Cities with the most suprising population density statistics? (apartments, houses)
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.
Which cities shock you the most after viewing the population density numbers for the city and visiting/living in the city. For instance, a city could have density numbers much higher or lower than you expected.
The city of Seattle's numbers are lower than a visitor might think. We put most of the density in the 15% of the city that allows it. This includes most of the heavy visitor areas, which are becoming truly urban at a high rate. But they don't necessarily notice that the rest is houses (2/3) or industrial, park, etc. So we were at 8,150 last year iirc.
One thing I've always been surprised about is how low the densities of Atlanta, Houston , and Dallas are. Barely around 3,500 ppsm. There are plenty of suburbs in this country with average densities of around 5k-6k ppsm. The latter half of the 20th century was not kind of these cities. Atlanta at one point had an average density of nearly 9,000 ppsm in 1950, but annexation and suburban flight really dropped the numbers over time.
I wish Houston was just the inner loop. If it was, the density would be 5,200+ ppsm right now. Not high by any means but surprisingly high for a sunbelt post WW2 city.
^^^^
I would not call Houston's case special, 77450 and 77449 both have 3,300 people or more per square mile and are completely suburban. I think a good portion of Houston zip codes especially in South Harris county are close to 10,000 people per square mile or higher like 77036 for Chinatown and Sharpstown. I saw someone on another forum calculate Southwest Houston density and get nearly 9,000 ppsm. The loop partially suffers from the east side being mostly empty but I feel it's sad that a string of what were once considered the burbs of Houston are now by far the densest part of th city, and also the most diverse. http://web.pdx.edu/~nkobel/portfolio...is_Houston.pdf
^^^^
I would not call Houston's case special, 77450 and 77449 both have 3,300 people or more per square mile and are completely suburban. I think a good portion of Houston zip codes especially in South Harris county are close to 10,000 people per square mile or higher like 77036 for Chinatown and Sharpstown. I saw someone on another forum calculate Southwest Houston density and get nearly 9,000 ppsm. The loop partially suffers from the east side being mostly empty but I feel it's sad that a string of what were once considered the burbs of Houston are now by far the densest part of th city, and also the most diverse. http://web.pdx.edu/~nkobel/portfolio...is_Houston.pdf
I'm talking about inside loop 610. Both those zips are way on the fringes of the metro area. The thing with the parts around Gulfton/Southwest Houston is it's nothing but suburban apartments. The density is nothing impressive. It's not walkable, or cohesive. It's 100% suburban and will always remain so. I'm not saying that inside the loop is a urban paradise either but if the city somehow changes their tune in creating a walkable city, this part of the city would be easily fixable. Not to mention it has the bones to accomplish this already. Unlike Sharpstown.
One thing I've always been surprised about is how low the densities of Atlanta, Houston , and Dallas are. Barely around 3,500 ppsm. There are plenty of suburbs in this country with average densities of around 5k-6k ppsm. The latter half of the 20th century was not kind of these cities. Atlanta at one point had an average density of nearly 9,000 ppsm in 1950, but annexation and suburban flight really dropped the numbers over time.
Atlanta's density is lower than that of the suburban Town of Hempstead in New York
For me, it's the NY metro area. I grew up in the city, so it's shocking for me to discover the areas I thought of is purely suburban are more densely populated than Boston or DC.
I was surprised when I first saw the density stats of the Lexington, KY urbanized area...quite a bit higher than those of larger, classically urban places.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,140,925 times
Reputation: 2919
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladhands
For me, it's the NY metro area. I grew up in the city, so it's shocking for me to discover the areas I thought of is purely suburban are more densely populated than Boston or DC.
This. Even Staten Island is denser than Seattle, and just behind the city of Los Angeles. Staten Island!
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.
