Thread: Census Dot Map

Wow Atlanta is huge.

Not real surprising, but kinda interesting how more people live in the rural areas around cities in the eastern half of Oklahoma than in the western half, i.e., more people around Stillwater and Bartlesville than Enid.

Very cool, thanks for sharing.

Originally Posted by Bunty

Not real surprising, but kinda interesting how more people live in the rural areas around cities in the eastern half of Oklahoma than in the western half, i.e., more people around Stillwater and Bartlesville than Enid.

Eastern OK is far more habitable than Western OK.

I also love seeing the invisible force of the old railroad routes and contemporary roads.

That would make a nice connect the dot puzzle for someone with OCD.

Originally Posted by cleanskull

That would make a nice connect the dot puzzle for someone with OCD.

Wait, I'm not the only one already started doing this... right?

I had no idea that the Minneapolis metro area was that large. Thanks for posting, I was afraid I would actually have to do some work today, this solves that problem!

Originally Posted by ThomPaine

I had no idea that the Minneapolis metro area was that large. Thanks for posting, I was afraid I would actually have to do some work today, this solves that problem!

I had nightmares about that huge blob they call Atlanta.

Imagine how colorful it would have been if they assigned a different color for each ethnicity. I would think early immigrant settlement patterns would still show today.

I never realized how monstrous Atlanta is!

It's also interesting to see how much of the actual urban areas that people don't live in, like the clear division between the northern and southern halves of Greater OKC.

Thank You Sid. (and happy new year)
(ocd is ok by me . . . =)

Originally Posted by venture79

Eastern OK is far more habitable than Western OK.

That depends on how you define habitable. Much of Western Oklahoma is farmland that a family can use to support themselves. Much of the land in Eastern Oklahoma only grows rocks and scrub oaks.

You can almost see I-44, I-20, and I-10, and I'm sure others as well.

If this guy wanted to take it to the next level he should do it 3D by census tract using population density instead of one dot for each person. That would give a very accurate picture of who lives where.

Originally Posted by Just the facts

If this guy wanted to take it to the next level he should do it 3D by census tract using population density instead of one dot for each person. That would give a very accurate picture of who lives where.

The data and his script is available so if others want to do more with it, they can. Hope others do.

Here is a quick one I made with Excel using 12 census tracts in OKC. The red block in the middle is Paseo and I included the 8 census tracts adjacent to it. The purple row is out along Memorial Road which I used as an example. This is people per sq mile. It would be neat to see something like this for all of Central Oklahoma.

The Edmond area is actually pretty big, a lot bigger than Norman. If Edmond's city limits extended more to the west and north, it would definitely be the state's 3rd largest city.

Originally Posted by Just the facts

If this guy wanted to take it to the next level he should do it 3D by census tract using population density instead of one dot for each person. That would give a very accurate picture of who lives where.

What is that "hole" in the peak where Houston's pop. density is? Is that like where a lake or an inlet is located where nobody lives? There is no other peak that seems to have that.

I think that is Galveston Bay. While pretty neat, that map isn't quite what I had in mind. That is a population map but I think a denisty map would tell a better story. For example, Dallas is one serious peak but Dallas only has an average density of 3,500 people per sq mile. OKC has lots of census tracts with a density higher than that. So OKC and Dallas would be about the same height, Dallas would just cover more ground.

I've always wondered, why has northeastern OKC never really developed much?

Originally Posted by KayneMo

I've always wondered, why has northeastern OKC never really developed much?

The terrain is definitely more of an issue there than just about any other part of OKC so that could be part of it. Odd though that the parts of OKC and Tulsa closest to each other are the slowest to develop, while areas in the opposite directions have developed much faster.

I've written this before in different threads, but I really think it has more to do with the school district, and perceived quality thereof, than anything else.