Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: shades who wrote (37526)	8/11/2005 12:23:13 AM
From: Moominoid	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

Population densities in US metro areas are low by world standards, especially on the East Coast. From an environmental perspective concentrating development is better than spreading it around with one exception and that is that then all the pollution is concentrated in one spot. But less resources are used than with sprawlinga nd low density development. Well there is a tradeoff. I lived in Canberra, capital of Australia, that has 300,000 people in an area 35km north south and at least 10km or more east west. So its population denisty is less than 1000 per km2 which is less than the whole country of Bangladesh! Typical densities in Australian cities are 2000 per km2 over the metro area. Maybe a similar average in the US, depending where you draw the line. A lot of the East Coast is probably though at that 1000 level. Los Angeles is probably the densest metro area. Average in UK cities is 5000km2 which is same as inside the city limits in Boston. 10000km2 is common in mainland Europe. 20000km2 seems common in developing countries. That is typical Israel but also is the density in Manhattan. Is also the average on Singapore Island (4 million in 250km2), HK territory as a whole is 7000 (7 million in 1000km2). In Cairo you are going towards the 100,000km2 level. So is Florida crowded? :)