Population density of cities by neighborhood (census tract)

[PigBoy]

This map isn't exactly comparable to the others (couldn't figure out the Census site, despite the instructions) because it is by block and is uses a different classification, but here is the obligatory full picture of density in Boston because the central "city" really has to include several cities, especially Cambridge, Somerville, and Brookline. Click for hugeness.



I don't know enough about DC to make the comparison that was mentioned a little earlier, but I will say that Boston may be deceptively dense in areas outside the very center (which is more obviously dense) because there aren't rowhouses. They pack in as many or more people but have less of an urban look. That, and a lot of people around here really have a small-town attitude!

[Leo the Dog]

It's amazing how much of The Financial District is a dead zone when it comes to permanent residents. Boston should build more high rise condos in the area. I would loveto see Govt Ctr and city hall plaza be developed and bridge together Beacon Hill the West End and North End.

[Crawford]

To me, it makes sense that Boston is denser than DC.

Boston has narrower streets, fewer parks, more packed-in working class areas (DC's working class areas, excepting Columbia Heights/Mt. Pleasant area, are more suburban).

And Boston has many dense suburbs, especially on its northern periphery (Cambridge, Somerville, Chelsea, Medford, Malden, Revere, Everett, Arlington, Belmont, etc.), while DC has none. Even Arlington VA, outside the very dense Wilson Blvd. corridor (along the Metro) is mostly postwar suburban looking and not very dense.

[nei]

I posted this map earlier, comparing Chicago, Boston, New York City and DC here:

http://sabinawolfson.com/misc/Figure04_CensusPop.pdf

similar idea, but different scale (and units). More details, and more links to maps (including for London and Paris) here:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...&postcount=170

[Chef]

Originally Posted by fflint

*Minneapolis isn't as dense as I would have expected

Minneapolis is almost entirely streetcar suburbia. The denser version runs in the 14,000 ppsm to 22,000 ppsm range but once you get farther out it is mostly single family houses and in 5,000 ppsm range. The density of the inner south side is actually somewhat impressive when you consider that it doesn't have the feel of built density at all. It is all tree lined streets with buildings that are ten to fifteen feet apart with decent sized front and back yards, but is still denser than most rowhouse neighborhoods in the older Midwestern cities.

[fflint]

I did a density map for Berkeley and Oakland:

[fflint]

San Jose:

[blade_bltz]

Heh, no surprise that Berkeley's Southside is the densest in the East Bay.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by blade_bltz

Heh, no surprise that Berkeley's Southside is the densest in the East Bay.

Indeed, The University of California dormitories make it the densest tract in the Bay Area outside of San Francisco. That said, the urban core of the East Bay generally punches above its weight when it comes to population density.

In a similar vein, the densest tract in San Jose consists of San Jose State University's dorm complex.

[Austinlee]

Originally Posted by fflint

*Detroit's low population densities are now comparable with the worst of the Sunbelt sprawlers

I'm not surprised by this observation. Detroit and most of Michigan is very, very FLAT. So although it was built up dense in the early 1900's, any new development is going to take place farther and farther from old "rundown" established areas in the same low density patterns as flat sunbelt sprawlers.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Austinlee

I'm not surprised by this observation.

The observation isn't true, though. Detroit's density is higher than the Sunbelt sprawlers.

Obviously there are outliers, like California and South Florida, but that's about it.

[fflint]

The second set of maps (with smoother gradations in density--at 2500, 5000, 10000 etc.) were more helpful in showing Detroit's overall density than the first set of maps with their sharper gradations. I can now see Detroit has a more consistent density within the 5,000 to 9,999 ppsm density range than, say Houston--which makes sense considering Detroit's average density is around 5,100 ppsm.

That said, the second set of maps also show Houston has several different tracts with peak densities found nowhere within Detroit, and appears to have more land within the 10,000 to 19,999 ppsm density range (as well as more land without any people at all). Phoenix has a similar pattern.

[Shawn]

PigBoy, that Boston map rocks. You can see how dense Lowell, Lynn, Lawrence, Brockton, and even Rt 9 sprawlvilles like Natick and Framingham actually are.

And if ever a map showed how Boston's built environment centers on Downtown/Back Bay and moves across the river to outside of Boston proper, this is it. It looks like fully half of the 20,000 pp sq m and up tracts on that map are north of the city in Cambridge, Somerville, Chelsea, Everett, Malden, Watertown, etc.

[Xing]

I'll 2nd that. Wish there were more city maps like it. ^

[brickell]

I did the 5 boroughs, but never got around to uploading them. Even Staten Island looks dense by most american standards. Can someone upload those please?

[nei]

Originally Posted by brickell

I did the 5 boroughs, but never got around to uploading them. Even Staten Island looks dense by most american standards. Can someone upload those please?

Later. I made one for Brooklyn. The 40k upper cutoff isn't very appropriate; most of the populated areas come out the same color.

[nei]

Here's Brooklyn and The Bronx:

[Shasta]

Houston's obvious "holes" include Memorial Park/River Oaks Country Club along the Buffalo Bayou, Hermann Park, and the vast industrial areas along the ship channel on the East side.

I am surprised to see the low density shown for the campus of The University of Houston. While it's known as a commuter school, there are actually 6,630 kids living in campus dorms and two large apartment complexes just off campus. Next year, 1,900 more beds will open on campus (extension of the Cougar Village for freshman and the opening of a new sophomore dorm next to the new stadium).

[LMich]

Originally Posted by Austinlee

I'm not surprised by this observation. Detroit and most of Michigan is very, very FLAT.

People keep making these comments as if the area is unique. Sure, Michigan is flat compared to your homestate, but it's not uniquely flat from urban areas in nearby states (Indy, Columbus, Chicago, etc..). Elevation change in Detroit proper is only a bit over 100 feet, but the elevation picks up pretty quickly to the point of where you hit an elevation difference of around 700 above the river in the northern part of the urban area in parts of Oakland County. Even in western Wayne County the elevation change is over 400 feet on rolling hills. Most of Michigan's cities sit on short, rolling hills and terrain.

Up in Oxford in exurban Metro Detroit:


Tony Bennett Photo


Tony Bennett Photo

To hear some of you talk, you'd think Michigan was Kansas in both culture and topography. Jeeze.

[glowrock]

I'd love to see a Pittsburgh map like one of these. Maybe that means I need to get off my ass and compile one?

Aaron (Glowrock)