Population density of cities by neighborhood (census tract)

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by blade_bltz

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

Using the same source from the OP and MS Paint to crop, I made a rough map of the 10,000+ density areas of the inner Bay Area:

10,000+ in blue. The 510 is beastie. LOL

[SPonteK]

Originally Posted by LMich

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

Michigan is flatter than Kansas, actually.

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Saint Louis:

Just to put into perspective how far Saint Louis has fallen since it's population peak it's most dense census tract is actually slightly less dense than what THE ENTIRE CITY was in 1950 when it had a population density of 13,842 people per square mile, today it has a density of merely 5,140 per square mile .

[Urbana]

Originally Posted by 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)

Ask and ye shall recieve.



Source: University of Pittsburgh

[glowrock]

Thanks, Urbana. It's much appreciated!

Aaron (Glowrock)

Originally Posted by Urbana

Ask and ye shall recieve.



Source: University of Pittsburgh

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Chicago103

Just to put into perspective how far Saint Louis has fallen since it's population peak it's most dense census tract is actually slightly less dense than what THE ENTIRE CITY was in 1950 when it had a population density of 13,842 people per square mile, today it has a density of merely 5,140 per square mile .

the entire southern half of the city is entirely salvagable (and is being salvaged) and the central corridor has had documented population gains. the actual physical decay is less scattershot than one might expect looking at the numbers (and making the logical comparison to detroit).

[Chase Unperson]

Originally Posted by Chicago103

Just to put into perspective how far Saint Louis has fallen since it's population peak it's most dense census tract is actually slightly less dense than what THE ENTIRE CITY was in 1950 when it had a population density of 13,842 people per square mile, today it has a density of merely 5,140 per square mile .

Impressive stat. Sort of like my stat how the fattest state in 1985 would be the fittest state in 2013 (i.e the people of Mississippi in 1985 would be fitter than the people of Colorado today).

That really is crazy. I guess that is what 6 decades of double digit population will do. At some point they will have to have a sign that says "last one out turn the lights off". I can't imagine what that does to the tax base of the city. You make budget decisions not realizing there will be 25% fewer taxpayers in 20 years.



But on the bright side STL is still 33% denser than places like Denver.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Chase Unperson

Impressive stat. Sort of like my stat how the fattest state in 1985 would be the fittest state in 2013 (i.e the people of Mississippi in 1985 would be fitter than the people of Colorado today).

That really is crazy. I guess that is what 6 decades of double digit population will do. At some point they will have to have a sign that says "last one out turn the lights off". I can't imagine what that does to the tax base of the city. You make budget decisions not realizing there will be 25% fewer taxpayers in 20 years.



But on the bright side STL is still 33% denser than places like Denver.

As far as I am concerned, St. Louis has handled decline better than some other midwestern cities. I've seen worse infrastructure in demographically comparable neighborhoods in Kansas City and Indianapolis...streets in my neighborhood and many others are clean and well paved, sidewalks are wide and flush. It does seem like the wealthier a neighborhood is in St. Louis, the better the infrastructure, but i'm in by no means a posh neighborhood. This seems different than some other midwestern cities, the fiesty, semi-insular nature of St. Louis I feel has actually served as a bulwark against city-wide distress in many neighborhoods.

[urbanactivist]

Speaking of density...

Houston made an historic move towards zoning for higher-density development today. It's not exactly "zoning" the way other cities have it, but getting much closer.

http://texasleftist.blogspot.com/201...hapter-42.html

[Jonboy1983]

I notice the one tract along the Ohio River in Pittsburgh has over 20k ppl per square mile. Is that Western State Pen? Other than that, it looks like most of the city's densest areas are in Oakland and much of the East End. Some of the North Side and much of the South Side are also very densely populated...

[bobbyv]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Using the same source from the OP and MS Paint to crop, I made a rough map of the 10,000+ density areas of the inner Bay Area:

10,000+ in blue. The 510 is beastie. LOL

Hey Dimond can you do that for LA?

[LMich]

Originally Posted by Chase Unperson

But on the bright side STL is still 33% denser than places like Denver.

Probably about as bad a comparison as one could make, to be honest, given that Denver's airport - which is physically outside of the urban area of the city, but still a part of its incorporation - is 53 square miles of its 153 square miles total. Denver is effectively 100 square miles, and probably one of the more notable (most?) example(s) of a large American city's density being skewed by a large airport incorporated into its city limits.

[lzppjb]

Austin

The dense area is The University of Texas.

[Chase Unperson]

Originally Posted by LMich

Probably about as bad a comparison as one could make, to be honest, given that Denver's airport - which is physically outside of the urban area of the city, but still a part of its incorporation - is 53 square miles of its 153 square miles total. Denver is effectively 100 square miles, and probably one of the more notable (most?) example(s) of a large American city's density being skewed by a large airport incorporated into its city limits.

Ok. So Denver's defacto density is ~6000k? About the same as Stl's after years of double digit plunge per decade.

[brian_b]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

what's more interesting is that lone yellow area looks like it's at Montrose harbor... but Uptown at least seems like it'd have much higher density numbers:

Just so you know... The park district allows live-aboards in the Chicago Harbor system. So the Census needs to have tracts that include the harbors to cover the people that live on boats. Those people obviously have to find somewhere else to live in the winter, but the Census doesn't do their counts in the winter...

A lot of cities have harbors that allow for live-aboards, so that is going to drastically skew a lot of tracts that have water borders. Chicago will be especially bad, since those tracts will stretch from dense neighborhoods, cross Lake Shore Drive, cross Lincoln Park, and then head into the water where the boats are not stacked on top of each other so they can count the 4 or 5 people that actually do live on a boat.

In the bay area, there are some harbors in Marin County that are pretty densely packed with boats that are specifically designed as residences. But Oakland, SF and Alameda all have harbors where the live-aboards are few and far between and the Census needs to stretch a tract out to get them, dramatically reducing the density of what would have probably been some fairly dense tracts.

I bet you can find 200-300 tracts around the country that are "unfairly" skewed just because of harbors.

[mhays]

Do they stretch to include only the residential piers or all piers? I think commercial piers are included too, but it would be interesting to know how they draw the lines.

If it's a regular marina the population might be low. With houseboats it might be pretty dense. Locally, houseboats are limited to something like 800 sf in plan (x 2 levels often), without much space between them.

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by brian_b

Just so you know... The park district allows live-aboards in the Chicago Harbor system. So the Census needs to have tracts that include the harbors to cover the people that live on boats. Those people obviously have to find somewhere else to live in the winter, but the Census doesn't do their counts in the winter...

A lot of cities have harbors that allow for live-aboards, so that is going to drastically skew a lot of tracts that have water borders. Chicago will be especially bad, since those tracts will stretch from dense neighborhoods, cross Lake Shore Drive, cross Lincoln Park, and then head into the water where the boats are not stacked on top of each other so they can count the 4 or 5 people that actually do live on a boat.

Yes but as you alluded to those live in boats in Chicago harbors are seasonal residences only, those people have primary residences elsewhere where they live at least six months of the year. The census date is actually April 1st which is before the boat season is in full swing, most boats enter the harbors in Chicago in late April from my observations over the years.

[CPVLIVE]

Originally Posted by Chase Unperson

But on the bright side STL is still 33% denser than places like Denver.

Originally Posted by LMich

Probably about as bad a comparison as one could make, to be honest, given that Denver's airport - which is physically outside of the urban area of the city, but still a part of its incorporation - is 53 square miles of its 153 square miles total. Denver is effectively 100 square miles, and probably one of the more notable (most?) example(s) of a large American city's density being skewed by a large airport incorporated into its city limits.

Yes - DIA is quite large to say the least. You can fit Atlanta/Hartsfield, Chicago/O'Hare, Los Angeles Int., JFK, and McCarren Int. inside its 53 sq. miles - with room left over for Phoenix Sky Harbor, St. Louis/Lambert, and Miami Int.

Originally Posted by Chase Unperson

Ok. So Denver's defacto density is ~6000k? About the same as Stl's after years of double digit plunge per decade.

The city of Denver gained 43,000 residents from 2010 - 2012 and is now at ~6430k defacto density and growing.

[bobbyv]

Originally Posted by CPVLIVE

Yes - DIA is quite large to say the least. You can fit Atlanta/Hartsfield, Chicago/O'Hare, Los Angeles Int., JFK, and McCarren Int. inside its 53 sq. miles - with room left over for Phoenix Sky Harbor, St. Louis/Lambert, and Miami Int.



The city of Denver gained 43,000 residents from 2010 - 2012 and is now at ~6430k defacto density and growing.

I don't understand why people keep bringing up dead space as if their city is the only city that has it, every city in America has density killers to some extent some more than others, 6430 ppsm is not all that impressive no matter how you try to slice it.

[Hamilton]

Originally Posted by CPVLIVE

Yes - DIA is quite large to say the least. You can fit Atlanta/Hartsfield, Chicago/O'Hare, Los Angeles Int., JFK, and McCarren Int. inside its 53 sq. miles - with room left over for Phoenix Sky Harbor, St. Louis/Lambert, and Miami Int.



The city of Denver gained 43,000 residents from 2010 - 2012 and is now at ~6430k defacto density and growing.

Link for that? The 2011 census estimates for cities are not reliable--rather than compute population growth for every municipality individually, the Census Bureau came up with their 'estimates' by assuming that each municipality in each county grew at the same rate. Therefore the rates are only reliable where a city and county are coterminous (SF, Baltimore, NYC, Indianapolis, Philly, etc.). Check this out for any county--you'll see identical growth rates for every municipality in the county).

Even so, it's pretty sad that a nearly depopulated old-fashioned city still rivals Denver in density, even after cherry-picking.

Originally Posted by bobbyv

I don't understand why people keep bringing up dead space as if their city is the only city that has it, every city in America has density killers to some extent some more than others, 6430 ppsm is not all that impressive no matter how you try to slice it.

Bingo.