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.
This is what 66,000 people per mile looks like in DC!! Built environment people.......
This tract is 30,000 people per square mile less than the 90,000 people per square mile tract in L.A., yet this is way more urban than the denser tract in L.A. (population density + built environment people......)
This is what 66,000 people per mile looks like in DC!! Built environment people.......
This tract is 30,000 people per square mile less than the 90,000 people per square mile tract in L.A., yet this is way more urban than the denser tract in L.A. (population density + built environment people......)
Those two census tracts speak volumes about the difference between DC and LA in urbanity. Having people stuffed in houses bunked up living with their whole extended family like a third world country like they do in L.A. doesn't make the city urban. The buildings make cities urban and L.A. isn't there at all. Those views of the street speak volumes.
This is what 90,000 people per square mile looks like in L.A! This speaks volumes about this whole topic! You call this urban and comparable to 90,000 people per square mile in say NYC? Built environment people!!!!!!!!!!
What are you talking about, this area looks super urban. Not to mention the 2 pedestrians on that single intersection (though they both suspiciously look like the guys who deliver my chicken).
Anyway, who cares about built environment. Its all about density. For example this neighborhood in Rio has a density of 200,000 psm.
So basically, you can be much smaller, and less dense, than L.A., but if you look a certain way, you're more urban?
Sorry, but that's complete BS.
Stuffing a bunch of illegal immigrants in an apartment doesn't make an area urban. If you can't see the difference in urban design between the two streets I just posted, you aren't even qualified to have this conversation with me.
What are you talking about, this area looks super urban. Not to mention the 3 pedestrians on that single intersection (though they all suspiciously look like the guys who deliver my chicken).
Anyway, who cares about built environment. Its all about density. For example this neighborhood in Rio has a density of 200,000 psm.
Besides the fact that San Francisco is significantly denser in its core than DC, it's urban area is also more dense and compact as well. NOT EVEN CLOSE.
DC urban area: 1300 sq miles, population: 4.6 million
San Francisco: 528 sq miles, population: 3.3 million
Now, add San Jose's UA to San Francisco to form what is commonly known as The Bay Area:
San Francisco + San Jose UAs: 800 sq miles, population: 4.9 million
"The Bay Area" crams more people in far less space than Washington D.C. The Census Burueu can fool you into thinking DC is larger than San Francisco and environs, but not I, and anyone else who has been to both places. San Francisco feels larger (and more vibrant than anywhere outside Manhattan, though admittedly, I have not been to Philly).
You obviously have never been to BK either. 2.4 million in 80 square miles. Do the math!
I know that. That part is well known, but I was trying to say that LA has a lot more highly dense neighborhoods than dc. Also, it's density is sustained over a much larger area.
This list is from ScrantiX
DC's density from the US Capitol 20515
1 mile from 20515 population 31,153 density 9,765
5 miles from 20515 population 533,034 density 10,542
10 miles from 20515 population 601,723 density 9,856
.......
That's not that dense
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.