Cities with Suburbs that are more dense than the main City in the metro. (live, best)

[west336]

Originally Posted by bballniket

I'm pretty sure that every major metro has municipalities that are more dense than the central city. The San Francisco CSA may be an exception to this, but I'm not sure.

Not Minneapolis!

[bballniket]

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
10,490 posts, read 3,565,743 times
Reputation: 3015




Quote:
Originally Posted by bballniket
I'm pretty sure that every major metro has municipalities that are more dense than the central city. The San Francisco CSA may be an exception to this, but I'm not sure.

Nope. There are none in cities like NY, Philly, Baltimore, DC, Houston, Miami, Seattle, Chicago, Minneapolis, SF, Austin, Charlotte, Savannah, Tampa, Denver etc etc. unless you count really small areas that are just a few sq miles.

I can only come up with Boston, DFW, LA and Phoenix (and as Nashvols have pointed out, maybe Nashville too)

Off the top of my head- Union City, NJ is denser than NYC; Langley Park, MD is denser than DC; and Miami Beach is slightly denser than Miami.

[bballniket]

oops, nvm...I didn't see this:

I am looking for major suburbs (100k or more) not tiny 1 sq mile cities with a high density but only 15,000K population.

Sorry. Please disregard my previous posts in this thread.

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by tmac9wr

I actually wouldn't be surprised to see a suburb of HOTlanta that was more dense than the city proper.

Yeah, I am not sure about that one because I am not familiar with all those zillion cities in that metro. But I bet there are few because ATL's pop is only 420K, the density is about 3.2 ppsm and the metro is 5.3M there are bound to be a few good sized cities that are more dense than the city to make up that 5.3M.

[west336]

Originally Posted by HtownLove

Yeah, I am not sure about that one because I am not familiar with all those zillion cities in that metro. But I bet there are few because ATL's pop is only 420K, the density is about 3.2 ppsm and the metro is 5.3M there are bound to be a few good sized cities that are more dense than the city to make up that 5.3M.

You'd think so, right? What about Sandy Springs?

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by west336

You'd think so, right? What about Sandy Springs?

It is less Dense that ATL by about 700 ppsm

EDIT: I looked up metro ATL and that 5.3M people is distributed among 85 cities and the only one over 100K is Atlanta itself. So ATL won't be joining Boston, Phoenix, LA and DFW

Wow, didn't know the population in ATL was so distributed.

[nashvols]

It's hard to say exactly how many of the suburbs around Nashville have a higher density (I have the new populations, but I'm unsure just how much land these cities have annexed since 2000).

Murfreesboro, Franklin, possibly Hendersonville, Smyrna, La Vergne, and Spring Hill.

Nashville's at a bit of a disadvantage since it covers ~470 square miles...which makes the density 1,279 psm.

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by nashvols

It's hard to say exactly how many of the suburbs around Nashville have a higher density (I have the new populations, but I'm unsure just how much land these cities have annexed since 2000).

Murfreesboro, Franklin, possibly Hendersonville, Smyrna, La Vergne, and Spring Hill.

Nashville's at a bit of a disadvantage since it covers ~470 square miles...which makes the density 1,279 psm.

I noticed that a lot of the faster growing cities have been annexing like crazy.

Austin, FW (it is bigger in land area than Dallas now), Charlotte, San Antonio, etc etc are harder to calculate because the official city limits have not been posted.

[nashvols]

Originally Posted by HtownLove

I noticed that a lot of the faster growing cities have been annexing like crazy.

Austin, FW (it is bigger in land area than Dallas now), Charlotte, San Antonio, etc etc are harder to calculate because the official city limits have not been posted.

Well, that would be one nice thing about Nashville...the borders are locked. The tricky thing is that about 1/3 of the county is almost completely rural (and extremely hilly -- it will probably remain pretty undeveloped)...so it skews the density numbers.

I did my own calculations using Census tracts, and came up with a figure of about 2,450 psm over 213 sq mi (522,000 of the 601,000 city population) for a figure for the true "developed" part of the city. That would mean that only Murfreesboro and Franklin (depending on annexed land) could have higher densities.

[5Lakes]

Lakewood, OH is denser than Cleveland.