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)
View Poll Results: Which would you prefer?
Louisville 13 10.57%
Richmond 25 20.33%
New Orleans 13 10.57%
Hartford 5 4.07%
Salt Lake 30 24.39%
Birmingham 7 5.69%
Buffalo 11 8.94%
Rochester 5 4.07%
Grand Rapids 6 4.88%
Tucson 8 6.50%
Voters: 123. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-09-2017, 07:33 PM
 
Location: Heart of Dixie
626 posts, read 309,485 times
Reputation: 1033

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mjlo View Post
The only objection I have to using data like this is that it includes the period during the great recession that disproportionately affected certain cities on this list. It show's a historical perspective, but I think looking at the past 5 to 7 years would paint a more accurate picture of current conditions.
I can also post them from 2010-2015 if people would like...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-09-2017, 07:43 PM
 
815 posts, read 663,059 times
Reputation: 1006
SLC seems to be experiencing the most job growth but still ranks low in income. I see its excelling at increasing per capita income but it's high ranking in this area has more to do with where it was rather than where it is going.

Hartford and Richmond don't rank well in that area but the per capita income was much higher to begin with so there isn't as much room for improvement. So I don't know that I'd say that SLC has the best economy but it certainly seems on its way to the best.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2017, 07:50 PM
 
815 posts, read 663,059 times
Reputation: 1006
For the record, I've never been to Salt Lake City. It looks great and I'm sure that I'd love it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2017, 10:12 PM
 
8,637 posts, read 8,771,906 times
Reputation: 5185
Quote:
Originally Posted by RocketSci View Post
City density (city limits only) persons/sq mi:
  1. Hartford - 7025
  2. Buffalo - 6470
  3. Rochester - 5884
  4. Grand Rapids- 4235
  5. SLC - 3641
  6. Richmond - 3414
  7. Tucson - 2294
  8. New Orleans - 2029
  9. Louisville - 1836
  10. Birmingham - 1453

Densest neighborhoods per city (based upon zip code) persons/sq. mi.
  1. Buffalo (zip 14201) - 12470 (+3 more zips greater than 10000)
    https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8929...7i13312!8i6656
  2. New Orleans (zip 70116) - 12451 (+2 more zips greater than 10000)
    https://www.google.com/maps/@29.9619...7i13312!8i6656
  3. Rochester (zip 14619) - 10351
    https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1411...7i13312!8i6656
  4. SLC (zip 84102) - 9707
    https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7577...7i13312!8i6656
  5. Hartford (zip 06106) - 9355
    https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7599...7i13312!8i6656
  6. Louisville (zip 40203) - 6983
  7. Grand Rapids (zip 49507) - 6686
  8. Richmond (zip 23220) - 6086
  9. Birmingham (zip 35205) - 5611
  10. Tucson (zip 85719) - 5372
Pretty insane how much denser the northeast is even in smaller cities, every large city in Massachusetts has a zip code denser than Louisville's densest. (for those unfamiliar with Massachusetts all cities listed are removed from the urban core of Boston, of course Somerville, Cambridge, Chelsea, Malden, Everett etc. have denser zip codes but that's due to Boston not really the cities themselves) I excluded Lynn due to proximity to Boston although it could be argued that it is its own city.
Lawrence (01841): 14,234
Lowell: (01850): 10,546
Worcester (01610): 9,907
Fall River (02723): 9,875
Springfield: (01105), 9,785
New Bedford: (02744) 8,414
All Cities have at least 2 denser than Louisville's densest, and Springfield has 3.
Lawrence and Lowell have a higher average city wide density than Louisville's densest zip code.
Lawrence, Lowell, New Bedford and Fall River are all fairly small cities as well. Just shows how different the built form is of cities further west even at their cores.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2017, 05:58 AM
 
Location: California x North Carolina (soon)...
3,311 posts, read 2,238,620 times
Reputation: 3656
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckhthankgod View Post
Just curious, but what Richmond neighborhoods are the equivalent to Elmwood Village, Allentown, West Chippewa Street and the Theatre District? I think the density aspect in terms of Buffalo is a matter of totality, as other cities may have denser inner city neighborhoods, but may lack the denser adjacent small cities/suburbs that the Buffalo area has.

There's also the aspect that high density isn't uniform in all cities and may go in various directions. Meaning Richmond's high density neighborhoods may be around its Downtown, but Buffalo's high density areas may go from Downtown to the north following Richmond Ave., Elmwood Ave., Delaware Ave. and Main Street into Kenmore.

I think the importance of including the Niagara Region of Ontario is what RocketSci mentioned in terms of that adjacent region being a part of a highly concentrated and economically strong area of Canada and even North America(if not Western Hemisphere). So, economically, people from that region may/do shop, go to events and add to the Buffalo economy via patronage.
Allentown is more or less an equivalent of Carytown. Elmwood Village could be either Shockoe Bottom or Church Hill. West Chippewa can be any portion of Broad Street corridor southeast of Boulevard. There are very comparable areas and neighborhoods in both...

Personally, I'm of the opinion that Richmond has more neighborhoods like this that are considered desirable, than does Buffalo, but I'm not equivocally stating it as fact. Yes, Buffalo has more uniform urban form. Richmond's inner 60%, a rough 7.5x4-mile area that equals 37.5 square miles--or basically a tick larger than Rochester and a few miles short of Buffalo's land area--has an overall density of approximately 7400-7500/ppsm. The proof of this is realized when you're in Richmond, but for fact checking all you have to do is view Richmond City density, 1960 Census and backwards:

https://www.census.gov/population/ww...0027/tab19.txt

Richmond City had a population density of 5945 in 37.0 square miles in 1960. The difference from then and now? By 1960, Richmond's core was already experiencing decline due to suburbanization, white flight, and the construction of I-95 . Since roughly 2005, the inner core of Richmond has seen enormous reinvestment and people have moved back into the core by the shipload. That same ~37 mi2 area of the old city now houses a population density higher than Buffalo a f Rochester, in basically the same land area as both Buffalo and Rochester. And because this land area in Rich has significantly less abandonment, significantly more gentrified, significantly more vibrancy, and a significantly larger downtown than both Buff and Roc....these are my reasons for saying Richmond is and feels larger, amongst the fact that by any statistical measure (including office space, UA, etc), Richmond IS larger than both...

You know I love Buff and Rochester, but neither come out ahead of Richmond. Urbanity is only comparable because both were much larger and denser once upon a time, and even then, the built form of a comparably sized land area in Richmond to Buffalo's and Rochester's is arguably greater and no less than equivalent...

Richmond has a contiguous 7.5x4-mile area around but emanating from Downtown with a ~74-7500 population density; essentially, the same land area the city had in 1960...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2017, 07:09 AM
 
52,611 posts, read 75,426,573 times
Reputation: 11627
Quote:
Originally Posted by murksiderock View Post
Allentown is more or less an equivalent of Carytown. Elmwood Village could be either Shockoe Bottom or Church Hill. West Chippewa can be any portion of Broad Street corridor southeast of Boulevard. There are very comparable areas and neighborhoods in both...

Personally, I'm of the opinion that Richmond has more neighborhoods like this that are considered desirable, than does Buffalo, but I'm not equivocally stating it as fact. Yes, Buffalo has more uniform urban form. Richmond's inner 60%, a rough 7.5x4-mile area that equals 37.5 square miles--or basically a tick larger than Rochester and a few miles short of Buffalo's land area--has an overall density of approximately 7400-7500/ppsm. The proof of this is realized when you're in Richmond, but for fact checking all you have to do is view Richmond City density, 1960 Census and backwards:

https://www.census.gov/population/ww...0027/tab19.txt

Richmond City had a population density of 5945 in 37.0 square miles in 1960. The difference from then and now? By 1960, Richmond's core was already experiencing decline due to suburbanization, white flight, and the construction of I-95 . Since roughly 2005, the inner core of Richmond has seen enormous reinvestment and people have moved back into the core by the shipload. That same ~37 mi2 area of the old city now houses a population density higher than Buffalo a f Rochester, in basically the same land area as both Buffalo and Rochester. And because this land area in Rich has significantly less abandonment, significantly more gentrified, significantly more vibrancy, and a significantly larger downtown than both Buff and Roc....these are my reasons for saying Richmond is and feels larger, amongst the fact that by any statistical measure (including office space, UA, etc), Richmond IS larger than both...

You know I love Buff and Rochester, but neither come out ahead of Richmond. Urbanity is only comparable because both were much larger and denser once upon a time, and even then, the built form of a comparably sized land area in Richmond to Buffalo's and Rochester's is arguably greater and no less than equivalent...

Richmond has a contiguous 7.5x4-mile area around but emanating from Downtown with a ~74-7500 population density; essentially, the same land area the city had in 1960...
This goes back to what I mentioned in terms of where the high density goes in Buffalo. It doesn't cover the Downtown area uniformly, but it travels from Downtown to the north.

Also, what you have to consider is that Richmond has a little bit more people than Rochester as a whole. So, with Rochester and Buffalo essentially being unchanged in land area since 1960, Richmond still doesn't have much more people than Rochester(about 210,000) within its city limits and Buffalo(about 256,000) still has more people even with areas of decay in parts of the city(as if these other cities don't have any decay). This means that, Richmond's 37 square miles would still have less people, unless there are only about 10-15,000 people within the city in the other 23 square miles, as Richmond is a city of roughly 60 square miles and has about 223,000 now. I can't see that being the case, even if it is uniformly more dense around its Downtown. Richmond only has about 4000 more people in the city now than its did in 1960, with 23 more square miles of land.

To put this into perspective, if Rochester added the towns of Brighton(15.6 square miles) and Irondequoit(16.9 square miles), which are adjacent, generally built out suburbs, both would add 87,000 more people and the city would only be about 8 square miles bigger than Richmond. If you just add Irondequoit, that still adds a little over 50,000 people and Rochester would be about 53 square miles.

If Buffalo just annexed the village of Kenmore(1.4 square miles with about 15,300 people) it would still only be 42 square miles, but would have over 270,000 people. So, this is why things like annexation has to be considered when comparing cities.

Last edited by ckhthankgod; 07-10-2017 at 07:50 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2017, 07:31 AM
 
8,637 posts, read 8,771,906 times
Reputation: 5185
Quote:
Originally Posted by murksiderock View Post
Allentown is more or less an equivalent of Carytown. Elmwood Village could be either Shockoe Bottom or Church Hill. West Chippewa can be any portion of Broad Street corridor southeast of Boulevard. There are very comparable areas and neighborhoods in both...

Personally, I'm of the opinion that Richmond has more neighborhoods like this that are considered desirable, than does Buffalo, but I'm not equivocally stating it as fact. Yes, Buffalo has more uniform urban form. Richmond's inner 60%, a rough 7.5x4-mile area that equals 37.5 square miles--or basically a tick larger than Rochester and a few miles short of Buffalo's land area--has an overall density of approximately 7400-7500/ppsm. The proof of this is realized when you're in Richmond, but for fact checking all you have to do is view Richmond City density, 1960 Census and backwards:

https://www.census.gov/population/ww...0027/tab19.txt

Richmond City had a population density of 5945 in 37.0 square miles in 1960. The difference from then and now? By 1960, Richmond's core was already experiencing decline due to suburbanization, white flight, and the construction of I-95 . Since roughly 2005, the inner core of Richmond has seen enormous reinvestment and people have moved back into the core by the shipload. That same ~37 mi2 area of the old city now houses a population density higher than Buffalo a f Rochester, in basically the same land area as both Buffalo and Rochester. And because this land area in Rich has significantly less abandonment, significantly more gentrified, significantly more vibrancy, and a significantly larger downtown than both Buff and Roc....these are my reasons for saying Richmond is and feels larger, amongst the fact that by any statistical measure (including office space, UA, etc), Richmond IS larger than both...

You know I love Buff and Rochester, but neither come out ahead of Richmond. Urbanity is only comparable because both were much larger and denser once upon a time, and even then, the built form of a comparably sized land area in Richmond to Buffalo's and Rochester's is arguably greater and no less than equivalent...

Richmond has a contiguous 7.5x4-mile area around but emanating from Downtown with a ~74-7500 population density; essentially, the same land area the city had in 1960...
The inner 37 sq miles do not have a density of 7,400 ppsm. That would mean the inner core of Richmond has 274,000-281,000 people which is not true as the entire 60.1 sq miles has 223,000.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2017, 09:04 AM
 
7,175 posts, read 3,866,252 times
Reputation: 7532
As far as economy goes, it should be noted the Richmond has eight fortune 500 companies as well as federal reserve bank
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2017, 09:19 AM
 
Location: Westside Grand Rapids
3,570 posts, read 3,035,151 times
Reputation: 5492
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladhands View Post
As far as economy goes, it should be noted the Richmond has eight fortune 500 companies as well as federal reserve bank
As far as big companies go, the number of big companies speak to the size of an economy perhaps, but do they necessarily add credence to the health of it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2017, 12:27 PM
 
Location: California x North Carolina (soon)...
3,311 posts, read 2,238,620 times
Reputation: 3656
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckhthankgod View Post
This goes back to what I mentioned in terms of where the high density goes in Buffalo. It doesn't cover the Downtown area uniformly, but it travels from Downtown to the north.

Also, what you have to consider is that Richmond has a little bit more people than Rochester as a whole. So, with Rochester and Buffalo essentially being unchanged in land area since 1960, Richmond still doesn't have much more people than Rochester(about 210,000) within its city limits and Buffalo(about 256,000) still has more people even with areas of decay in parts of the city(as if these other cities don't have any decay). This means that, Richmond's 37 square miles would still have less people, unless there are only about 10-15,000 people within the city in the other 23 square miles, as Richmond is a city of roughly 60 square miles and has about 223,000 now. I can't see that being the case, even if it is uniformly more dense around its Downtown. Richmond only has about 4000 more people in the city now than its did in 1960, with 23 more square miles of land.

To put this into perspective, if Rochester added the towns of Brighton(15.6 square miles) and Irondequoit(16.9 square miles), which are adjacent, generally built out suburbs, both would add 87,000 more people and the city would only be about 8 square miles bigger than Richmond. If you just add Irondequoit, that still adds a little over 50,000 people and Rochester would be about 53 square miles.

If Buffalo just annexed the village of Kenmore(1.4 square miles with about 15,300 people) it would still only be 42 square miles, but would have over 270,000 people. So, this is why things like annexation has to be considered when comparing cities.
I definitely overcalculated. I do believe the 37-square mile Richmond will have a density comparable to Rochester's ~5800...

As far as Richmond's population, outer neighborhoods have stayed constant or lost populatiom fueled by people returning back into the inner city. I do understand the argument you're making, though!

Quote:
Originally Posted by btownboss4 View Post
The inner 37 sq miles do not have a density of 7,400 ppsm. That would mean the inner core of Richmond has 274,000-281,000 people which is not true as the entire 60.1 sq miles has 223,000.
It definitely appears I miscalculated Richmond's population density, so thank you for that. I think the error occurred at overestimating the area of Richmond's contingency of neighborhoods over 5000/ppsm, completely unintentional but completely my fault...
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