Identification of land and inland, coastal, territorial, and Great Lakes waters is for data presentation purposes only and does not necessarily reflect their legal definitions. Rivers and bays that empty into these bodies of water are treated as inland water from the point beyond which they are narrower than 1 nautical mile across. The portions of the oceans and related large embayments (such as Chesapeake Bay and Puget Sound), the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea that belong to the United States and its territories are classified as coastal and territorial waters the Great Lakes are treated as a separate water entity. It also includes any river, creek, canal, stream, or similar feature that is recorded in that database as a two-dimensional feature (rather than as a single line). Inland water consists of any lake, reservoir, pond, or similar body of water that is recorded in the Census Bureau�s geographic database. The water area figures include inland, coastal, Great Lakes, and territorial sea water. The Census Bureau provides area measurement data for both land area and water area. Land area - an area measurement providing the size, in square meters, of the land portions of geographic entities for which the Census Bureau tabulates and disseminates data.Īrea is calculated from the specific boundary recorded for each entity in the Census Bureau�s geographic database (see "MAF/TIGER Database"). Land area is based on current information in the TIGER� data base, calculated for use with Census 2010. Census Bureau, Census of Population and Housing. Census Bureau, data file from Geography Division based on the TIGER/Geographic Identification Code Scheme (TIGER/GICS) computer file. Value for Wisconsin (Square Miles): 54,157.80 The details are where better comparisons can be made rather than the surface level comparisons of land area, population, and density.Land area in square miles, 2010 - (Square Miles) County There may not be any direct comparisons, but there are definitely specific policies and strategies that Detroit can utilize from cities that it is often compared to and vice versa. While there is still no great comparison city for Detroit, looking at how the city matches up with many of its comparison cities is an important exercise. I first chose the common comparisons from the popular comparison map (Boston, New York City, Washington D.C., San Francisco), then chose similar population sizes (Charlotte, El Paso, Baltimore, Memphis), followed by similar population density (Seattle, Denver, Milwaukee, Las Vegas) and finally looked at similar land sizes (Philadelphia, Atlanta, Mesa, and Portland). I choose to compare Detroit in land mass, population density, and population size with 16 other cities. Boston is interesting because of its area and population size, but San Francisco is more comparable because of its similar population size to Detroit and its smaller corresponding square-mile area. Manhattan, New York City is a wild comparison just because the land mass and density of people is so different from Detroit. I wondered what other cities would actually make sense to compare Detroit to as far as land area, population, and density. Check out the “ map of Detroit” as an amalgamated region. Should the city condense to its former 1913 borders and focus on making services work within that area before moving outwards or would that just be an exercise in discrimination and inequality? Still others have suggested part of Detroit’s downfall was that it stopped expanding its borders. Imagine San Francisco’s southern edge lined up with the river front and perhaps we would see what proponents of a “condensed” city envision. The 2010 Census population for Detroit was 713,777, closer to San Francisco’s. Rob found that Detroit had a high rate of “feet of street per resident” which caused some areas of the city to appear more vacant when in reality they had healthier infrastructure density. Rob Linn had similar thoughts and instead of comparing land area or other commonly compared attributes he analyzed infrastructure density (feet of street per resident) as a method to debate the misguided “rightsizing” push. It always seems that Detroit has too much or too little of something for a city to city comparison to make much sense. A few groups have even tried fitting different city land areas into Detroit’s 139 square (land) miles. Can Detroit really be compared to any other city? No doubt everyone has tried comparing crime rates, economy, and poverty levels in Detroit with other troubled cities.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |