Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wish they'd open up their datasets for the basic component parts they're using and so there can be different thresholding used on what constituted urban and contiguous. I think the threshold they use for urban is a bit too high, and I'm not sure how strict theya re with contiguous.
I wish they'd open up their datasets for the basic component parts they're using and so there can be different thresholding used on what constituted urban and contiguous. I think the threshold they use for urban is a bit too high, and I'm not sure how strict theya re with contiguous.
MSA/CSA include the totality of the county irregardless if it's 99% farmland or built out like Tokyo.
Urban Area calculates the contiguous land that's actually developed/urbanized, not arbitrary administrative boarders.
So Boston metro and csa land area as a whole is less than many places such chicago, Houston, dc etc but.. according to this Boston-prov has the second most contiguous “built up” land area second to nyc at 3400 square miles. So in less actual land more of it is built up?
How is that possible? How would it be more built up square mileage than let’s say a dc that I feel prioritizes transit oriented development in the suburbs more…
I guess Boston is more built up within the csa/msa but it’s more lower density built up where dc is less built up within the total land area but where it’s built up it’s much higher density (in suburbs)??
Is that how I should be interpreting this
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,568,606 times
Reputation: 5786
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne999
So Boston metro and csa land area as a whole is less than many places such chicago, Houston, dc etc but.. according to this Boston-prov has the second most contiguous “built up” land area second to nyc at 3400 square miles. So in less actual land more of it is built up?
How is that possible? How would it be more built up square mileage than let’s say a dc that I feel prioritizes transit oriented development in the suburbs more…
I guess Boston is more built up within the csa/msa but it’s more lower density built up where dc is less built up within the total land area but where it’s built up it’s much higher density (in suburbs)??
Is that how I should be interpreting this
You'll probably want to visit the tables and references made by Demographia on best explaining the "built up land area". I would not say that Boston-Prov is "more built up" than those others in the aggregate, but the stretch of municipalities orbiting Boston-Providence are seemingly tied in to make it a stretch of "urbanity". Drawing exact lines on where that urbanity ends is something their analysts determine. With that said the density is pulling much lower than those cities you've mentioned.
"Demographia World Urban Areas was established to offer consistency urban density analysis, in hopes of replacing anecdotal comparisons between cities that are often invalid. The built-up urban area is the only level at with sufficient data to estimate the densities of the urban organism at anything approximating international standards."
I thought this was interesting regarding their estimations vs others:
"Some of the earlier, lower estimates by other sources were, in actuality, municipal estimates that did not sufficiently take into consideration the spread of urbanization beyond the core city limits or other geographical limits. Demographia’s larger population estimates were the result of actual satellite map examination of the urban form. Similarly, in many cases, Demographia’s estimates have been lower than reported elsewhere for the same reason --- some other urban area estimates have included rural areas by virtue of their having used metropolitan areas, which, by definition, include rural areas and cannot therefore be classified as urban."
Last edited by the resident09; 09-02-2023 at 08:42 PM..
You'll probably want to visit the tables and references made by Demographia on best explaining the "built up land area". I would not say that Boston-Prov is "more built up" than those others in the aggregate, but the stretch of municipalities orbiting Boston-Providence are seemingly tied in to make it a stretch of "urbanity". With that said the density is pulling much lower than those cities you've mentioned.
"Demographia World Urban Areas was established to offer consistency urban density analysis, in hopes of replacing anecdotal comparisons between cities that are often invalid. The built-up urban area is the only level at with sufficient data to estimate the densities of the urban organism at anything approximating international standards."
I thought this was interesting regarding their estimations vs others:
"Some of the earlier, lower estimates by other sources were, in actuality, municipal estimates that did not sufficiently take into consideration the spread of urbanization beyond the core city limits or other geographical limits. Demographia’s larger population estimates were the result of actual satellite map examination of the urban form. Similarly, in many cases, Demographia’s estimates have been lower than reported elsewhere for the same reason --- some other urban area estimates have included rural areas by virtue of their having used metropolitan areas, which, by definition, include rural areas and cannot therefore be classified as urban."
Thanks for this info! Ill look at the charts more
I agree there are lower density corridors in bostons suburbs down to providence. But If there is more overall land area in chicago, Houston or dc csa/msa by significant margins compared to Boston and less built up square mileage there has to be more areas of no urbanity in Houston, dc or others.. those areas of built up environment are much higher in density compared to bostons lower density built up suburbs. how do you have more overall land area and less built area without this being the case
Thanks for this info! Ill look at the charts more
I agree there are lower density corridors in bostons suburbs down to providence. But If there is more overall land area in chicago, Houston or dc csa/msa by significant margins compared to Boston and less built up square mileage there has to be more areas of no urbanity in Houston, dc or others.. those areas of built up environment are much higher in density compared to bostons lower density built up suburbs. how do you have more overall land area and less built area without this being the case
You are over thinking this.
Houston for example has large outer counties that add lots of square miles but not a lot of population. Those counties are in the outskirts so they don't make it to the urban area.
Houston's central area isn't all that dense but it isn't an that sparse either. It hits medium density and stays there with no drop offs. To put that in perspective, the central county has 4.5M people, that's more than the entire population of Boston. And huge parts of that county might not even count in the UA because they are not populated.
UA and msa calculations are very different so you can't look at MSA size and compare it to UA population.
We did this exercise in the radial population thread. You saw that after a certain radius Houston outpaces Boston and it keeps outpacing it.
Boston and the core cities around is definitely more dense than Houston, but doing gymnastics to make Boston pack more people in less space than Houston is just not going to work. Houston's even density packs in more people than Boston s layout of tight core cities surrounded by almost rural suburbs.
Houston's suburbs are just as dense as the city. That doesn't say much for the city, but it is what it is.
Don't think about it in urban terms just because the word urban is in the band urban area. Density is not synonymous with urban area. Urbanity is almost always judged based on inner core area so don't get tripped by Boston's UA density.
You are over thinking this.
Houston for example has large outer counties that add lots of square miles but not a lot of population. Those counties are in the outskirts so they don't make it to the urban area.
Houston's central area isn't all that dense but it isn't an that sparse either. It hits medium density and stays there with no drop offs. To put that in perspective, the central county has 4.5M people, that's more than the entire population of Boston. And huge parts of that county might not even count in the UA because they are not populated.
UA and msa calculations are very different so you can't look at MSA size and compare it to UA population.
We did this exercise in the radial population thread. You saw that after a certain radius Houston outpaces Boston and it keeps outpacing it.
Boston and the core cities around is definitely more dense than Houston, but doing gymnastics to make Boston pack more people in less space than Houston is just not going to work. Houston's even density packs in more people than Boston s layout of tight core cities surrounded by almost rural suburbs.
Houston's suburbs are just as dense as the city. That doesn't say much for the city, but it is what it is.
Don't think about it in urban terms just because the word urban is in the band urban area. Density is not synonymous with urban area. Urbanity is almost always judged based on inner core area so don't get tripped by Boston's UA density.
Thank you makes sense.
I guess I’m trying to understand the flow of populations in these regions (metros/csa/urban areas) better.
I get Boston-prov. It’s high density up 130 ish square miles or so than drops off to low density except in a few areas and then gets high density approaching nearby metros. there is significant low urbanity in the outer suburbs of the individual metros.
Houston makes sense as it does perfectly fit the radial exercise of the other thread. Medium to medium high density for longer stretch and then low density and then basically no density for the outer suburbs of metro/csa. I’d imagine a similar pattern for chicago?
Dc and other cities can’t perfectly fit that pattern since dc too has a nearby metro significantly contributing to urban area populations. But the region has large square mileage and comparatively lower built up land area. There has to be dead zones somewhere.
Looking at metro area maps it does seem dc outer metro area contains more no urbanity areas encompassing the northwest, western parts of the metro and baltimore encroaching from the north east/east.
I’m interested in the flow of populations for all the cities not just these.
I’d enjoy color coded pictures of these areas with deeper colors for highly urban to very light for no urban to understand flow better. I could probably easily find this.
In the race of the Tortoise vs the hare Pre- WWII cities are the Hare. They burst with energy for the first few miles then they rest for a bit then pick back up with more bursts of energy
Post WWII cities like Phoenix and Las Vegas are the Tortoise. They don't come out the gate with as much energy, but their speed is constant and that helps them win the race.
Now there are just supercharged Mega Hares like NY that maintain their energy burst long enough to blow the tortoises out of the water.
Eastern metros usually have higher peaks but lower lows.
Western Cities generally have average peaks with few spiked but few down spots.
Middle of country cities may be hybrids of the 2. You have Chicago with the Eastern high peak, but western average density. Then Houston is probably the weirdest Frankenbeaat out there. What would have been an eastern peak is broken up into many smaller peaks surrounded by the western average density. It's the oddest and most random thing out there.
Boston is the #1 city for dense city core totally sparse lightly developed suburbs. probably because it's the oldest metro area around really.
Ne99 everywhere else I go there seems less of a stark contrast between 'city' lifestyle and 'suburban' lifestyle. NYC and Philly are close. but even by the time you get to Baltimore- that delineation drops off pretty quickly compared to Philly.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
