Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
I tried to calculate the weighted census tract density for Detroit, Highland Park, and Hamtramck. I pulled the numbers for Detroit manually, so there might be a fat finger error or two. HP and Hamtramck were easier since there were fewer tracts:
Detroit 6,250 ppsm
Highland Park 3,868 ppsm
Hamtramck 16,904 ppsm
|
Thanks! I was curious to see where Detroit would land with respect to St. Louis, so about 90% of St. Louis' WPD.
Looks like mapping city limits to census tracts is a highly variable process. Los Angeles was one of the more pleasant cases. Miami is another very dense city proper, but the tract numbering in Miami-Dade goes continuously through the county, meaning I'll have to assemble Miami city tract by tract tomorrow (unless someone beats me to it). Edit: In fact, I probably won't get an exhaustive city list done. Too tricky to pull out tracts (if not impossible, looking at you Houston), and city limits are too apples to oranges for my liking.
But as a condensed version, here's the 200k club for BosWash, with outliers both above and below.
New York, NY......65,299.0
Jersey City, NJ......36,846.2
Boston, MA......27,437.4
Newark, NJ......24,478.2
Philadelphia, PA......21,935.1
Yonkers, NY......21,574.1
Washington, DC......20,642.9
Arlington, VA......19,960.8 (technically a county, I know)
Baltimore, MD......11,333.0
Baltimore's city limits do include a sizable ring of more suburban environments, but it's also the only member of this list still dropping. Perhaps the core of Baltimore is just that hollowed out.
Edit: Turns out Worcester, MA is back above 200k with a WPD of 9,549.4 ppsm, although most of Worcester is
much more suburban in character.