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.
Yes and look at the land size and population of Minneapolis. What I mean by density is the entire urban area, or as the tool 'Rovian posted, that density that accumulates more than just the city.
If you add St Paul you double the size and get a density of 6199.1/sq mi which still makes it the third densest urban core on the list. In nearly all cases suburbs are autocentric and have nothing to do with urbanity American cities so they don't matter. Also calling people tools makes you sound stupid, at least to those of us who are fully into the adult world.
If you add St Paul you double the size and get a density of 6199.1/sq mi which still makes it the third densest urban core on the list. In nearly all cases suburbs are autocentric and have nothing to do with urbanity American cities so they don't matter. Also calling people tools makes you sound stupid, at least to those of us who are fully into the adult world.
What the hell are you talking about? I didn't call anyone a tool. I was talking about the tool (website) 'Rovian shared with us to calculate density. This is the tool is I was talking about CAPS10C - Missouri Census Data Center "or as the tool 'Rovian posted". What did you think I was talking about? 'Rovian? Uh wrong
Geeez, some of you really need to buy a temperpedic pillow or something, you wake up with a crank in your back so bad you constantly look for ways to start a commotion.
Looking past density, so what makes Minneapolis more urban than Atlanta?
Having been to Atlanta many times I can say there really is nothing "urban" about it besides it's downtown. Buckhead feels suburban in nature and it's only a few miles north of downtown. The city of Miami (35 sq. miles) is 5 times as dense as Atlanta's (130 sq. miles) density.
As for Urbanized areas Miami has about 1100 sq. miles with 5.5 million people while Atlanta sprawls across northern Georgia with close to having 10,000 sq. miles but around the same population as Miami's.
A better comparison would be Phoenix & Atlanta.
If you add St Paul you double the size and get a density of 6199.1/sq mi which still makes it the third densest urban core on the list. In nearly all cases suburbs are autocentric and have nothing to do with urbanity American cities so they don't matter. Also calling people tools makes you sound stupid, at least to those of us who are fully into the adult world.
Having been to Atlanta many times I can say there really is nothing "urban" about it besides it's downtown. Buckhead feels suburban in nature and it's only a few miles north of downtown. The city of Miami (35 sq. miles) is 5 times as dense as Atlanta's (130 sq. miles) density.
As for Urbanized areas Miami has about 1100 sq. miles with 5.5 million people while Atlanta sprawls across northern Georgia with close to having 10,000 sq. miles but around the same population as Miami's.
A better comparison would be Phoenix & Atlanta.
Atlanta - 4.5 million in 2600 square miles
Miami - 5.5 million in 1200 square miles
The difference between the two cities is not nearly what you stated, and the city limits density of Miami is about twice Atlanta's - not 5 times. (exaggerate much?) I think the fact that you posted false information sort of invalidates your opinions - at least it does in my book.
I'm not sure why people are saying Detroit is the "most urban" out of these cities. Sure it is certainly urban and was once the blue collar manufacturing capital of the country/world, but it was not at all built like other industrial cities of the Northeast or Midwest (except Cleveland). Before it's demise Detroit city saw the majority of it's growth in the early to the mid-20th century and it was all fueled by one thing: the automobile.
It shaped the way the city was developed (around the automobile, not mass transit) and provided those worked there a salary large enough for pretty much everyone to own a car and a single family home (albeit on a smaller lot size than you'll find in most of the cities in this thread). It never had a subway and dismantled it's streetcar system far earlier than every other city on this list. There are no brownstones and very few row houses to speak of, nor are there many high density apartment blocks or high rise towers. Essentially, Detroit is the blue print for the layout of all of the sunbelt cities people love to hate on in this forum.
For what it's worth, at its population peak of 1.8 million, Detroit had identical population density (13,200 people/sq) to Washington, DC, Baltimore, and St. Louis at their population peaks (13,100; 11,900; and 13,800 respectively) - cities that are associated with the rowhouse.
Although Detroit had almost no rowhouses and brownstones, it had the ubiquitious 2-family flat, which could pack almost as many people in a block as rowhouses:
Back to the original poster, he artificially inflated the Detroit region's population by adding the metro population of the Canadian city across the river, Windsor, Ontario. I don't know if you can do that. Because of the steep decline of the city itself (loss of over 1 million people in 60 years) , I wouldn't consider it a big city anymore, even though the metro population is still relatively large.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,988,805 times
Reputation: 7333
Quote:
Originally Posted by usroute10
For what it's worth, at its population peak of 1.8 million, Detroit had identical population density (13,200 people/sq) to Washington, DC, Baltimore, and St. Louis at their population peaks (13,100; 11,900; and 13,800 respectively) - cities that are associated with the rowhouse.
Although Detroit had almost no rowhouses and brownstones, it had the ubiquitious 2-family flat, which could pack almost as many people in a block as rowhouses:
I don't disagree, 40 years ago it would be no question. Detroit was a much different and vibrant place. It had the density that bested that of Chicago or Los Angeles of today. However, a lot has changed in that time for the worse sadly.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Detroit hater. I really wish for it to regain it's glory. I just think people on this board say things sometimes about Detroit that aren't based in reality. The way people post about it one would think it looks like Philadelphia or Baltimore, when in reality it has more in common with cities like Atlanta or LA or Houston or Dallas in terms of built environment.
What the hell are you talking about? I didn't call anyone a tool. I was talking about the tool (website) 'Rovian shared with us to calculate density. This is the tool is I was talking about CAPS10C - Missouri Census Data Center "or as the tool 'Rovian posted". What did you think I was talking about? 'Rovian? Uh wrong
Geeez, some of you really need to buy a temperpedic pillow or something, you wake up with a crank in your back so bad you constantly look for ways to start a commotion.
Sorry, I had a brain injury two years ago. I'm mostly over it but sometimes my reading comprehension is crap.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,988,805 times
Reputation: 7333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lifeshadower
Let's rank this by NFL teams:
1) Detroit (Stafford seems less like a choke artist than Matt Ryan, though time will tell)
2) Atlanta
BIG DROP
3) Seattle
4) Phoenix (but they DIDN'T try to add a timeout to a game, plus I don't like Pete Carroll, but they don't have a real QB)
BOTTOM FEEDERS
5) Miami
6) Minneapolis
Ha! I approve of this methodology!
Back to thread though, it occurred to me I hadn't answered the OP questions from the first post yet.
Big city mindset - 1. Miami/Atlanta. All things considered they're equal, just different ways. 2. Seattle. They have a big city mindset and can back it up, but they are aware they are not seen as a top metro yet. 3.) Detroit. They still pack a punch, even though they realize they are down and out at the moment. 4. Phoenix/Minneapolis. Both are posed to join the big leagues, but Minneapolis is doing it the right way.
urban rail - Atlanta. Anyone who says different literally doesn't know what they are talking about. None of the cities on this lists have a comparable subway that moves close to 300,000 people a day, and the only other city that has a subway (Miami) doesn't nearly have the ridership or coverage that MARTA does.
infrastructure - Interesting question. Detroit has the best old school infrastructure, but it's crumbling. The rest of the cities have great new infrastructure. Atlanta, Seattle, and Minneapolis also have the added bonus of great pre-modern era infrastructure as they all started coming of age during the Victorian era.
Entertainment role in the world - 1. Miami 2. Atlanta 3. Detroit.....if this had been the 1980s or 90s I would put Seattle or Minneapolis up there, but not any more. Phoenix has never had this role.
Tourism - 1. Miami (this is an obvious one.) 2. Atlanta (Not so obvious, but it is just behind Miami with 35 million visitors a year. 3. Seattle. 4. The rest.
Industries - 1a. Atlanta has the largest and most dynamic economy of them all in terms of size and diversity. 1b. While smaller than Atlanta's economy, Minneapolis has a lot of Fortune 500s and has escaped the recession relatively unscathed. 2. Seattle. 3. Miami. 4. Phoenix. 5. Detroit.
Walkable - 1. Seattle. 2. Minneapolis. 3. Atlanta. It's not the best, but it has a useable subway in the city proper and is more walkable than people think. 4. Miami. I'm not sure why people rate it so high. I suppose people who have only been to Miami Beach think that the actual Miami city is exactly the same. 5. Detroit. It was built for car and car only and it shows, but it's not the bottom of the barrel. 6. Phoenix, bottom of the barrel. But they actually do have a fairly respectable light rail and bus system.
Urban features - Interestingly I think all of the cities stack up well against each other in different ways except for Phoenix. Detroit interests me the most (in a morose kind of way) from the perspective of seeing what happens to modern city in decline.
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.
