Quite true, but density ratings can always be a bit tricky as they vary a lot by how much extra land cities have. San Jose's 5,000 per square mile underestimat

Quite true, but density ratings can always be a bit tricky as they vary a lot by how much extra land cities have. San Jose's 5,000 per square mile underestimates what it feels like to live there. See the borders: https://maps.google.com/maps?q=San+Jose,+CA&hl=en&sll=34.052234,-118.243685&sspn=1.141199,2.113495&oq=san+&hnear=San+Jose,+Santa+Clara,+California&t=m&z=11 https://maps.google.com/maps?q=San+Jose,+CA&hl=en&sl... All that area in the southeast are farms and mountains. A The entire northern part are marshes. Its "effective" density is really much closer to 7-8,000 per square mile. Los Angeles is also one where the density numbers underestimate the feeling of it. https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Los+Angeles,+CA&hl=en&sll=37.339592,-121.784821&sspn=0.547556,1.056747&oq=los+a&hnear=Los+Angeles,+California&t=m&z=10 https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Los+Angeles,+CA&hl=en&#38... A lot of that land is mountains. Indeed, south-central and central parts of LA have about the same population as SF and pretty much the same density: http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/neighborhoods/population/density/neighborhood/list/ http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/neighborhoods/populat...