10 Largest Cities Under 100 Square Miles (living, cost of living, statistics)
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.
I have no idea what this list is supposed to mean.
Do you mean "densest" under one million residents? If so, the list is all wrong. Excepting maybe SF, probably the entire Top 10 is in Northern NJ, across from Manhattan.
No i mean by population. The cities are all under 100 square miles in land size not total area. For example San Francisco is 231.9 square miles in total area(land and water) but the city is on only 46.67 sq miles of land and has 825,863 people on the 46.67 sq miles. The statistics aren't talking about density, though it does relate. I just thought that this was interesting. By the way these are not my statistics and I received them from a friend and quickly checked over them to see if they were correct, so my bad if they aren't.
But these aren't the densest cities, nor are they the most populous cities. It's just kind of a random list.
Not really. It's highlighting some very small cities in terms of land that generally have high populations. Density plays a role, but the key factor it's showing is how small these cities are and how they're still very populous. I found this list to be interesting.
A lot of people are unable to correlate the land area to the population. For example Indianapolis is the 12th largest city in the country in population at about 830,000. That's spread out over 360 sq miles and just 1.7 million metro. Tiny cities with high populations are more rare, and primarily lay on the coasts or rust belt areas.
A more accurate title would be most populous cities under 100 square miles. San Francisco could easily go over the million mark if more high rise towers were allowed to be built.
A more accurate title would be most populous cities under 100 square miles. San Francisco could easily go over the million mark if more high rise towers were allowed to be built.
Just changed it, thanks for the tip. Yeah, just imagine if the cost of living was cheaper and more high rises were able to be built.
No i mean by population. The cities are all under 100 square miles in land size not total area. For example San Francisco is 231.9 square miles in total area(land and water) but the city is on only 46.67 sq miles of land and has 825,863 people on the 46.67 sq miles. The statistics aren't talking about density, though it does relate. I just thought that this was interesting. By the way these are not my statistics and I received them from a friend and quickly checked over them to see if they were correct, so my bad if they aren't.
Yeah but some of the cities (I noticed Boston) you listed the area including water. Boston's land area is 48.4 sq miles.
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.
