^Seriously everyone, there is no way of proving any of this. It is a discussion merely opinion motivated and beauty is in the eyes of the beholder but I tend to agree with C-Dawg. The funny part is wondering if this going to start a new useless Forbes list of rankings... "cities with the ugliest girls"... with Cleveland ranking high?  :lol:

I just saw that in 1930, Cleveland had 12,718 people per square mile. Today we have  6,166.5 per square mile

That was also the same year in which Los Angles had a larger population then us but with only 2,812 per square mile.

 

In the 2000 census los angeles densed up a little.

And Detroits density cut in half.

 

Los angeles:  7,876.4 People/Sq. mile

Houston:      3,371.8 People/Sq. mile

Phoenix:      2,781.7 People/Sq. mile

San Diego:    3,772.4 People/Sq. mile

Dallas:        3,470.3 People/Sq. mile

San Antonio: 2,808.3 People/Sq. mile

 

Chicago, New York and Philadelphia looked good though with

 

Chicago:      12,752.2 People/Sq. mile

New York:    26,403.8 People/Sq. mile

Philadelphia: 11,232.8 People/Sq. mile

I don't care for the way certain parts of Philly acheives its density levels.  Certain parts, especially where my family lives in NE Philly, almost seem like a waste of density with large, nealry unwalkable blocks of rowhouses (don't call them townhomes) with strip mall infill throughout.  And don't even get me started on Franklin Blvd and its affection with chain restaraunts and retail.  Personally, I prefer the western suburbs, which can be very nice and walkable,to some of the denser areas of the City.  Center City (Philly's downtown) is also very nice...... MUCH improved from what it was.

Not all of the Northeast is like that (Frankfort ain't bad) but there are lots of sections with the 1930's strips that do seem quite terrible.  The Boulevard (Roosevelt) is atrocious but every city has those (Queens Blvd comes to mind for New York).

Outside of downtown, I don't think about "Cleveland" and "density" in the same sentence. There are some dense NBDs here and there, but despite the length of the commercial corridors there many have had their density/walkability severely compromised. If only demolition started on one end and only went building to building instead of creating several large gaps over entire streets. Now if something can be done about those 10,000 abandoned homes and enough residents turn around some of the up-and-coming neighborhoods to increase interest in some of the more blighted areas we could see some density retained and the infrastructure in some of those rougher areas might be saved for more new residents. Unfortunately, more buildings and residents are going to be lost before that happens.

I just saw that in 1930, Cleveland had 12,718 people per square mile. Today we have  6,166.5 per square mile

That was also the same year in which Los Angles had a larger population then us but with only 2,812 per square mile.

 

In the 2000 census los angeles densed up a little.

And Detroits density cut in half.

 

Los angeles:  7,876.4 People/Sq. mile

Houston:      3,371.8 People/Sq. mile

Phoenix:      2,781.7 People/Sq. mile

San Diego:    3,772.4 People/Sq. mile

Dallas:        3,470.3 People/Sq. mile 

San Antonio: 2,808.3 People/Sq. mile

 

Chicago, New York and Philadelphia looked good though with

 

Chicago:      12,752.2 People/Sq. mile

New York:    26,403.8 People/Sq. mile

Philadelphia: 11,232.8 People/Sq. mile

 

Its hard to compare cities since the amount of land is not equal.  Especially a place like Los Angeles where LA county where 10 million people live in an area of 4,700 sq miles.  LA city, alone, is approx 500 sq. miles.

I bet if you took the Valley out of the equation, LA's density numbers would shoot way up.  South of the mountains LA is very dense.  Also LA Metro is the densest MSA...it's just the nature of western suburbs in general. They're always built more densely than eastern suburbs.

I thought Miami was the densest MSA but Los Angeles is certainly Top 3.

aww you two are letting me down -- msa bs is for closet suburban lovers!

 

 

alright heres the goods -- top ten msa's:

 

1.New York

2.Los Angeles

3.Chicago

4.Dallas-Fort Worth

5.Philadelphia

6.Houston

7.Miami

8.Washington

9.Atlanta

10.Boston

 

yeah its wiki so dont take it as gospel!

That's not "density," that's just largest MSA's. GET WITH THE PROGRAM!!!

awwriiight! awwriight! ya suburban schmoocher!

 

 

 

That still doesn't show MSA density.  That shows urbanized density in which case Miami is screwed as West Palm Beach (which is in Miami's MSA) isn't included.  And the NYC area at 1050 sq miles?  In what universe? LOL!!!

Yeah, I'm having a hard time finding a list of densest MSAs, but I heard somewhere that LA has the densest, but Miami or NYC definitely could.  Regardless, the MSA density numbers don't have much of a bearing on the built envrionment of the city itself. 

I'm certain we'd be a lot closer to Cleveland in density outside of all of that annexed land post 1950. We have around 275,000-300,000 residents in the original city boundaries of 40 sq miles or 6875-7500 residents per sq mi. By those numbers we're a bit denser than Cleveland in our urban core. It's probably even once you factor in a couple of areas that have likely lost a couple thousand more residents each since the 2000 census along with other neighborhoods that continue to lose residents.

Yeah, I'm having a hard time finding a list of densest MSAs, but I heard somewhere that LA has the densest, but Miami or NYC definitely could. Regardless, the MSA density numbers don't have much of a bearing on the built envrionment of the city itself.

 

Indeed.

I'm certain we'd be a lot closer to Cleveland in density outside of all of that annexed land post 1950. We have around 275,000-300,000 residents in the original city boundaries of 40 sq miles or 6875-7500 residents per sq mi. By those numbers we're a bit denser than Cleveland in our urban core. It's probably even once you factor in a couple of areas that have likely lost a couple thousand more residents each since the 2000 census.

 

Plus, those numbers don't account for the Ohio State student population either, which is abnormally large.

That certainly makes up for all residents we're losing in Linden and the Near South/east of Parsons area. That pushes it up to around 8375-9000 residents per sq mi (going with 60,000). Surprisingly high.

So back on topic, Cleveland just needs an OSU satellite campus to boost it's population a bit.

I did an analysis of Ohio's MSA's and density in another thread.  Here, I cut and copied it:

 

Cincy Metro - 4,399 sq. mi. for a pop. density of 498/sq. mi.

C-bus Metro - 3,983 sq. mi. for a pop. density of 458/sq. mi.

Cleveland Metro - 2,004 sq. mi. for a pop density of 1040/sq. mi.

 

The areas exlude water (some of Cleveland metro's counties are nearly or more than half in the lake) and is based on the following:

 

Cincy's metro includes 15 counties - 3 in Indiana (Dearborn, Franklin, Ohio), 7 in Kentucky (Boone, Bracken, Campbell, Gallatin, Grant, Kenton, Pendleton), and 5 in Ohio (Brown, Clermont, Hamilton, Warren, Butler)

 

C-Bus's metro includes 8 counties (Delaware, Fairfield, Franklin, Licking, Madison, Morrow, Pickaway, Union)) all in Ohio.

 

Cleveland's metro includes 5 counties (Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lorain, Medina) all in Ohio.

 

Keep in mind that I personally would think that such an analysis should be limited to urbanized areas (which would knock off much of Cincy's non-Ohio land, as well as certain counties in Cleveland's, particularly Geauga and Medina), but if you want just a meat and bones analysis of land density for Ohio's MSA's (as commonly defined), the above is accurate.  Don't jump down my throat Cincy and CBus.  You all tend to take this discussion a bit too serious ;)

So back on topic, Cleveland just needs an OSU satellite campus to boost it's population a bit.

 

Hopefully Cleveland State can keep growing. Not to that level of course but still it could help. I think this map can help show density as well. It was posted in the "Cleveland: How diverse are we thread" 

 

http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/explorer?hp?hp

I did an analysis of Ohio's MSA's and density in another thread.  Here, I cut and copied it:

 

Cincy Metro - 4,399 sq. mi. for a pop. density of 498/sq. mi.

C-bus Metro - 3,983 sq. mi. for a pop. density of 458/sq. mi.

Cleveland Metro - 2,004 sq. mi. for a pop density of 1040/sq. mi.

 

The areas exlude water (some of Cleveland metro's counties are nearly or more than half in the lake) and is based on the following:

 

Cincy's metro includes 15 counties - 3 in Indiana (Dearborn, Franklin, Ohio), 7 in Kentucky (Boone, Bracken, Campbell, Gallatin, Grant, Kenton, Pendleton), and 5 in Ohio (Brown, Clermont, Hamilton, Warren, Butler)

 

C-Bus's metro includes 8 counties (Delaware, Fairfield, Franklin, Licking, Madison, Morrow, Pickaway, Union)) all in Ohio.

 

Cleveland's metro includes 5 counties (Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lorain, Medina) all in Ohio.

 

Keep in mind that I personally would think that such an analysis should be limited to urbanized areas (which would knock off much of Cincy's non-Ohio land, as well as certain counties in Cleveland's, particularly Geauga and Medina), but if you want just a meat and bones analysis of land density for Ohio's MSA's (as commonly defined), the above is accurate.  Don't jump down my throat Cincy and CBus.  You all tend to take this discussion a bit too serious ;)

 

Why exclude water if it's part of the land counted in the MSA? By that logic, we should exclude unbuildable portions of Cincinnati metro due to terrain.

And watersheds (re: Pickaway, Madison, and Union Counties for Columbus), blah blah blah.

 

But I guess the point is that all Three C's are sprawling monsters.

Because it's not land, silly.  I didn't exclude the industrial valley in Cleveland either... or the metroparks.  I also excluded any water area for Cincy and CBus too, so don't feel jaded. 

 

But, seriously... 

 

 

 

 

I did an analysis of Ohio's MSA's and density in another thread. Here, I cut and copied it:

 

Cincy Metro - 4,399 sq. mi. for a pop. density of 498/sq. mi.

C-bus Metro - 3,983 sq. mi. for a pop. density of 458/sq. mi.

Cleveland Metro - 2,004 sq. mi. for a pop density of 1040/sq. mi.

 

The areas exlude water (some of Cleveland metro's counties are nearly or more than half in the lake) and is based on the following:

 

Cincy's metro includes 15 counties - 3 in Indiana (Dearborn, Franklin, Ohio), 7 in Kentucky (Boone, Bracken, Campbell, Gallatin, Grant, Kenton, Pendleton), and 5 in Ohio (Brown, Clermont, Hamilton, Warren, Butler)

 

C-Bus's metro includes 8 counties (Delaware, Fairfield, Franklin, Licking, Madison, Morrow, Pickaway, Union)) all in Ohio.

 

Cleveland's metro includes 5 counties (Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lorain, Medina) all in Ohio.

 

Keep in mind that I personally would think that such an analysis should be limited to urbanized areas (which would knock off much of Cincy's non-Ohio land, as well as certain counties in Cleveland's, particularly Geauga and Medina), but if you want just a meat and bones analysis of land density for Ohio's MSA's (as commonly defined), the above is accurate. Don't jump down my throat Cincy and CBus. You all tend to take this discussion a bit too serious ;)

 

Why exclude water if it's part of the land counted in the MSA? By that logic, we should exclude unbuildable portions of Cincinnati metro due to terrain.

 

THE LAKE

I take it you folks haven't seen the floating city of Mexico City, have you? ;)

Or San Francisco, apparently.

So that is why my agent has been pushing me to buy that acre lot a few miles north of Gordon Park.

When that lake is frozen (which is half the damn year), you can't use that "we can't build here" excuse, Sarah!

When that lake is frozen (which is half the damn year), you can't use that "we can't build here" excuse, Sarah!

 

"Half" the year? Try one or two months, freezebaby. And rarely is it completely frozen over.

Has no one heard of house boats?

 

Why is the lake area included in the first place? Wouldn't a lake make a logical boundary?

Somebody has to arrest drunken boaters.

Because it's not land, silly. I didn't exclude the industrial valley in Cleveland either... or the metroparks. I also excluded any water area for Cincy and CBus too, so don't feel jaded.

 

But, seriously...

 

 

 

I'm just saying, there are many parts of Cincinnati metro that are unbuildable due to terrain.  Obviously the lake is unbuildable as well, but the rest of Cleveland is largely flat land that allows for dense building.  Comparisons like these always have little nuanced irregularities that don't get taken into account.  Check out the "another dumb list" thread to show how raw data can be skewed to create a point. 

No pont being made.  Just the facts, ma'am.  And you might want to check out the qualifier in my post, as I figured you and CDM would cwap yourselves.

When that lake is frozen (which is half the damn year), you can't use that "we can't build here" excuse, Sarah!

 

"Half" the year? Try one or two months, freezebaby. And rarely is it completely frozen over.

 

Sheeeiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit.

 

Has no one heard of house boats?

 

Why is the lake area included in the first place? Wouldn't a lake make a logical boundary?

 

From what I understand, Lake County, since it is tiny geographically on the land, has to include water to meet some sort of Ohio county establishment.

Are you sure? According to wikipedia(yes i know) it shows the cuyahoga county has

 

Total  1,246 sq mi

Land  458 sq mi

Water 787 sq mi

 

Right.  Lake, cuyahoga, and lorain are all half or more in the lake

Has no one heard of house boats?

 

Why is the lake area included in the first place? Wouldn't a lake make a logical boundary?

 

Because if you didn't include the area in the lake, there would be a large area up to the boundary with Canada that either belongs to the State of Ohio but to no County, or to the United States but not Ohio.  Coastal counties on the left, right, and bottom coasts extend (I believe) 12 miles out to the beginning of international waters.

No pont being made.  Just the facts, ma'am.  And you might want to check out the qualifier in my post, as I figured you and CDM would cwap yourselves.

 

Yeah because trying to have a conversation is crapping myself :roll: