What Cities do you think have the densest built environment? (best, population)
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.
Well clearly NYC is the densest big city (>5 sq miles) by far, averaging 27k/sq mile over an area of 304 sq miles. Some small cities in NJ like Union City are denser but only over a very small area. SF is a distant second at 17k/sq mile over an area of 46 sq miles.
My list for US:
1. NYC
2. Chicago
3. Philly
4. SF
5. DC
6. Boston
7. LA
8. Miami
9. Seattle
10. Detroit
11. Minneapolis
12. Houston
13. Dallas
14. Cleveland
15. Atlanta
For strictly 'dense built environments', not residential or population density, in the US its still clearly NYC. Then Chicago. Midtown and downtown Manhattan, then the Loop and Mag. mile in chicago.
After that its a little harder to determine. Does height play a key role, and how much height is necessary? How about sq mile area and size of the dense environment? Given loose criteria I would say the next densest built environments would be in tightly packed downtowns like Philly, SF, DC, and Boston respectively. DCs density is wider than most cities, just shorter so I knocked it down a little for height. SFs height is also less than Phillys although the number of midrises and lowrise buildings put it pretty close. LA would likely be next, its often overlooked, but there are a decent number of midrises surrounding downtown LAs skyline. Those are cities that come to my mind.
Miami is starting to build out a lot more, and its density is still in its infancy, but still may be comparable to LA without the midrises. Houston and Dallas have the height, but also have large parking lots near their downtowns, and ATL is so spread out, with few midrises. I would still go with smaller, older cities like Detroit, Minneapolis or Seattle over those cities in terms of densely built up environments. Also, Vancouver and Toronto are certainly among the top cities in NA, likely just below Chicago.
Maybe Pittsburgh, Cleveland or Baltimore, with their old style density should be on here as well ahead of some of the other sunbelt cities.
Worldwide the densest built environments are in Hong Kong, Seoul, Shanghai, and Sao Paulo. No US city, except maybe NYC can even hope to match these cities.
My list for US:
1. NYC
2. Chicago
3. Philly
4. SF
5. DC
6. Boston
7. LA
8. Miami
9. Seattle
10. Detroit
11. Minneapolis
12. Houston
13. Dallas
14. Cleveland
15. Atlanta
For strictly 'dense built environments', not residential or population density, in the US its still clearly NYC. Then Chicago. Midtown and downtown Manhattan, then the Loop and Mag. mile in chicago.
After that its a little harder to determine. Does height play a key role, and how much height is necessary? How about sq mile area and size of the dense environment? Given loose criteria I would say the next densest built environments would be in tightly packed downtowns like Philly, SF, DC, and Boston respectively. DCs density is wider than most cities, just shorter so I knocked it down a little for height. SFs height is also less than Phillys although the number of midrises and lowrise buildings put it pretty close. LA would likely be next, its often overlooked, but there are a decent number of midrises surrounding downtown LAs skyline. Those are cities that come to my mind.
I agree that the densest parts of Chicago are denser than the densest parts of SF, due to the greater concentration of high rises as well as the greater amount of transit which allows people from afar to congregate in these areas (the Loop and Mag Mile.) Some residential neighborhoods on the north side of Chicago have population densities of NYC level (30k+). What pulls the average density of Chicago below SF is the great amount of desolate/depopulated land on the west and south side of Chicago. Much of this land is/was industrial and was always low population, and some of used to be high density residential but has become depopulated due to urban decay/white flight. If these parts of town ever gentrify to the levels seen across the north side of Chicago, the city could easily double its population. Of course that won't happen anytime soon.
Even though New Orleans population density is kind of low, the French Quarter is impressive; It's like a taste of Europe. It's probably the best dense built area in the south.
Population Density Per Square Mile
1 New York, NY 27,147
2 San Francisco, CA 16,380
3 Chicago, IL 12,649
4 Boston, MA 12,327
5 Philadelphia, PA 10,883
6 Washington, DC 9,581
7 Los Angeles, CA 8,205
8 Baltimore, MD 7,889
9 Seattle, WA 7,085
10 Detroit, MI 7,085
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.
