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.
As someone who’s down there fairly often, the Charlotte area is a long way from matching the Boston area. Like, there are no Worcesters, Manchesters, or Providences around Charlotte.
I'm talking about low density suburbia and Charlotte becoming more Atlanta-like. While their are dense towns scattered around the Greater Boston area, in Charlotte, Atlanta and Boston the suburban areas are all low density. Someone was calling Atlanta the least dense major city but that's only true if you don't consider Charlotte a major city since it's urban area is less dense and split into many parts because of how low the density is.
Famous Sprawlburbias (2010 so old data, Houston and Dallas have likely broken 3,000, although an expanding Urban Area might drop population density so what do we truly know)
Phoenix- 3,165 ppsm
Houston- 2,978 ppsm
Dallas- 2,879 ppsm
I just don't see how someone can call one of these 3 anti-urban in comparison to the other 2. Non of them comes even close to 3 cities that are notorious for Sprawl so how did someone diss Atlanta from that, especially failing to realize the definition of Atlanta as the least sprawliest Urban Area in the world is only true when you fail to include a city like Charlotte which is actually the only major metro area that was under 1700 in 2010. The city has gained 150,000 new residents so it's very likely that it's passed Atlanta up which while getting denser is also expanding as an Urban area (much like Dallas and Houston) but in 2010 it was behind Atlanta, yet someone was claiming Atlanta as anti-urban in comparison to the Boston and Charlotte areas...
In general you can't call a place anti-urban and mention another American city. It's akin to calling Popeye's/Waffle House low quality food and mentioning KFC/Denny's, sure one place is generally regarded as better but we aren't gonna act like it's a gourmet meal.
If one has to ask why Boston MSA is so 'sprawly', just turn to the Mansion Belt/Gold Plate Belt of suburbs just due west of the city including (but not limited to) Dover, Wellesley, Weston, Sherborn, Littleton, Maynard, Concord, Carlisle, Acton, Lincoln, Lexington, Stowe, Andover, Norh Andover, Tewksbury, Sherborn, Winchester, Newton, Brookline, Hopkinton, Boxborough, Belmont, Chestnut Hill, etc
Then another ribbon of ultra-wealthy suburbs including the towns of Hingham, Scituate, Duxbury, Marshfield, Cohasett, Kingston, Plympton, Norwell, etc.
Then we have another ribbon of utra wealthy, extremely low density suburbs on the North Shore including the towns of Marblehead, Manchester-by-the-Sea, Ipswich, Beverly, Rockport, Gloucester, Boxford, Wenham, Nahant, Newburyport,etc
Low Density, High Wealth, High NIMBY towns. Some of these towns have densities of 300-500 people per square mile just outside of Boston. It kills any sort of development beyond these cities as well keeping most of inner Boston low density and high in desirability.
I would be very surprised if Dallas became a denser city than San Diego considering it has unlimited room to sprawl.
Also, Dallas grew by 0.8% between 2000-2010. I could see future decades with that growth.
But Dallas grew at a rate of 12.2% this decade, thanks in large part to the upzoning of parcels in its core (I.E. Uptown).
As long as the city continues to upzone parcels on a large scale basis, I could see Dallas adding at least several hundred thousand more people by 2046.
EDIT: BTW, while Dallas metro has plenty of room to sprawl, Dallas proper does not. It hasn't done a big annexation since the 1970s and is now mostly boxed in by other municipalities, especially to the North, East and West.
Last edited by citidata18; 01-22-2021 at 08:52 PM..
I'm talking about low density suburbia and Charlotte becoming more Atlanta-like. While their are dense towns scattered around the Greater Boston area, in Charlotte, Atlanta and Boston the suburban areas are all low density. Someone was calling Atlanta the least dense major city but that's only true if you don't consider Charlotte a major city since it's urban area is less dense and split into many parts because of how low the density is.
Famous Sprawlburbias (2010 so old data, Houston and Dallas have likely broken 3,000, although an expanding Urban Area might drop population density so what do we truly know)
Phoenix- 3,165 ppsm
Houston- 2,978 ppsm
Dallas- 2,879 ppsm
I just don't see how someone can call one of these 3 anti-urban in comparison to the other 2. Non of them comes even close to 3 cities that are notorious for Sprawl so how did someone diss Atlanta from that, especially failing to realize the definition of Atlanta as the least sprawliest Urban Area in the world is only true when you fail to include a city like Charlotte which is actually the only major metro area that was under 1700 in 2010. The city has gained 150,000 new residents so it's very likely that it's passed Atlanta up which while getting denser is also expanding as an Urban area (much like Dallas and Houston) but in 2010 it was behind Atlanta, yet someone was claiming Atlanta as anti-urban in comparison to the Boston and Charlotte areas...
In general you can't call a place anti-urban and mention another American city. It's akin to calling Popeye's/Waffle House low quality food and mentioning KFC/Denny's, sure one place is generally regarded as better but we aren't gonna act like it's a gourmet meal.
Good report however I do want to correct you when it comes to Charlotte. The Concord Area and Rock Hill are immediate adjacent suburbs that are their own urban areas not because of the low density but because of the opposite. Charlotte really gets the short end of the stick in this regard because it should easily have almost 500,000 more people if the urban areas were combined and the density of the urban area would be higher than Atlanta's. Drive through Charlotte and Concord and its seamless.
New York and Los Angeles stay at the top unless something catastrophic takes place. I definitely see Houston overtaking Chicago soon and San Francisco moving into the top 10.
Both Boston and Charlotte are built like Atlanta in the outer areas with acreage lots being dominant in some suburban regions. It’s not as bad as Atlanta but their isn’t much room to talk. Especially because Charlotte is heading in that direction and If it wasn’t for the city of Boston and a few inner suburbs it would already be there. Even suburban New York and Philly have a few areas like that but it’s outpaced by the cities and denser suburbia.
boston is mansiony in spots with immense 'sprawl' but the town centres of pretty much every suburb was developed prior to 1900, so they have
a) Transit access, train in clos proximity
b) a walkable New England Downtown stretch. COmplete with a few restaurants, an art gallery, church, town hall and some shops. A few cafes too
c) Drops off to nothingness, then restarts
Charlotte and Atlanta MSA are laid out nothing like Boston's.
Generally correct. But, Austin Texas is not included?
The link lists MSA, Austin isn't close to being a top 15 MSA.
One to watch out for by 2046 is greater Tampa Bay.
If it was to meet the requirements for combining with Sarasota MSA you would be looking at an area currently more populated than Minneapolis St Paul.
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.
