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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (368000)	2/5/2008 8:19:50 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575173

Its not just a matter of "build subways and the city will become dense". Manhattan is dense because its limit space (its an island, in the largest metro area in the country (and one of the largest in the world), and because the cities initial layout was done before the automobile, and for other historical reasons. LA will never be as dense as Manhattan unless some disaster or major economic change reduces Manhattan's density. There was a time when Manhattan was no more dense then a small town in the Midwest. Only because there was a time when the city was only part of Manhattan Island. The "populated wards" of Manhattan in 1800 had a density of 39,183 per square mile. By 1860 the entire island was considered to be made up of "populated wards" and the density for the whole island was 39,351. Today its 76,940/sq m. LA is 8,205/sq mi. "Small towns in the midwest" would have considerably less density than LA. Kansas City, MO (far from a small town) has a density of 1,406.6/sq mi. (Which is about the same as the population of the whole island of Manhattan in 1790). Mason, Illinois (and example of an actual small town) has a population density of 348.3 /sq mi. Data from demographia.com en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org demographia.com en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org