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.
The Urban Land Institute broke up the 50 largest metro areas into seven categories: urban areas, established high end suburbs, stable middle income suburbs, economically challenged suburbs, greenfield lifestyle, greenfield value, and rural areas. A description of each can be found here:
Here is the top metros in terms of percentage of population for urban areas:
1. San Jose 40%
2. New York 35%
3. New Orleans 27%
4. Las Vegas 25%
5. Milwaukee 24%
5. Providence 24%
7. Baltimore 23%
7. Philadelphia 23%
9. Boston 20%
9. San Francisco 20%
11. Buffalo 19%
12. San Antonio 17%
12. San Diego 17&
Established High End Suburbs
1. Oklahoma City 33%
1. Pittsburgh 33%
1. San Jose 33%
4. Cincinnati 32%
5. Baltimore 30%
5. Columbus 30%
5. Kansas City 30%
8. Hartford 26%
8. Raleigh 26%
8. San Diego 26%
11. Seattle 25%
12. Buffalo 24%
12. Milwaukee 24%
Stable Middle Income Suburbs
1. Chicago 53%
2. Las Vegas 49%
3. Los Angeles 46%
4. Houston 41%
5. New York City 35%
6. Cincinnati 31%
6. Miami 31%
8. Kansas City 30%
8. Minneapolis 30%
10. Philadelphia 26%
11. Dallas 25%
11. Jacksonville 25%
Economically Challenged Suburbs
1. Seattle 46%
2. Phoenix 42%
3. Sacramento 39%
4. San Diego 36%
5. Denver 35%
6. San Francisco 34%
7. Salt Lake City 33%
8. Austin 32%
8. Portland 32%
10. Dallas 30%
10. Tampa 30%
12. Memphis 29%
12. Virginia Beach 29%
Greenfield Lifestyle
1. Detroit 20%
2. Cleveland 17%
3. Memphis 15%
4. Philadelphia 14%
5. Sacramento 13%
5. Hartford 13%
7. Salt Lake City 12%
7. Providence 12%
9. New York City 11%
9. Milwaukee 11%
9. Indianapolis 11%
9. Jacksonville 11%
Greenfield Value
1. Charlotte 29%
2. Atlanta 25%
2. Boston 25%
4. Raleigh 24%
5. Birmingham 22%
6. Orlando 21%
6. Richmond 21%
8. Washington DC 20%
9. Detroit 16%
10. Jacksonville 15%
11. Tampa 13%
Rural Areas
1. Birmingham 20%
2. Nashville 18%
2. Richmond 18%
4. Oklahoma City 15%
5. Louisville 14%
5. Memphis 14%
7. Columbus 13%
8. Kansas City 12%
8. Minneapolis 12%
8. St. Louis 12%
8. Phoenix 12%
12. Indianapolis 11%
13. Austin 10%
Any Surprises? I thought the economically challenged suburbs would be found in the rust belt, not in the Sun Belt.
I'm surprised that Western metros dominate the economically challenged suburbs category.
I wonder if a part of it is due to the residential patterns of Western metros in terms of having suburbs with similar demographics to the central city. There's also the aspect of Western metros having some suburbs that are sprawled out and have as many people as mid sized cities in other regions.
Here is the top metros in terms of percentage of population for urban areas:
2. New York 35%
Only 35% for urban areas of NYC metro? What counts for "urban" in this case? The city itself accounts for about 45% of the metro population, not counting Northern NJ, and satellite cities like White Plains, Yonkers, etc. The weighted density of NYC MSA as a whole is over 31,000 ppsm.
Only 35% for urban areas of NYC metro? What counts for "urban" in this case? The city itself accounts for about 45% of the metro population, not counting Northern NJ, and satellite cities like White Plains, Yonkers, etc. The weighted density of NYC MSA as a whole is over 31,000 ppsm.
125th and Park Ave in Manhattan marked as a suburb. lol
without having read the criteria am sure there is some nuance
and overall it makes sense mostly looking at the urban for NYC, few parts of Manhattan, BK, Queens, BK are not urban on the map and most NJ parts look decent (Newark potentially being lessor urban categorized then I would think)
San Jose seems more the outlier then NYC where about a third urban for the metro probably makes sense, for SJ 40% urban seems odd as most of SJ doesn't feel truly urban to me and with th SF metro at 20% and SJ at 40% that feels more the outlier to me then NYC TBH
for my home town about 25% urban sounds about right
am surprised with Seattle with nearly half the population in economically challenged burbs
without having read the criteria am sure there is some nuance
and overall it makes sense mostly looking at the urban for NYC, few parts of Manhattan, BK, Queens, BK are not urban on the map and most NJ parts look decent (Newark potentially being lessor urban categorized then I would think)
San Jose seems more the outlier then NYC where about a third urban for the metro probably makes sense, for SJ 40% urban seems odd as most of SJ doesn't feel truly urban to me and with th SF metro at 20% and SJ at 40% that feels more the outlier to me then NYC TBH
for my home town about 25% urban sounds about right
am surprised with Seattle with nearly half the population in economically challenged burbs
That stood out to me as well. Is it the CITY of Seattle that's doing well and everything else struggling? That would make sense given Washington and even Oregon have historically been places that have thrived on counterculture. With more affluent people moving into the City it would make sense that the less affluent would be pushed further out.
America remains a largely suburban nation.
In America’s 50 largest (and most urbanized) metropolitan areas, suburbs as defined here account
for 79 percent of the population, 78 percent of households, and 32 percent of the land area.
Suburban growth has driven recent metropolitan growth.
From 2000 to 2015, suburban areas accounted for 91 percent of population growth and 84 percent
of household growth in the top 50 metro areas.
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.