Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Population density is more important than structural density though, in terms of having a large number of urban amenities in a small area. It is the thing that makes a walkable lifestyle possible. For example Whittier doesn't look dense, but it is no problem to live in it without a car because there is tons of stuff nearby. It is the population density that allows for that.
While this may be true. Let's put it in perspective.
In 1950 Chicago had a population density of 17,577 over 206 square miles.
St. Louis had a population density of 14,045 in 61 square miles.
Chicago still maintains much higher density in certain neighborhoods than St. Louis, and certainly over a stretch of 61 square miles than St. Louis.
In fact if you conglomerated the denser north side hoods together at 61 square miles, the density still remains over 20K...
I remember a discussion about San Fran and Chicago and density. I believe San Fran fits around 810,000 people into 50 square miles. I remember that if you add up the continuous neighborhoods on the north/near northwest sides of Chicago, you come up with 1,200,000 people in 50 square miles. That's pretty good - 24,000 psm over a fairly large area. My area has around 60,000 people in 3 miles - although that includes a large area of Lincoln Park, Montrose Harbor and one of the largest cemeteries in the city.
State-Langdon: 29,297/sq mi (Pop. 9,414)
Mifflin West: 16,311/sq mi (Pop. 2,950)
Mansion Hill: 17,999/sq mi (Pop. 3,505)
Bassett: 12,415/sq mi (Pop. 4,015)
Not bad for a city as small as Madison. Even though it's largely students in these areas, other cities with huge universities such as Austin and Columbus don't have anything close to 30k/sq mi so it's somewhat impressive.
Minneapolis overall density is now about 8,000 per square mile. Second in the Midwest behind Chicago.
12 years ago there may have been a debate but I think overall St Louis, Cleveland, Detroit etc. have lost population while Minneapolis has filled in. The gap between say St Louis and Minneapolis has grown by about 70,000 people since then.
So while St Louis has an urban fabric more extensive than that of Minneapolis the thread count isn’t there in the way Minneapolis is now more functionally urban even if it visually may seem a bit more suburban.
St. Louis is very compact and urban in the areas that didn't experience much blight. But the north side has so many gaps and isn't very urban anymore. I'd consider Milwaukee to be more urban overall.
Downtown Madison is probably the densest area in the midwest outside of chicago
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
