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, I'm sure; do the math yourself.
Also, to classify as an Urban area, you have to have at least 1,000 ppl/sm; which means it's literally IMPOSSIBLE for Atlanta to have only 660 ppsm.
Well there are two sources - the Demographia one which is 600 ppsm and this
That has the metro area density of Atlanta's 5.7 million people to be 660 per sq mile so the two aren't really off and demographia is measuring a larger area so more exurban density. 600 and 660 ppsm is pretty consistent. Do you have another source that shows that metro Atlanta or its MSA is higher than 660 per square mile?
Yes. New York City is literally the most sprawling urban area on Earth, and is not dense at all by global standards; Atlanta is 4th. Granted, this doesn't account for weighted density but still, American metros are incredibly sprawled.
Exactly. Toronto is a perfect example of a city with an urban area population not much more than Philadelpia, Dallas, Houston etc but within a much more compact and dense footprint. Our SFH development is typically much more compact and has smaller and more compressed lot spacing and there are almost 2500 highrises in the Greater Toronto area - outside NYC this is practically unheard of for a Canada/American city and that is because Canadians are far more likely to live in a highrise apartment or condo than Americans.
By global standards outside Canada the U.S/Australia/NZ - Toronto isn't even all that dense but within Canada/U.S/Australia/NZ its urban area density is very high.
Yes, I'm sure; do the math yourself.
Also, to classify as an Urban area, you have to have at least 1,000 ppl/sm; which means it's literally IMPOSSIBLE for Atlanta to have only 660 ppsm.
Okay. So, I was trying to be nice by nudging you back to Demographia to check the data because I KNOW that it says Atlanta's urban area is 600 ppl/square kilometer, not square miles. I just checked it yet again.
It says that Atlanta is 5,240,000 people over 2817 m2 or 7296 km2 for a density of either 1700 ppl/m2 or 600 ppl/km2.
Like I posted earlier in this thread, the density numbers don't calculate correctly anyway if the population and area stated are to be believed.
5,240,000/2817m2 = 1860ppl/m2
5,240,000/7296km2 = 718ppl/km2
This is seems to be more accurate. Then again different standards for different countries.
This is a different source with a different methodology. I'm not saying that it's right or wrong but it's different and it clearly includes more outlying areas and/or more loosely connected towns to core cities. I say "loosely" because this data set typically reduces the overall density metrics for urban areas where there's a large discrepancy to the upside of population. Since a previous post in this thread already challenged Demographia's UA for Charlotte in comparison to Raleigh, and since I am also familiar with NC, I'll use it as the example of what I mean by differences in methodology.
By Demographia's method, Charlotte and Raleigh have similar population derived from similar land areas:
Charlotte: 1.47M in 741m2 (1919km2) for an overall density of 1984 ppl/m2 (766 ppl/km2)
Raleigh: 1.46M in 700m2 (1814km2) for an overall density of 2085 ppl/m2 (805 ppl/km2)
*note: the ppl/m2 or km2 are calculated based on Demograhia's populations and land areas because their density metrics as stated don't calculate correctly.
By the CityPopulation report, both Charlotte and Raleigh's populations increase while their densities decrease. In the case of Charlotte, it more then doubles in land area while significantly increasing population and significantly decreasing density while Raleigh very modestly changes in all metrics.
Charlotte: 2.325M in 1511m2 (3,914km2) for an overall density of 1539 ppl/m2 (594 ppl/km2)
Raleigh: 1.54M in 774m2 (2,0004km2) for an overall density of 1990 ppl/m2 (768 ppl/km2)
In Demographia's methodology, Raleigh's density metric slightly exceeds Charlotte's but not by much.
In CityPopulation's methodology, the density metric between the two cities significantly widens.
The combined data basically tells us that, for the core ~1.5 million people of both metros, there are similar metrics: which is no surprise to me since both cities have exploded in growth in a similar time period where development models beyond their cores mimicked each other, and despite all the activity happening in their cores, the vast majority of the population of both lives in post WWII suburban style development.
What's different in the greater Charlotte area, as evident by the CityPopulation report, is the larger quantity of smaller/midsized cities and towns that have either come into Charlotte's sphere of influence or were created on its far periphery and the low density, suburban development that has them tethered. This is a dynamic that will happen in Raleigh as well over time if development models don't change.
I think the minimum threshold should be higher. But, I'm sure this has been debated ad nauseam amongst the demographic and statistician communities.
Yep, if the minimum population density that could be considered urban was increased from 1,000 ppsm to 2,000 ppsm, a lot of American metros which consist of large swaths of such low density sprawl would find their overall urban population drop significantly, but their over all urban density figure would increase.
The Canadian cities would be less affected since most of their urban area populations already exceed 2,000 ppsm.
Can someone please tell me what i'm missing here about the population density of metro Atlanta. Every source I've looked at has it between 600-660 ppsm
Can someone please tell me what i'm missing here about the population density of metro Atlanta. Every source I've looked at has it between 600-660 ppsm
Entire mostly rural counties are included in most metro statistics. It's even worse with the CSA's. When looking at population density, the UA urban area is a much better metric to use. They only include the urbanized area of the metro, not low density emptiness like the metros include. The true population densities are in the link below. These are the latest official numbers until 2020.
Entire mostly rural counties are included in most metro statistics. It's even worse with the CSA's. When looking at population density, the UA urban area is a much better metric to use. They only include the urbanized area of the metro, not low density emptiness like the metros include. The true population densities are in the link below. These are the latest official numbers until 2020.
This shows how inflated the Atlanta metro is. Crazy right?
.
Thanks for this! This list to me is a much more respectable source of information with respect to population and density for American cities! It would be nice if this list was updated to reflect the 2015 census though but its still much better than other sources I've seen. I posted earlier about how I thought that how such far flung and low density exurban areas of American cities (SUPER low density sprawl) did no favour to them from an urban perspective. It may make them appear larger in metro population but does nothing in terms of measuring an urban area with a respectable level of urban density. I'd much rather my Atlanta be 4.5 million people with a pop density of 1707 ppsm than 5.7 million with a pop density of 630 ppsm..
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.
