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 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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-23-2015, 01:41 PM
 
Location: South Beach and DT Raleigh
11,568 posts, read 17,997,315 times
Reputation: 10709

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdAilment View Post
San Francisco laughs at the density of Miami, and for that matter the growth of its density.
Oh please; spare us the self importance. You act if Miami's density is 3000 per square mile. Sure SF is higher but it's not like it's some enormous difference. If that's the case, then I guess you expect NYC to completely dismiss SF as some sort of yokel village. Miami's density has surpassed Philadelphia & Chicago and is way ahead of DC. It's possible that it will match or pass Boston by the end of the decade. If SF is going to laugh at Miami's densification progress, it's likely only out of feeling threatened due to its own pomposity.
What cities like the aforementioned really don't like is that a "new" city like Miami can match them at the density game.
While some will argue that Miami's density is high only because it's so physically small, I'll add that Miami has many communities adjacent to it like Miami Beach which have the same or higher densities already and they too continue to densify.
BTW, I grew up in the Bay Area in a pompous elite enclave so I know the drill out there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-23-2015, 03:22 PM
 
Location: Zurich, Switzerland/ Piedmont, CA
31,598 posts, read 53,344,145 times
Reputation: 14517
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnc2mbfl
If SF is going to laugh at Miami's
densification progress, it's likely only out of
feeling threatened due to its own pomposity
Threatened by what? Miami's abhorrent low incomes or it's dreadful summer heat? pfft. As. If.

Outside of C-D, you arent even on our radar.

Quote:
What cities like the aforementioned really
don't like is that a "new" city like Miami can
match them at the density game...
hahaha actually no one cares.

I wont respect your 'density' until your downtown is as vibrant, interesting and full of amenities as the 'aforementioned cities' you currently trail by a very wide margin.

Quote:
BTW, I grew up in the Bay Area in a
pompous elite enclave so I know the drill
out there.
Then you should know better than to go down this road...lol
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2015, 06:56 PM
 
Location: Austin
1,795 posts, read 2,453,408 times
Reputation: 1199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobdreamz View Post
I'm seriously doubt Miami will ever match Chicago or NYC in high rise Residential towers since Miami is geographically smaller than both. However with everything Under Construction now Miami will have 45 skyscrapers over 500 feet | 152 meters which will make it 3rd. in the US and will surpass Houston in that category this year.
Miami is the densest metro in the Southeast hence the amount of so many highrises sprouting everywhere in downtown & the Brickell Financial district along with the Edgewater & the Arts district. It's nothing short of amazing.
Miami likes to think it has surpassed Houston in terms of highrises, but hasn't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2015, 07:10 PM
 
Location: Upper West Side, Manhattan, NYC
14,326 posts, read 18,034,933 times
Reputation: 6275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ant131531 View Post
Miami is only 35 square miles so it's very easy for it to gain density at a fast rate. Take 35 central square miles of Chicago, DC, Boston, and Philly and most of them would be closer to SF's density.
Yeah that's true - I know that if you take the north side of Chicago starting downtown for SF's physical area, it's actually denser than SF but parts of the south and west side bring down the numbers a lot. SF is definitely one of the densest whole cities in the country though...no debating that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2015, 09:43 PM
 
620 posts, read 919,530 times
Reputation: 476
As a Bay Area resident, I can confirm that people in the Bay think they are co
Cool because of SF. The weathet in Miami is better, the women are hotter, and you can actually go 100 feet without smelling human waste. And it is not insanely expensive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2015, 07:18 AM
 
Location: Washington, DC
641 posts, read 749,915 times
Reputation: 452
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnc2mbfl View Post
I don't know that there is another city proper that is densifying as rapidly as Miami. At the beginning of the decade I was thinking that Miami could sustain 1000 ppl/sm per decade. To see 866 ppl/sm in just 4 years is astonishing. This would suggest that Miami could end the decade 2000 ppl/sm more dense than the 2010 census with around 470,000 residents. Time will tell if that happens or not. To put this in perspective, I would think that most cities today would be delighted if they were able to densify 500 ppl/sm per decade. With this new estimate, Miami has passed Miami Beach in density of permanent residents.
DC gained 920 ppl/sm from April 2010 to July 2014.

2010 pop - 601723
2010 land area - 61.0

2014 pop - 658893
2014 land area - 61.1

The land area and pop estimates are from the census bureau.

Also, check out this March 2015 doc the census bureau put out on the fastest densifying US incorporated places over 100,000 persons from 2010 to 2013:
U.S. Cities Home to 62.7% of Population but Comprise 3.5% of Land Area

It was in this order:
#1 - NYC
#2 - DC
#3 - SF
#4 - Jersey City, NJ
#5 - Alexandria, VA
#6 - Boston
#7 - Seattle
#8 - Dale city, CA
#9 - Miami
#10 - Hialeah, FL

Last edited by revitalizer; 05-24-2015 at 08:42 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2015, 08:39 AM
 
Location: Upper West Side, Manhattan, NYC
14,326 posts, read 18,034,933 times
Reputation: 6275
Quote:
Originally Posted by McdonaldIndy View Post
Bingo.
These are Estimates. They should be taken for a grain of salt.
The real numbers will come out in less than 5 years.
Yes, they're estimates, but it's also naive to think that legitimate scientists and mathematicians would look at the last estimates before the official census, see their numbers were off and NOT tweak their processes. If they don't tweak anything, then they aren't real scientists. I very very very very highly doubt they have kept the same exact methods as before 2010 versus today. This is not how the scientific process works and they know this. I would bet my life savings that their methods right now are different. And in 5+ years, we will see how well they've adapted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2015, 02:16 PM
 
551 posts, read 372,872 times
Reputation: 556
What's all this about twerking scientists?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2015, 04:35 PM
 
Location: Polish Hill, Pittsburgh, PA
29,650 posts, read 65,850,679 times
Reputation: 15152
Default Pittsburgh

On the flip side we have Pittsburgh. I'm a "booster" of the city and have had to eat some crow over the past several days after seeing that both the city and its surrounding Allegheny County nosedived from 2013-2014. I was so confident we were growing since it seems like traffic has only become more congested here with each passing year, and there are new buildings going up everywhere.

PITTSBURGH CITY PROPER:

2010 Initial: 305,704
2010 Adjusted: 305,702
2011 Estimate: 306,099
2012 Estimate: 306,373
2013 Estimate: 306,726
2014 Estimate: 305,412

We went from gains in the city proper from 2010-2013 to a LOSS in the city proper of 290 residents from 2010-2014 just because the city nosedived from 2013-2014 after several years of consistent growth.


ALLEGHENY COUNTY:

2010 Initial (No Adjustment): 1,223,348
2011 Estimate: 1,227,472
2012 Estimate: 1,230,383
2013 Estimate: 1,232,953
2014 Estimate: 1,231,255

The county went from steady growth since 2010 to a significant decline from 2013-2014. The county is still up 7,907 residents since 2010, though.


I've been very depressed by these figures and haven't been on here much since their release. What good is all of the "good things" that are supposedly happening here in Pittsburgh if the city is still in decline? If we dip below 300,000 I'm going to fall into deep depression.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2015, 05:14 PM
 
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
10,340 posts, read 10,522,788 times
Reputation: 13333
^ I always imagined cities like Pittsburg, Cincinnati, and St. Louis are on the brink of rebounding. I don't know why I feel this way, I just do. St. Louis is by far the worst example of decline of these three. I believe that city peaked at ~850,000 in 1950 and risks dropping below 300,000 soon. Pitt and Cincy both reached 600,000 and 500,000 respectively. Pittsburg risks dropping below 300,000 and Cincy already has.

I live in Virginia, but I'm from Colorado. I'm interested to see the estimates showing Colorado's largest cities trending upward. Denver at 663,000, Colorado Springs at 446,000, Aurora at 353,000...Colorado is a state of about 5.5 million, with most of them living on the front range. For example, between the Denver CSA and Colorado Springs MSA there are over 4 million people. It definitely seems a lot of the state's growth is centered in this area, with the Denver area really being the epicenter. Colorado Springs, paling in comparison to Denver, is a distant second. Beyond this corridor, the state does not seem to be growing. And I think that's a good thing. I'd rather see the cities grow rather than remote mountain areas converted to condos or tract housing. If you go to the Colorado forum you won't have to look far before you see some native dating back to 1948 lamenting the state's growth. Such is life when you're a desirable location, I guess. Growth is sometimes inevitable. Keeping it where it minimizes its impact and preserves what makes Colorado Colorado is the important thing. At least to me it is.

Meanwhile Fredericksburg, where I currently live in Virginia, is a city of about 28,000 with the addition of extensive unincorporated areas surrounding it, totaling about 175,000 or so. It's a big commuter community to D.C. and Northern Virginia. I'm happy here, but there are days I would like to carpet bomb some neighborhoods. If I see one more dollar store, Goodwill, or payday advance store open I think I'll lose my mind! This place could be really nice, but its zoning is really a head scratcher. And while it has plenty about it to like, it does have its problems. I wouldn't mind seeing the area work to realize some of its potential. It has a lot of the right ingredients: location, scenery, a lot of people with moderate to high income levels, some great neighborhoods, etc. But it also seems content to cater to a very low-class of people. It's mind boggling, really.
Reply With Quote 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.


Reply
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 $104,000 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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, 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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top