Vertical Development: A dense idea?

[Surrealplaces]

By the simple measure of residents per hectare, Los Angeles is North America’s most densely populated metropolitan region, with 27.3 people per hectare, thanks to its compact suburbs all connected by a network of freeways

Thought this would be some good discussion

http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/08/09/a-dense-idea/

[O-tacular]

Lol! Wtf?!?:koko:

L.A. = compact suburbs..... rriiight...

EDIT: Perhaps they're just counting the amount of illegal mexican immigrants per hectare which skews the numbers way off the charts.;)

[Martin Mtl]

There are so many short-cuts and data not well supported in this article... painful to read.

[LeftCoaster]

Lol! Wtf?!?:koko:

L.A. = compact suburbs..... rriiight...

EDIT: Perhaps they're just counting the amount of illegal mexican immigrants per hectare which skews the numbers way off the charts.;)

From what I know metropolitan LA is actually more dense than metropolitan NYC.

The city isnt extremely dense in any one part but is uniformly dense across a very large area.

Once you get out of the 5 buroughs the NYC metro area is actually very VERY suburban.

[Vercingetorix]

Even if you include the entire metro area NYC, is about 4 times the density of LA. Nope, it's just a typical case of media not doing their homework.

NYC
Total area 11,842 sq mi (30,670 km2)
Population
• Total 22,085,649
• Density 1,900/sq mi (720/km2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York-Newark-Bridgeport,_NY-NJ-CT-PA_CSA


LA
Total Area 33,954 sq mi (87,490
Population
• Metropolitan region 17,877,006
• Density 526.5/sq mi (203.3/km2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles-Long_Beach-Riverside,_CA_CSA


From what I know metropolitan LA is actually more dense than metropolitan NYC.

The city isnt extremely dense in any one part but is uniformly dense across a very large area.

Once you get out of the 5 buroughs the NYC metro area is actually very VERY suburban.

[Jelly Roll]

Even if you include the entire metro area NYC is about 4 times the density of LA. It's just a typical case of media not doing their homework.

NYC
Total area 11,842 sq mi (30,670 km2)
Population
• Total 22,085,649
• Density 1,900/sq mi (720/km2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York-Newark-Bridgeport,_NY-NJ-CT-PA_CSA


LA
Total Area 33,954 sq mi (87,490
Population
• Metropolitan region 17,877,006
• Density 526.5/sq mi (203.3/km2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles-Long_Beach-Riverside,_CA_CSA

Now try that again with the MSA or the UA and get back to us.

[LeftCoaster]

Even if you include the entire metro area NYC, is about 4 times the density of LA. Nope, it's just a typical case of media not doing their homework.

NYC
Total area 11,842 sq mi (30,670 km2)
Population
• Total 22,085,649
• Density 1,900/sq mi (720/km2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York-Newark-Bridgeport,_NY-NJ-CT-PA_CSA


LA
Total Area 33,954 sq mi (87,490
Population
• Metropolitan region 17,877,006
• Density 526.5/sq mi (203.3/km2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles-Long_Beach-Riverside,_CA_CSA

The LA CSA includes San Bernardino county, which is massive and of which 95% is empty desert.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:San_Bernardino_County_California_Incorporated_and_Unincorporated_areas_San_Bernardino_Highlighted.svg

According to the US census bureau the official density of metro LA is 2,645 people per square mile, so higher than NYCs CSA metro density.

The NYC urban area has a density of around 2,726 people per square mile so about the same as LA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_metropolitan_area

[Vercingetorix]

In the wiki page it refers to it as the NYC area as the CSA. The titale of the page says Metro area, but also refers to it as the CSA.

The MSA has a pop of 18 mil over 6000 sqkm and the CSA has a pop of 22 mil over 11000 sqkm

Yes, the LA metro area is 2500 per square km, but you then should compare the metro are of NYC also, which would make it more dense than LA metro.

In all three levels City, Metro, CSA, New York is more dense.

The LA CSA includes San Bernardino county, which is massive and of which 95% is empty desert.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:San_Bernardino_County_California_Incorporated_and_Unincorporated_areas_San_Bernardino_Highlighted.svg

According to the US census bureau the official density of metro LA is 2,645 people per square mile, so higher than NYCs CSA metro density.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_metropolitan_area

[Doady]

Metro area density doesn't matter. Undeveloped land should not factor into calculations. Urban area density is what matters, i.e. the density of the built up area.

Los Angeles has the highest density of urban areas in the US:

http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/2010_census/cb12-50.html

The nation's most densely populated urbanized area is Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, Calif., with nearly 7,000 people per square mile. The San Francisco-Oakland, Calif., area is the second most densely populated at 6,266 people per square mile, followed by San Jose, Calif. (5,820 people per square mile) and Delano, Calif. (5,483 people per square mile). The New York-Newark, N.J., area is fifth, with an overall density of 5,319 people per square mile.

[Chadillaccc]

I would expect that Mexico City is far more dense than either of them, which would make it the most dense metropolitan area in North America.

Wow, I didn't even have to read the article to know how absolutely awful it is.



By city in North America, the 4 most dense are in order as Mexico City, New York City, Los Angeles, Vancouver. I don't know off by heart the order of the 4 most dense metro areas though.

[Vercingetorix]

Metro area density doesn't matter. Undeveloped land should not factor into calculations. Urban area density is what matters, i.e. the density of the built up area.

Los Angeles has the highest density of urban areas in the US:

http://www.newgeography.com/content/002747-new-us-urban-area-data-released

Metro population, and CSA populations aren't a good comparison, as it all comes down to borders and what falls into each border.

Edit: I suppose the same could be said for city populations. There are always going to be certain areas of a metro that are more dense than other areas depending on given boundaries.

[softee]

Mexico City, Toronto, and Los Angeles are the top 3 most densely populated urbanized areas in North America.

[Surrealplaces]

That factor can also be misleading, as there is a certain amount of density needed for an area to be considered "urbanized" I'm not sure what it is in the US, but it would make a difference in the case of NYC where there are endless far flung suburbs, that are more a network of small villages and townships (Jersey, and Long Island come to mind) that have just enough density to be considered 'urbanized' but yet are still a network of farms and such. This wouldn't really be the case with LA, so LA would appear denser under that type of situation.


Edit found this in Wikipedia.
Urban areas in the United States are defined by the U.S. Census Bureau as contiguous census block groups with a population density of at least 1,000 /sq mi (390 /km2) with any census block groups around this core having a density of at least 500 /sq mi (190 /km2). Urban areas are delineated without regard to political boundaries. The census has two distinct categories of urban areas. Urbanized Areas have populations of greater than 50,000, while Urban Clusters have populations of less than 50,000.


Metro area density doesn't matter. Undeveloped land should not factor into calculations. Urban area density is what matters, i.e. the density of the built up area.

Los Angeles has the highest density of urban areas in the US:

http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/2010_census/cb12-50.html

[Doady]

That factor can also be misleading, as there is a certain amount of density needed for an area to be considered "urbanized" I'm not sure what it is in the US, but it would make a difference in the case of NYC where there are endless far flung suburbs, that are more a network of small villages and townships (Jersey, and Long Island come to mind) that have just enough density to be considered 'urbanized' but yet are still a network of farms and such. This wouldn't really be the case with LA, so LA would appear denser under that type of situation.

Personally I couldn't care less about factoring in far flung suburbs or metro areas. I will always think of New York as being much denser.

I don't think there are small rural villages being counted. If they are isolated, ther eis no way they would be included. But the exurban development around NYC is extremely low density, and it also extremely haphazard and discontinuous, which exacerbates the low density. So it is true there is probably more undeveloped land that is included in the urban area of NYC, simply just due to the difficulty of drawing a single discrete urban area boundary. But that just speaks to the problem of discontinous, ultra-low density exurbia. That kind of development is the epitome of sprawl: the density is so low that even basic services cannot be provided. Canada thankfully does not have a lot of this exurbia. Maybe Thunder Bay and Halifax, but for other cities it is rare.

[MonkeyRonin]

So basically, a higher population density doesn't automatically result in higher rates of transit usage, cycling, and walking. No kidding. Too bad they left it as the "herp derp density is bad!" narrative and were disingenuous enough to skip over the importance of good design (something that requires a certain degree of density). Shitty journalism.


By city in North America, the 4 most dense are in order as Mexico City, New York City, Los Angeles, Vancouver.

Er, no. Way off.


Mexico City, Toronto, and Los Angeles are the top 3 most densely populated urbanized areas in North America.


I would imagine the rest of Mexico's major cities are also denser than anything in Canada or the US.

[MonkeyRonin]

I don't think there are small rural villages being counted. If they are isolated, ther eis no way they would be included. But the exurban development around NYC is extremely low density, and it also extremely haphazard and discontinuous, which exacerbates the low density.

I think he's probably referring to the old city centres & commuter towns scattered through the metro - places like Newark and Stamford and Peekskill and so on - all of which are quite dense in their own right (but surrounded by ultra-low density development), and part of New York's contiguous sprawl.

Overall, a greater proportion of metro NYC's population live at a high density than LA's (which enables the high transit usage), even if the overall urban area is less dense due to the relatively small number of exurban people sprawled over a huge area. Weighted density is probably a better measure than averaged urban area density (where it pertains to things like auto usage and whatnot).

[Doady]

So basically, a higher population density doesn't automatically result in higher rates of transit usage, cycling, and walking. No kidding. Too bad they left it as the "herp derp density is bad!" narrative and were disingenuous enough to skip over the importance of good design (something that requires a certain degree of density). Shitty journalism.

Well, lower distances are the key to providing efficient transit and other services, and to make walking and biking possible. People are more likely to walk to place if takes 5 minutes instead of 25 minutes. This is obvious. Density is perhaps the single most important way to reduce distances, but not the only way.

Density mostly affects the euclidean distance. There's also effective distance, because people can't fly. Effective distance is the euclidean distance modified by other factors. How fast can people walk (sidewalks?)? Can they walk in a straight line? That's the design.

Look at suburban Toronto, why does it have 5 minute bus services? There are the high-rises (density), plus the ability to walk directly to arterial corridors on sidewalks (design), resulting in low effective distances. Walkability is mostly about the effective distance.

[niwell]

I find it odd that some people seemingly can't believe that LA does in fact have high built density. It shouldn't be surprising to anyone who has driven through the endless ex-urban sprawl of the northeastern states compared to the tightly packed subdivision of the southwest. It's almost impossible to tell when you enter and leave built up areas in the former - there's random houses, commercial developments, townhouse complexes and small tracts of open space between the historic town centres.

In terms of transit usage the main benefit of the northeastern development pattern is commuter rail. Stations in the old town centres where people can drive and park at for their commutes into the cities.

[Surrealplaces]

Yup, that's more what I meant. I remember driving around Long Island and Jersey suburbs and it seemed like small dense towns and lots of villages intermingled with farms and acreages, etc..

I don't think there are small rural villages being counted. If they are isolated, ther eis no way they would be included. But the exurban development around NYC is extremely low density, and it also extremely haphazard and discontinuous, which exacerbates the low density. So it is true there is probably more undeveloped land that is included in the urban area of NYC, simply just due to the difficulty of drawing a single discrete urban area boundary. But that just speaks to the problem of discontinous, ultra-low density exurbia. That kind of development is the epitome of sprawl: the density is so low that even basic services cannot be provided. Canada thankfully does not have a lot of this exurbia. Maybe Thunder Bay and Halifax, but for other cities it is rare.

[FiereSansVoiture]

Thesis: “It would be nice to think that simply having more people live close together downtown would make people, particularly children, healthier. Less time spent in cars, the thinking goes, means more time walking to nearby grocery stores, playgrounds and schools.”

The logic is flawless and nothing in the rest of the article contradicts the statement.

Counter argument: “increases in daily moderate-to-vigorous physical activity did not significantly differ by group. In other words, children who moved to smart-growth communities changed where they played, but not how much.”

The thesis is about transportation and the counter argument is about playing. Nobody ever suggested that dense urban community would increase the vigorosity of physical activity of children’s spare time, however, some say that it would increase active commute.

“Researchers found increasing population density has not been successful at getting people out of their cars and onto public transit. That’s because population density has little to do with how people choose to get to work and almost no association with levels of public transit ridership.”… “I don’t think density has very much to do with the success of public transit”

Density has everything to do with public transit ridership!
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2011002/article/11531-eng.pdf
“Low residential density neighbourhoods are less conducive to public transit
Access to public transit is closely tied to urban land use. It is much easier to provide efficient public transit in the high-density residential neighbourhoods typical of the central
areas of major cities. The pool of potential users per square kilometre is much larger in such areas. This has an impact on public transit users who live in lower-density residential neighbourhoods”
http://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/996934density.png (http://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=996934density.png)
“The more people you try to cram into a city, the more expensive real estate gets”

They have it all backwards, the more expensive real estate gets, the more dense the neighbourhood gets because more condo units are build by promoters.