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.
Looks like the top ten metros over 1,000,000 would be:
1. Los Angeles
2. San Francisco Bay Area
3. New York
4. New Orleans (pre-Katrina)
5. Las Vegas
6. Miami
7. Denver
8. Chicago
9. Sacramento
10. Phoenix
It will be interesting to see what the numbers look like for 2010.
But how dense inside and outside the city limits?
These lists aren't as crazy as they 1st seem because some of the densest cities; Boston, Philly, Chicago, DC have very sprawling suburbs that have a lower density than the Denver's and Miami's. I think for Phoenix they must be counting a lot of empty desert that the developers haven't reached yet because anything that is developed there is pretty dense like the typical sunbelt city.
Last edited by bryson662001; 01-01-2011 at 11:22 AM..
Yes, but it is suburban development (i.e., sprawl), not urban.
IMO, single family tract houses jammed together on handkerchief sized lots, so common in the sunbelt, are more urban than suburban. That's how Los Angeles came to be so dense.
Typical neighborhood in "suburban" Las Vegas
from Google earth
Last edited by bryson662001; 01-01-2011 at 06:04 PM..
Yes, but it is suburban development (i.e., sprawl), not urban.
It's not just suburban sprawl, you also have cities like Fort Lauderdale, and West Palm Beach outside of Miami with there own respective urban areas, and then you have the beach areas with all there high-rise condominiums(which don't look suburban in the least, in quite densely populated coastal areas.) Each beach city along I-95 in South Florida has there own receptive downtowns, areas of commerce, public transit, etc, etc.
IMO, single family tract houses jammed together on handkerchief sized lots, so common in the sunbelt, are more urban than suburban. That's how Los Angeles came to be so dense.
Typical neighborhood in "suburban" Las Vegas
from Google earth
That's density for sure, but not urbanity. The most glaring problem to me is that you need a car to get pretty much anywhere from there, that pretty much screams suburban. That's not the only criteria for urbanity, I know, there's lots, look, feel, transportation, vibrancy, personal opinion, other stuff. Density is part of it too but, and this will be City-Data blasphemy lol, suburban and suburban sprawl do not mean not-dense, and density does not mean urbanity.
You have places like that around say Vegas or LA, yeah that's really dense, but I wouldn't call it urban. Look at the NY and Philly metros, you have Hoboken, Yonkers, JC, Newark, Camden and other places like that around and beyond the main city, and cities like that "say" urbanity to me.
It's very possible to have relatively dense sprawl.
The difference between sprawl and regular development is that sprawl leap frogs itself and leaves undeveloped patchs in between. It is more often seen in the east then the west or sunbelt states, probably because of water distribution problems, although Atlanta, Charlott, Dallas and Houston all have sprawl. IMO the most sprawl is found in New Jersey. Between NY, Philly and the jersey shore the entire state is covered with scater shot development, none of it particularly dense except adjacent to Manhattan.
The difference between sprawl and regular development is that sprawl leap frogs itself and leaves undeveloped patchs in between. It is more often seen in the east then the west or sunbelt states, probably because of water distribution problems, although Atlanta, Charlott, Dallas and Houston all have sprawl. IMO the most sprawl is found in New Jersey. Between NY, Philly and the jersey shore the entire state is covered with scater shot development, none of it particularly dense except adjacent to Manhattan.
Yeah, but "patchier" sprawl in certain Eastern metros compared to certain Western ones doesn't make the Western denser suburbs any more urban, or the more urban satellite cities of Eastern metros that are there too any less urban.
Looks like the top ten metros over 1,000,000 would be:
1. Los Angeles
2. San Francisco Bay Area
3. New York
4. New Orleans (pre-Katrina)
5. Las Vegas
6. Miami
7. Denver
8. Chicago
9. Sacramento
10. Phoenix
It will be interesting to see what the numbers look like for 2010.
I think the best way to measure it would be by "Weighted Density" of UA's. Normal measurements just take a population divided by total land area.
For example, let's say there is an urban area of 1,000,000 in 200 square miles. The standard density of that UA would be 5,000 ppsm...but that doesn't take into account how many people are living in dense areas. Weighted density will take into account the total % of population living in a % of area...check out a more in-depth explanation. Here are the Weighted densities of American UA's:
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.
