U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
View Poll Results: Which of these cities is your favourite?
Denver 12 30.77%
Seattle 10 25.64%
Portland 0 0%
Minneapolis 7 17.95%
Austin 0 0%
Atlanta 6 15.38%
Boise 4 10.26%
Voters: 39. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Old 03-19-2011, 07:48 AM
 
Location: Weymouth, The South
786 posts, read 858,155 times
Reputation: 451
Oh, also, the entirety of Metro Atlanta (I'm using the 20 county definition) is denser than any of the other cities' metros I'm interested in. 837 /sq mi for Atlanta vs 584, 541, 406, 333, 304 and 52 /sq mi for Seattle, Minneapolis, Austin, Portland, Denver and Boise. It's not NYC dense (wikipedia lists the NYC metro density at 2,838 /sq mi), but it's not sparse either.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-19-2011, 07:59 AM
 
Location: Atlanta
2,629 posts, read 3,346,492 times
Reputation: 1417
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceTenmile View Post
I know what you wanted to illustrate and I didn't mean to imply you cared about something as boring as county density (like I do). Atlanta does seem to be the poster child of sprawl. I guess it's because it's grown so rapidly in recent years and people assume it must be sprawling.
That remark was directed at the person that said "who the hell cares about county Density". I actually do think density is important but not nearly as much as alot of people on CD many of whom try to bash Atlanta by talking of it's lack of density when it actually has pretty good density compared to most American cities or Metros.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2011, 09:03 AM
 
Location: Cleveland bound with MPLS in the rear-view
5,531 posts, read 5,722,619 times
Reputation: 2216
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceTenmile View Post
Oh, also, the entirety of Metro Atlanta (I'm using the 20 county definition) is denser than any of the other cities' metros I'm interested in. 837 /sq mi for Atlanta vs 584, 541, 406, 333, 304 and 52 /sq mi for Seattle, Minneapolis, Austin, Portland, Denver and Boise. It's not NYC dense (wikipedia lists the NYC metro density at 2,838 /sq mi), but it's not sparse either.
I have no idea how you are calculating that, but no, Atlanta is one of the LEAST dense metros in the country. Use "urbanized area" btw, since the further West you go the larger the counties get.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2011, 09:21 AM
 
Location: Weymouth, The South
786 posts, read 858,155 times
Reputation: 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by west336 View Post
I have no idea how you are calculating that, but no, Atlanta is one of the LEAST dense metros in the country. Use "urbanized area" btw, since the further West you go the larger the counties get.
OR I could stick by metropolitan areas as defined by the census bureau which is what we are talking about, not urban areas.

If I used urbanised area, I'd have to use the same for every other metro, and I'd still find it to be the densest of the metros I'm interested in. I know you'll probably say you don't care about that, it's not as dense as many other metros that I haven't calculated, and that's true, but that's not the issue. The issue was how it compared to Denver, Minneapolis and Seattle, and it's denser than them.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2011, 10:05 AM
 
174 posts, read 403,354 times
Reputation: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceTenmile View Post
It may well have mountains in the east, which of course are included in it's land area, but Puget Sound is obviously not included. It is a large county, and the uninhabitable area of the mountains might be a huge part of bringing down the density, but you can't just pick and choose which bits of county you use.
There isn't much picking and choosing about it. It is a fact that half of King County is occupied by mountains and water (including Puget Sound). Here is a map to show where people generally live:


Map of King County

And here is a picture which better illustrates the land and water masses that make much of King County uninhabitable:


King County watersheds map

Your "county population density" argument is flawed. Western US counties are much larger and include vast tracts of land that are impossible to develop; of course they are going to have a lower county density. But where Seattle has developed, far surpasses most, if not all, urban areas of metro Atlanta.

Last edited by DgoNative; 03-19-2011 at 10:21 AM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2011, 10:20 AM
 
Location: Weymouth, The South
786 posts, read 858,155 times
Reputation: 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by DgoNative View Post
There isn't much picking and choosing about it. It is a fact that half of King County is occupied by mountains and water (including Puget Sound). Here is a map to show where people generally live:


Map of King County

And here is a picture which better illustrates the land and water masses that make much of King County uninhabitable:


King County watersheds map

Your "county population density" argument is flawed. Western US counties are not like eastern US counties where you can build pretty much anywhere and everywhere.

No, my 'argument' is not flawed, and yes that is picking and choosing. You must compare like for like as I said. It makes no difference at all whether, as you say 'western counties are different', and anyway, it only makes sense if you're talking about 'eastern counties' which have a major city in them, as they do have uninhabitable areas of mountains in the east, and even then, I'm sure there are a couple of major cities which have uninhabitable areas in their counties.

I used the LAND area for the density, not the total, so you can stop going on about Puget sound. What you are basically saying is because Seattle is in a very large county, it must be specially examined, with all the areas of the municipalities totalled to make it comparable to all those 'eastern counties' which have no uninhabitable area at all.

I have no idea where you are from, but you seem to be really swinging for Seattle. It's a dense city, which is the centre of a very large metro, but that metro is made of only 3 counties which happen to be very large.

Summit county in Colorado is pretty much covered in mountains. It's population is about 27,000. Would you have the mountains be ignored and have only the 10 or so sq mi of towns be used to calculate it's county density? You probably would actually.

Land area is the fairest way to get county density regardless of mountains and desert or whatever else. There are areas within city limits which are uninhabitable, would you have them ignored when talking about city density?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2011, 10:59 AM
 
174 posts, read 403,354 times
Reputation: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceTenmile View Post
Summit county in Colorado is pretty much covered in mountains. It's population is about 27,000. Would you have the mountains be ignored and have only the 10 or so sq mi of towns be used to calculate it's county density? You probably would actually.
I'm arguing that looking to the county density is flawed in finding how dense a city/town is. Let's take two hypothetical counties, both have only one population center, and are equal in size and population. The first county can only develop half of its landmass due to mountains, water, open-space, whatever. The other county has no such obstacles and has therefore developed over the entirety. Although both counties' population density would remain the same, the former county's population would obviously be more dense since it developed on a smaller tract of land.
That is why I think the county argument is incorrect and that the focus should be on the actual metro.

Last edited by DgoNative; 03-19-2011 at 11:09 AM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2011, 11:31 AM
 
Location: Weymouth, The South
786 posts, read 858,155 times
Reputation: 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by DgoNative View Post
I'm arguing that looking to the county density is flawed in finding how dense a city/town is. Let's take two hypothetical counties, both have only one population center, and are equal in size and population. The first county can only develop half of its landmass due to mountains, water, open-space, whatever. The other county has no such obstacles and has therefore developed over the entirety. Although both counties' population density would remain the same, the former county's population would obviously be more dense since it developed on a smaller tract of land.
That is why I think the county argument is incorrect and that the focus should be on the actual metro.
Counties are the building blocks of metros, and the smallest thing you can define before going to city level. You can think county density is pointless, and I agree that it does make the area around Seattle seem less dense, but we were talking about counties, and you can't compare Fulton to Denver to Hennepin and then only to half King. I was just using the figures to show that as Galounger said, Atlanta's 5 central counties would be denser together, and just as dense apart as any centre county of the others. For Seattle this is unfair as King is a lot bigger, which I did mention.

If you wanna talk metros, Seattle's is still less dense than Atlanta's at 584/sq mi vs 837 /sq mi.

I do know what you are saying, and just using cold numbers without explanation can be misleading, but I didn't just use the density, I did show and say that King was by far the biggest county, which infers that of course it'd be less dense as even if the mountains weren't there it probably wouldn't have sustained density throughout the county.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2011, 11:56 AM
 
Location: Atlanta
2,629 posts, read 3,346,492 times
Reputation: 1417
Quote:
Originally Posted by DgoNative View Post
I'm arguing that looking to the county density is flawed in finding how dense a city/town is. Let's take two hypothetical counties, both have only one population center, and are equal in size and population. The first county can only develop half of its landmass due to mountains, water, open-space, whatever. The other county has no such obstacles and has therefore developed over the entirety. Although both counties' population density would remain the same, the former county's population would obviously be more dense since it developed on a smaller tract of land.
That is why I think the county argument is incorrect and that the focus should be on the actual metro.
It's true that it's hard to look at a place like Seattle's density on a county wide basis but counties are a very good way of looking at how population is distributed throughout Atlanta Metro. 1. Because population tends to be fairly uniformly distributed throughout most of Atlanta's counties which have no natural boundaries to development. 2. Counties in Georgia tend to be really small. Smaller in fact than many cities out west. For instance, Atlanta's suburban county Clayton has close to the same land area and population as Denver's suburban town of Aurora. And Atlanta's Dekalb county is close to the same land size and population as the city of Fort Worth Texas.

On the other hand some would argue looking at the population and land size of suburbs would be better but unfortuanately this would not work with Atlanta. Because of Georgia's town incorporation tendencies , annexation laws or whatever a very large amount of Metro Atlanta's population lives in urban area's that are unincorporated and thus don't really belong to any town.

Lastly, comparing urbanized area's populations really work against Metro Atlanta because most urbanized area data that's out there is old and outdated. Metro Atlanta's population has grown so much in the past decade that this data which is often 10 years old or older doesn't mean a thing in figuring Atlanta's density today.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2011, 12:03 PM
 
Location: Weymouth, The South
786 posts, read 858,155 times
Reputation: 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galounger View Post
It's true that it's hard to look at a place like Seattle's density on a county wide basis but counties are a very good way of looking at how population is distributed throughout Atlanta Metro. 1. Because population tends to be fairly uniformly distributed throughout most of Atlanta's counties which have no natural boundaries to development. 2. Counties in Georgia tend to be really small. Smaller in fact than many cities out west. For instance, Atlanta's suburban county Clayton has close to the same land area and population as Denver's suburban town of Aurora. And Atlanta's Dekalb county is close to the same land size and population as the city of Fort Worth Texas.

On the other hand some would argue looking at the population and land size of suburbs would be better but unfortuanately this would not work with Atlanta. Because of Georgia's town incorporation tendencies , annexation laws or whatever a very large amount of Metro Atlanta's population lives in urban area's that are unincorporated and thus don't really belong to any town.

Lastly, comparing urbanized area's populations really work against Metro Atlanta because most urbanized area data that's out there is old and outdated. Metro Atlanta's population has grown so much in the past decade that this data which is often 10 years old or older doesn't mean a thing in figuring Atlanta's density today.
I didn't know that most Urban Area data was old, but I always like to calculate metro areas for myself, and I have no idea what the boundaries of urban areas are, and even if I did, I would never try to add up municipal populations because it'd take ages.
Quick reply to this message
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 update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top