population density of roughly 17,500 people/square mile. With a stroke of a pen, the City of Toronto's population density became roughly 9,900 people/square mile.

By your method Toronto was the 2nd or 3rd densest city in Canada/US in the beginning of 1998 yet by the end of the year population density had plunged by 44% and the City of Toronto magically became the 8th or 9th densest. How is that not misleading?

There's no method that will be perfect but using city boundaries is one of the worst ones to use. The data will be accurate for that city but rather useless when comparing to another city.


http://demographia.com/db-toronto-ward.htm

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by isaidso

In the beginning of 1998 the City of Toronto had a population density of roughly 17,500 people/square mile. With a stroke of a pen, the City of Toronto's population density became roughly 9,900 people/square mile.

By your method Toronto was the 2nd or 3rd densest city in Canada/US in the beginning of 1998 yet by the end of the year population density had plunged by 44% and in 8th or 9th densest.

How is that not misleading?


http://demographia.com/db-toronto-ward.htm

There is nothing remotely 'misleading' about that. In 2018, Toronto has 243 square miles. As you already pointed out, Toronto has large swaths of land that have densities higher than the ~11,000 citywide average, everyone knows that, congrats, but the citywide density per sq mile is based on 243 sq miles. Not sure what else there is to say...

[Steely Dan]

averge density for wildly varied and arbitrary geographic units such as incorporated municipalities makes for a terrible comparison tool. Not sure what else there is to say...

[333609543]

When measuring the population density of cities, I find that using the entire urban area (no metropolitan areas, just continuous uninterrupted built-up area) to measure population density is effective, but not all cities/regions have that data. There can also be variations in the ways countries or even different states measure urban areas but it's far better than just using 'city-proper' stats.

I find that looking at most US cities their boundaries are very odd and not straight forward at all, Los Angeles (City) is a good example with that weird thin piece of land jutting south to the Pacific. It is also noteworthy to say that city proper is a bad measurement for population statistics as well. One does not say Los Angeles has only 4 million people - but rather 12 million (which is its urban/metropolitan population); One also does not say that New York City is a city of 8.5 million or Tokyo a city of 9.5 million, these areas are measured using a different and more apt definition of city/urban area in terms of economic productivity and commuting patterns.

So your insistence of "it is what it is because X (city) has Y (boundaries/land area)" is what I would call intellectually dishonest or ignorant.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

averge density for wildly varied and arbitrary geographic units such as incorporated municipalities makes for a terrible comparison tool.

That's your opinion, I understand, but I will continue to defer to what I consider to be the full picture.

People find reasons to bitch about every metric, the same people who moan about city limits usually also take huge ambrage with urban area density, and so forth.

Not sure what else there is to say...

Apparently plenty

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by 333609543

When measuring the population density of cities, I find that using the entire urban area (no metropolitan areas, just continuous uninterrupted built-up area) to measure population density is effective, but not all cities/regions have that data. There can also be variations in the ways countries or even different states measure urban areas but it's far better than just using 'city-proper' stats.

I find that looking at most US cities their boundaries are very odd and not straight forward at all, Los Angeles (City) is a good example with that weird thin piece of land jutting south to the Pacific. It is also noteworthy to say that city proper is a bad measurement for population statistics as well. One does not say Los Angeles has only 4 million people - but rather 12 million (which is its urban/metropolitan population); One also does not say that New York City is a city of 8.5 million or Tokyo a city of 9.5 million, these areas are measured using a different and more apt definition of city/urban area in terms of economic productivity and commuting patterns.

Right so that thread would be called the following:

Largest US and Canadian Urban Areas by Population Density.

You are free to create that thread. In the meantime I created this thread.

So your insistence of "it is what it is because X (city) has Y (boundaries/land area)" is what I would call intellectually dishonest or ignorant.

Yes I insist like every statistical gathething entity in the United States, in measuring a city's population density by their actual land mass. We are just awful.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

That's your opinion

Yes, we both have our differing opinions.

The main difference is that I don't see anyone else in this thread agreeing with yours.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

The main difference is that I don't see anyone else in this thread agreeing with yours.

Haha fine by me, but it seems to me that only people who care are those who think their city is somehow disadvantaged-nobody else really gaf.

And I can't find a single population density statistic produced by a reputable source, governmental or otherwise, that produces city population density any other way than using the total land area. Guess theyre all wrong.

[BG918]

Originally Posted by Dariusb

I found it odd that Arlington, Tx, a suburb of Dallas was the densest of the Texas cities on the list.

Arlington is also the largest city in the U.S. without public transit. They are starting public ride sharing which will be interesting to see how it works.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/arstech...buses/%3famp=1

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

And I can't find a single population density statistic produced by a reputable source, governmental or otherwise, that produces city population density any other way than using the total land area. Guess theyre all wrong.

It's not that dividing population within city limits by the area of the city limits is "wrong", it's just not a terribly useful measure for comparing different places given the wildly varied ways that city limits are drawn.

If you think it's meaningful to say that jacksonville is a larger city than boston because it technically has more people within its overly generous city limits compared to boston's very tightly constricted city limits, then go right ahead, but don't expect many of us to follow you there.

[SLO]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

It's not that dividing population within city limits by the area of the city limits is "wrong", it's just not a terribly useful measure for comparing different places given the wildly varied ways that city limits are drawn.

If you think it's meaningful to say that jacksonville is a larger city than boston because it technically has more people within its overly generous city limits compared to boston's very tightly constricted city limits, then go right ahead, but don't expect many of us to follow you there.

I think it is one metric. Anything we city/population nerds look at are metrics or indicators. Looking at the list it does indicate which cities are on average more dense than others. If we want to look at neighborhood by neighborhood (and some do) than so be it.

[Khantilever]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Haha fine by me, but it seems to me that only people who care are those who think their city is somehow disadvantaged-nobody else really gaf.

And I can't find a single population density statistic produced by a reputable source, governmental or otherwise, that produces city population density any other way than using the total land area. Guess theyre all wrong.

https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/ex/s...density/69236/

Population density is a statistic that simplifies reality for the sake of insight. It’s not an end in itself—rather, its value is determined by how it can be used. What value do population densities based on wildly arbitrary municipal boundaries have? Maybe one I can think of is if we were interested in a model of municipal finance and zoning based on land efficiency, since a municipality’s basic resource is the land it controls. So it would be interesting to know how intensely the municipality is using its land.

As the example [hopefully] demonstrates, it’s not a very useful or meaningful statistic outside of some narrow applications.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

It's not that dividing population within city limits by the area of the city limits is "wrong", it's just not a terribly useful measure for comparing different places given the wildly varied ways that city limits are drawn.

City level averages and figures are compared all the time when looking at income, educational attainment, crime rates, school districts etc with very few if any complaints normally.

If you think it's meaningfull to say that jacksonville is a larger city than boston because it technically has more people within its overly generous city limits compared to boston's very tightly constricted city limits, then go right ahead, but don't expect many of us to follow you there.

Yea but this isnt really what this thread is about. That said, one has to admire the Office of Management and Budget for differentiating so we arent confused.

1. Combined Statistical Areas
2. Metropolitan Statistical Areas
3. Urban Areas

3 geographic designations that correctly rank Boston as larger than Jacksonville. Absolutely.

Boston is also far more densely populated.

However the city of Jacksonville is still larger in population and area than the city of Boston.

[Khantilever]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

City level averages and figures are compared all the time when looking at income, educational attainment, crime rates, school districts etc with very few if any complaints normally.

The issue is that those measures’ spatial distributions are relatively uniform—at least, relative to distance to the CBD—compared to population density. Almost all cities exhibit the same basic pattern of falling population density as one moves away from the city center. But those other measures don’t have such a clear relationship, except to the small extent to which many cities have rings of rich then poor then rich areas surrounding the center.

The difference also is that those other measures do have more clear relevance at the municipal level, since taxes and school quality and police budgets etc etc are all municipal issues. Population density is only very indirectly relevant in that context.

[jd3189]

I feel that the people who like to say these types of lists are irrelevant or heavily support them ( I’m trying to be in the middle of things) are low-key taking this crap too seriously. These are just statistics to discuss. Whether it’s city proper limits, MSA, CSA, state/ province, country, etc, it is supposed to be fun to look at.

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

averge density for wildly varied and arbitrary geographic units such as incorporated municipalities makes for a terrible comparison tool. Not sure what else there is to say...

Yeah but if your city is on the top of the list, you'll post it, because somehow that reflects positively on you as a person.

Next week we will have the regular "Largest US Cities / Counties / Metros by Median / Mean Household Income / GMP per capita / some other wealth qualifier" list. San Francisco will of course be at the top

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by Shawn

Yeah but if your city is on the top of the list, you'll post it, because somehow that reflects positively on you as a person.

LOL its not so serious to me that I pretend to know the motives of other forumers but since you brought it up, actually what's even worse imo is people whose cities are already very high on a list and very impressive, in this case a city with 200+sq miles maintaining a citywide average density of 11,000+ is extremely noteworthy, but no, they cant help being bent out of shape because they arent even higher.

Next week we will have the regular "Largest US Cities / Counties / Metros by Median / Mean Household Income / GMP per capita / some other wealth qualifier" list. San Francisco will of course be at the top

Actually I wish SF were lower sometimes so my geekishness over socio economic data wouldnt be constantly misconstrued as this^^^^^^

In reality for years I've followed the movement and growth of wealth in many geographic locations, especially as it pertains to investible, liquid assets.

As an aside, very important data is coming out this week, please dont be upset.