The US Census Bureau thread

[bilbao58]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

(gets rid of arbitrary municipal limits).

[craigs]

Originally Posted by bilbao58

That's partially because I only captured the central part of the map for the video. You will notice how much higher the densities are than the 8K average for the whole city. Which is my point.

I opened the map myself yesterday. More than a third of LA’s population is excluded, most notably the Valley and the harbor communities.

[mhays]

Gotta give LA props for impressive numbers over 20,000.

[Bonsai Tree]

I absolutely love that Champaign is on this list. Anything is possible when you don't have NIMBY's to stop development, and the planning department basically OKs any new student housing within a one square mile area.

[subterranean]

Originally Posted by mhays

Gotta give LA props for impressive numbers over 20,000.

Too many people give LA shit for being low density when it’s just not.

I find the Portland number a little suspect, but it’s probably just because plenty of census tracts are very close to 20k. Slabtown and Goose Hallow have been adding a lot of units, for instance. The suburbs are also picking up steam, especially along the westside MAX.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by subterranean

Too many people give LA shit for being low density when it’s just not.

I find the Portland number a little suspect, but it’s probably just because plenty of census tracts are very close to 20k. Slabtown and Goose Hallow have been adding a lot of units, for instance. The suburbs are also picking up steam, especially along the westside MAX.

I think because its unfairly always compared to NYC. NYC is on a different level and just a much older city, built in a different time. LA is just a baby in comparison to NYC and these other giant citiies in the world.

And the neighborhoods keep getting denser because they have to.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by LA21st

I think because its unfairly always compared to NYC. NYC is on a different level and just a much older city, built in a different time. LA is just a baby in comparison to NYC and these other giant citiies in the world.

And the neighborhoods keep getting denser because they have to.

I don't see LA as a baby, its monster and in a good way.

The sheer size and consistant density over a VAST area is extremely impressive.

IMO, I see LA as the American Tokyo (or the whole metro really).

LA has untapped potential. Dallas and Houston shouldn't be seeing all the growth, LA should. Why LA isn't seeing 60000+ units per year u/c is the question I always ask.

The basin has untapped potential. I don't think its a baby at all. LA in some respects has a lot more potential than NYC due to all of the land. Megacity status. Its just... they need to build more and drive those costs down and folks will move there in droves and work on that transit situation. Untapped potential!

LA is the one U.S. city that if your flying a plane into, you feel like your entering a city galaxy and that is impressive! The street grid just never ends and to the horizon.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by subterranean

Too many people give LA shit for being low density when it’s just not.

I find the Portland number a little suspect, but it’s probably just because plenty of census tracts are very close to 20k. Slabtown and Goose Hallow have been adding a lot of units, for instance. The suburbs are also picking up steam, especially along the westside MAX.

At a high-level view Los Angeles does have better than average density for an American city/metro, but L.A. is unique among "dense" metros for where the density is located. The densest parts of Los Angeles are lower income and immigrant heavy, and I don't think there's a strong correlation between the density maps and "good urban form" in Los Angeles.

Percentage of population living in +20k ppsm census tracts by MSA (top 25ish)

1. New York - 46%
2. San Francisco - 18%
3. Boston - 15%
4. Los Angeles - 15%
5. Philadelphia - 14%
6. Chicago - 13%
7. Washington - 8%
8. Miami - 6%
9. Seattle - 4%
10. San Diego - 3%
11. Baltimore - 2%
12. Denver - 2%
13. Portland - 2%
14. Minneapolis - 1%
15. Houston - 1%
16. Dallas - 1%
17. Atlanta - 0%
18. Phoenix - 0%
19. Detroit - 0%
20. Tampa - 0%
21. Orlando - 0%
22. Charlotte - 0%
23. St Louis - 0%
24. San Antonio - 0%
25. Austin - 0%

Los Angeles is clearly among the metros with the highest concentration density, but that seems more like a coincidence than good planning on the part of Los Angeles.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by subterranean

I find the Portland number a little suspect, but it’s probably just because plenty of census tracts are very close to 20k. Slabtown and Goose Hallow have been adding a lot of units, for instance. The suburbs are also picking up steam, especially along the westside MAX.

I just clicked on all of greater Portland's tracts over 10,000 and not many were just under the line. However a big jump in in 2030 seems likely, as Portland has been adding decent infill.

The architype of early 1900s house-based cities growing quickly via infill apartments will see a lot of jumps. Portland, Denver, MSP, Atlanta, SD, SLC, Seattle, etc.

[subterranean]

Originally Posted by mhays

I just clicked on all of greater Portland's tracts over 10,000 and not many were just under the line. However a big jump in in 2030 seems likely, as Portland has been adding decent infill.

The architype of early 1900s house-based cities growing quickly via infill apartments will see a lot of jumps. Portland, Denver, MSP, Atlanta, SD, SLC, Seattle, etc.

It's not a lot, but there are a few:



I just used an arbitrary cutoff of 16k in the bottom list. For example, 52.01 is Goose Hollow and the West End. The land area is only .1 sq mi with a population of 2180, but several large developments have occurred there over the last few years. The Press Blocks development just completed there (341 units). Just that one project bumps the ppsm to 25,210 conservatively assuming only 1 person per residence, and there are several more in the tract built since 2020.

Downtown Beaverton and a few of the westside MAX stations could also tip into the 20k ppsm by 2030, as well as downtown Vancouver. Middle Housing legalization could bump some inner east side areas you might not expect a lot closer to 20k as well.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by subterranean

I find the Portland number a little suspect, but it’s probably just because plenty of census tracts are very close to 20k

Keep in mind that most of the other cities on the list would also have plenty of CT's just below the 20K ppsm threshold too. That's the thing with arbitrary cut-offs: they're arbitrary, but at least everyone is getting cut-off uniformly.

In any event, as the data shows, living in densities above 20K ppsm is fairly rare in the US outside of "the big urban 7". In fact, NYC alone probably has more people in that category than the rest of the nation combined! And the next 6 probably have more than what's left after that. Density in the US is extremely top heavy.

[subterranean]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Keep in mind that most of the other cities on the list would also have plenty of CT's just below the 20K ppsm threshold too. That's the thing with arbitrary cut-offs: they're arbitrary, but at least everyone is getting cut-off uniformly.

In any event, as the data shows, living in densities above 20K ppsm is fairly rare in the US outside of "the big urban 7". In fact, NYC alone probably has more people in that category than the rest of the nation combined! And the next 6 probably have more than what's left after that. Density in the US is extremely top heavy.

That arbitrary line of 20,000 ppsm certainly reinforces basically what we already know. I think 10,000 people per square mile would paint a better picture of the mid-tier cities that obviously can’t compete with NYC, LA, Chicago et al. I bet Portland does a bit better than Austin, for example.

[plinko]

I suspect that the 20,351 in Phoenix are actually in Tempe but I don’t know how to look it up. Most of the dense poorer neighborhoods in Phoenix (Maryvale) are in the 8,000 range IIRC.

[Steely Dan]

^ It might also just be random suburban apartment complexes that are their own census tracts.

For example, take CT 4214.02 in Houston.

It has a population density of 52,749 ppsm!!!!!!!!

Holy shit, that's gotta be the most urban place in all of Texas!




Whoops.........

https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7146...oASAFQAw%3D%3D



dense?

sure.

urban?

dear god.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ It might also just be random suburban apartment complexes that are their own census tracts.

For example, take CT 4214.02 in Houston.

It has a population density of 52,749 ppsm!!!!!!!!

Holy shit, that's gotta be the most urban place in all of Texas!




Whoops.........

https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7146...oASAFQAw%3D%3D



dense?

sure.

urban?

dear god.

Gulfton. Not a nice area. It was 40 years ago when it was built to accommodate young professionals moving to Houston but it's now predominantly very low income immigrants from Central America who tend to house their entire extended families in a 2 bedroom apartment.

[bilbao58]

Originally Posted by JManc

Gulfton. Not a nice area. It was 40 years ago when it was built to accommodate young professionals moving to Houston but it's now predominantly very low income immigrants from Central America who tend to house their entire extended families in a 2 bedroom apartment.

"In BEAUTIFUL southwest Houston!" That always made/makes me laugh.

[AviationGuy]

Originally Posted by bilbao58

"In BEAUTIFUL southwest Houston!" That always made/makes me laugh.

When I was a kid, it WAS quite nice, with great neighborhoods throughout. I was in that area recently, though, and what a difference. There are still nice, leafy neighborhoods with middle class residents from all over the world, but the main arterials are lined with low-rent apartment complexes having very high crime rates. When I was in high school, the many apartment complexes were home to young professionals, and were also "the place to go" to find parties on weekend nights. Partiers left their doors open and anyone could walk in uninvited. Those were good times. I don't recall going to the Gulfton area, but Bellaire Blvd and southward were the party complexes, like the Hillcroft area.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by JManc

Gulfton. Not a nice area. It was 40 years ago when it was built to accommodate young professionals moving to Houston but it's now predominantly very low income immigrants from Central America who tend to house their entire extended families in a 2 bedroom apartment.

I doubt this environment was ever truly "nice".

https://maps.app.goo.gl/ide7fxdDJGWuM7Pr8?g_st=ac

Well, at least not to my urbanist eyes.

It's like all of the worst aspects of higher density, combined with absolutely none of its benefits.



But that old TV commercial is pure gold!

[bilbao58]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

I doubt this environment was ever truly "nice".

Which is why I laughed at the "beautiful southwest Houston" part even when the commercial was new.

BTW, last I heard, that guy was developing properties in Phoenix.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

I doubt this environment was ever truly "nice".

https://maps.app.goo.gl/ide7fxdDJGWuM7Pr8?g_st=ac

Well, at least not to my urbanist eyes.

It's like all of the worst aspects of higher density, combined with absolutely none of its benefits.



But that old TV commercial is pure gold!

If you were a randy twenty-something professional new to Houston back in 1985, it probably was a very cool place to live. Sure, you had to hop in the IROC to score some mescaline but you got a free video player!