Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox
I like how Philly, Chicago, and DC all land at the same number, suggesting there's a natural density number an American urban core will settle on without the physical constraints of NYC or SF (or the sheer population pressure of NYC).
|
To be fair to Chicago and Philly, the main reason they fall quite a bit behind SF and Boston in WPD is because they are MUCH larger in land area, and thus contain much more significant swaths of lower density street car suburbia, where detached SFH's dominate, within their borders (the "bungalow belt" in Chicago and whatever its equivalent is in Philly).
Chicago - 227 square miles
Philly - 134 square miles
Boston - 48 square miles
San Francisco - 47 square miles
If you carved out the densest 48 square miles of Chicago and Philly and recalculated their WPD's, they would no doubt both rise into the Boston/SF realm.