-BO- wrote:
FOG wrote:
Here in Dayton, OH, we have 19 BT sites within a 6-mile radius, which would appear to be one of the greatest concentration of sites anywhere. Phoenix has 20 sites within a 7-mile radius. So both are accurately characterized as "site rich."
The DFW area could come close to that, not long back there was an area near Stadium Cafe that had 8 sites within a 1.5 mile radius although 2 of those have since removed BT. Am pretty sure we have more sites than any other metro area.
Sitefinder count is 79, all in about a 33-mile radius of Irving. One site per 43.3 square miles
Greater LA (or at least what
looks to me like it) has 89 sites. Of course, it's not obvious exactly how far GLA goes. That 89 is counting Simi Valley, Santa Clarita, San Bernardino, and Riverside, but excludes Oxnard, Temecula, and Oceanside. Here the site distribution is roughly elliptical, 100 miles long x 60 miles wide. One site per 52.9 square miles
However, a map posted to Wikimedia Commons (GreaterLAmap.png) defines GLA as no farther north and west than LA proper, and east to only Ontario/Anaheim Hills/Irvine. Same 33-mile radius as DFW, but with only 65 sites. One site per 52.6 square miles. So GLA has more sites than DFW
if you allow a sufficiently generous definition
At the other end of the scale, Calgary's now dropped to 15 sites, equal to a particular city incessantly whined
about being site-poor. But the farthest pair are a mere 24 miles apart, so we've got one site per 30.2 sq. miles. At least if you live somewhere with a Buzztime site within a day's drive, you're no worse off than MY site-poor backyard of Saskatchewan -- Sports On Tap in Saskatoon is it for the whole damn province!