U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-07-2017, 05:11 PM
 
Location: Denver
14,151 posts, read 19,745,723 times
Reputation: 8803

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by murksiderock View Post
I have no clue how they configure urban area, but time spent in central Dallas and central Richmond, while one definitely gives a larger presence, there is np doubt which one looks and feels denser...
That's what I was thinking. Louisville is in the same boat. But New Orleans does have some pretty dense suburbs in Metairie, Kenner, and the westbank. I don't think Richmond or Louisville does. But then again New Orleans is similar to Miami in that there's open water on one side and wetlands on the other.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-07-2017, 08:02 PM
 
Location: Washington D.C. By way of Texas
18,627 posts, read 27,042,193 times
Reputation: 9576
Quote:
Originally Posted by DabOnEm View Post
I think lately with the new development, Atlanta city may be denser than Houston or Dallas city but the urban areas tell more of the story and Atlanta falls a good distance behind.
Just saw this part. I can see how one would say this with Atlanta's core. Staying in Atlanta proper though, once you get away from the core though, Houston and Dallas rapidly catches up due to Houston and Dallas density being uniform throughout the city. Houston has more people in the 95 sq mile inner loop than Atlanta does in 131 sq miles. But Atlanta has done a better job of building up it's core compared to Dallas and especially Houston though both cities are making up ground.

I wonder how high the density could have been for Atlanta and Dallas if it didn't annex so much land after 1940. In 1940, Atlanta had a population of 302,288 in 34.7 sq miles. That's a density of 8,711 ppsm. Dallas in that same census had a population 294,734 in 40.6 sq miles which gives a density of 7,259 ppsm. Even Houston's density was getting higher in that census.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2017, 09:08 PM
 
29,874 posts, read 27,324,185 times
Reputation: 18427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spade View Post
Just saw this part. I can see how one would say this with Atlanta's core. Staying in Atlanta proper though, once you get away from the core though, Houston and Dallas rapidly catches up due to Houston and Dallas density being uniform throughout the city. Houston has more people in the 95 sq mile inner loop than Atlanta does in 131 sq miles. But Atlanta has done a better job of building up it's core compared to Dallas and especially Houston though both cities are making up ground.

I wonder how high the density could have been for Atlanta and Dallas if it didn't annex so much land after 1940. In 1940, Atlanta had a population of 302,288 in 34.7 sq miles. That's a density of 8,711 ppsm. Dallas in that same census had a population 294,734 in 40.6 sq miles which gives a density of 7,259 ppsm. Even Houston's density was getting higher in that census.
For Atlanta it would certainly be higher but it didn't annex nearly as much land as other Sunbelt sprawlers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2017, 12:58 AM
 
Location: Florida
5,884 posts, read 2,732,034 times
Reputation: 7097
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylord_Focker View Post
Miami looks super dense.
https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8588/...342f4d79_b.jpg

^ Lower half is Little Havana abutting downtown / Brickell and in the distance is Miami Beach & Sunny Isles Beach with 12,000 to 20,000 people per square mile.

Oh! That skinny highway is Interstate-95 !

Last edited by JMT; 04-08-2017 at 04:19 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2017, 08:47 AM
 
Location: Katy,Texas
3,495 posts, read 1,696,278 times
Reputation: 2212
Houston's density is very misleading though. SW Houston and the western half of
The inner loop. Are probably on average 8k or more ppsm, Miami on the other hand is only building dense areas in Miami-Dade at this point and lacks the space of Houston to
Continue to sprawl westward,southwest, south (Pearland) and North(The Woodlands-Conroe region)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2017, 12:45 PM
 
6,816 posts, read 6,944,626 times
Reputation: 5486
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spade View Post
Just saw this part. I can see how one would say this with Atlanta's core. Staying in Atlanta proper though, once you get away from the core though, Houston and Dallas rapidly catches up due to Houston and Dallas density being uniform throughout the city. Houston has more people in the 95 sq mile inner loop than Atlanta does in 131 sq miles. But Atlanta has done a better job of building up it's core compared to Dallas and especially Houston though both cities are making up ground.

I wonder how high the density could have been for Atlanta and Dallas if it didn't annex so much land after 1940. In 1940, Atlanta had a population of 302,288 in 34.7 sq miles. That's a density of 8,711 ppsm. Dallas in that same census had a population 294,734 in 40.6 sq miles which gives a density of 7,259 ppsm. Even Houston's density was getting higher in that census.
Atlanta has a more built up urban core area than Houston and Dallas, but outside of this core, Atlanta has a lot of low density single family home neighborhoods that rapidly drop the density, not to mention Buckhead and it's huge mansions that take up many acres of land.

Here's a recent aerial of the Atlanta urban core:

https://scontent-atl3-1.cdninstagram...93072384_n.jpg

Very dense downtown/midtown and surrounding area, then the green voids are just single family home neighborhoods, then obviously the Buckhead urban core further to the north.

Last edited by JMT; 04-09-2017 at 05:36 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2017, 01:49 PM
 
491 posts, read 273,124 times
Reputation: 472
In terms of skyscrapers and density, only Miami really has that. The part of Miami that is Downtown and Brickell, and the entire island of Miami Beach is very urban and full of skyscrapers. The rest of Miami is suburban.

Houston and Atlanta would probably follow it in terms of number of skyscrapers in the Downtown area. However, I think Miami Beach is what makes Miami more urban, because that whole island is very compact and urban. The only problem is that Miami Beach really isn't like a city. It doesn't have a good mass transit and it's hard to find parking space and there are lots of restaurants and beaches, but it's not really as exciting as it could be, but it is very urban and if you were to count 5-story tall buildings, Miami Beach would probably rival New York City in terms of how many towers above 5-stories it has, and that's not counting the Downtown Miami area. Just look at a Google Earth image of it and you'll see what I mean.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2017, 10:37 PM
 
308 posts, read 186,142 times
Reputation: 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by clearlevel View Post
In terms of skyscrapers and density, only Miami really has that. The part of Miami that is Downtown and Brickell, and the entire island of Miami Beach is very urban and full of skyscrapers. The rest of Miami is suburban.

Houston and Atlanta would probably follow it in terms of number of skyscrapers in the Downtown area. However, I think Miami Beach is what makes Miami more urban, because that whole island is very compact and urban. The only problem is that Miami Beach really isn't like a city. It doesn't have a good mass transit and it's hard to find parking space and there are lots of restaurants and beaches, but it's not really as exciting as it could be, but it is very urban and if you were to count 5-story tall buildings, Miami Beach would probably rival New York City in terms of how many towers above 5-stories it has, and that's not counting the Downtown Miami area. Just look at a Google Earth image of it and you'll see what I mean.

There are a few things in this post I disagree with. I'll make another post tomorrow that goes into detail a little more, but for now i just wanted to point out what i disagree with.

Of course Miami Beach is a "real city", and it's just ridiculous to say it's not. Have you ever been to Miami Beach? It has all the amenities that any other city has, and probably a higher density than the majority of other cities around the world. Miami Beach is one of the most walkable areas of the U.S.

How is Miami Beach not exciting? I'll post more about this tomorrow, but I will say that this. Miami Beach alone gets compared to the nightlife in NYC and Vegas by many people on this very this very forum all the time. You don't get compared to places like that when you're​ a city of only 100k people not including the huge number tourists and snowbirds, without being "exciting." I've made posts on this forum that have went into detail before, but I'll post about it tomorrow. Once again I ask if you have ever been to Miami Beach? There is a huge number of things to do on that island that are "exciting".

Here are some videos of South Beaches nightlife below. I don't even have to bother posting videos of all the other nightlife areas in South Florida, this should show enough. These are three totally separate areas on South Beach, and just a small part of it all.


https://youtu.be/PQJLGYR19uU

https://youtu.be/ZwT_2qSArSY

https://youtu.be/CjFuKbSmbXE


Look at the foot traffic in this next video, it's crazy.

https://youtu.be/FCqX0-zn_d8

https://youtu.be/P1E0HW8q7p4



When you say the rest of Miami is suburban outside of Downtown Miami and Miami Beach, I'm not sure if you mean Miami City proper or South Florida in general, but you're wrong either way. Like I said before I'll go into more detail tomorrow and also post some pics of the many urban areas around South Florida that are outside Miami city proper and Miami Beach. If anyone questions the urban landscape density of Downtown Miami or Miami Beach, just look for my other posts I've made in this thread recently. Those cities win this thread by an astonishing amount. Just look at the videos I posted a couple days ago. It really is no contest out of the cities in the South.

You said you think Miami Beach is what makes the Miami area more urban than Houston and Atlanta, and you couldn't be more wrong. Once again since I'm not sure if you're talking about city propers or the whole metro areas I'll address both again. The whole Miami Metro has a population density of 4,500/sq. mi. The NYC metro is 5,300/ sq. mi. The Houston and Dallas metros are both at 2,900/ sq. mi. The Atlanta metro is 1,700/ sq. mi. The huge amount of tourists and snowbirds do not even count toward any population or population density numbers or it would be even more of a blowout, especially considering South Florida gets many, many times of the amount of tourists that these other cities get.

Miami city proper has a population density of 12,000/ sq. mi. New Orleans, Houston, Dallas and Atlanta all have population densities of around 3,000/ sq. mi. Thats an unreal difference for being a Sun Belt city. Downtown Miami is over 23,000/ sq. mi. and is in the top couple of fastest growing dense urban areas in the entire U.S., both in population and current construction outside of NYC, and has been for over a decade. If anyone wants me to post sources I will.

I will go as far as saying that the entire South Florida coastline around the beach is the densest coastal urban area, in both population and building density, out of any urban area in the entire world, and it's not even remotely close. I'm talking more than 10 or 20 times the next area on the list at least.The South Florida metro is over 110 miles long. The new South Florida CSA that the census just came out with now makes it 147 miles long.

Name another area anywhere in the world that has as many tall buildings and dense urban areas along the entire coast that long with rarely any breaks in high density? I guarantee you will not. I have researched this subject thoroughly and it's a blowout. That's a main reason why the Miami metro's population density is so high. Miami metro's population density is 4500/ sq. mi. compared to NYC at 5,300/ sq. mi. NYC is a crazy beast and the whole NYC metro has dense urban areas everywhere. Do you think Miami's metro is that dense because of Downtown Miami? Do you understand how much density along the beach that the Miami metro makes us for to compare almost to the NYC metro in density? Just look at the map below and you are able to see it's much denser toward the coast even when zoomed out so far.

Look at the picture of the Atlanta skyline that someone posted earlier on this page. That's a good majority of the tall buildings in the Atlanta metro. I lived in Atlanta for 4 years and South Florida for 10. It doesn't even compare. Think about how many dense tall buildings South Florida has by the beach in that 147 mile long CSA. It's almost unmeasurable. I'm talking like 80 times more tall buildings than the entire Atlanta metro. Take a look on Google Earth in 3d mode, the coastline of South Florida is unreal.

It's hard to judge a number but I'm super confident it's over 20 times higher than the next area out of the entire world. Just go on Google Earth and put on the 3d option and compare the amount of all the dense, tall buildings close to the coast between South Florida and the other largest coastal areas such as Tokyo, New York, Los Angeles, Rio de Janeiro and the French Riviera, or any city on the planet for that matter. It's by far the largest "strip" in the world.

Just look on Google Earth and compare all those coastal areas I named to South Florida's coastal areas. Zoom in on South Florida and go from down in Homestead all the way up to Jupiter by the beach. Do you understand how far 110 miles is? It's longer than both the NYC and L.A. metros. When comparing just coastline it destroys every other city on the planet in density. Zoom just far enough to see if the building is tall or a small family home. It's a blowout compared to the other cities i mentioned, or any area around the world, hence the 20 times number I stated earlier in this post. Not to mention there are barely any breaks in development up the whole entire eastern Florida coastline all the way to Georgia.

Does that mean that the area right on the beach up and down South Florida is the most desirable area on the planet, especially since it's a relatively new city? I'm not sure, but I'm sure it's something close to that effect. The people are voting by building tall buildings within close walking distance to the beach and they come from all over the world. I have only posted claims that are facts and cannot be disputed. Just think about all the things I have said and try to dispute any of them. If it wasn't such a blowout I wouldn't make these bold claims, but if you take the time to look and compare you will find that everything I said in this entire thread is fact. It's hard to argue building density's​ because they really are facts.

I urge you to watch these videos I posted at the end of this thread since you said that Miami only wins this thread because Miami Beach is close by. It shows some of the density around Miami that is outside Downtown Miami and Miami Beach.


This video below shows some of the coastline by helicopter. The density is crazy, and it's a very, very tiny area compared to the whole South Florida coastline. I posted a map also with the starting and ending points of the trip. This video doesnt even include South Beach or Miami proper at all. This kind of density is over much of the coastline all the way up till Jupiter.


https://youtu.be/vtoqOqkrE10



http://i.imgur.com/L4Mh8Ve.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/L4Mh8Ve.jpg






Here are some videos showing the building density of Miami city proper and South Beach. The 10:20 mark of the second video is when you can see a great view of Miami city proper, and the beginning of the video is good also.

https://youtu.be/o29BLXFU-oA


https://youtu.be/kpgmXIEVwoA


https://youtu.be/znYAmevr2Oc





I know I have made some bold claims, but I urge you to compare the coastline like I described to any other area in the entire world. South Florida has like 20 times as many dense buildings along the coast as any other city on the planet.

.

Last edited by JMT; 04-09-2017 at 05:37 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2017, 01:25 AM
 
Location: Washington D.C. By way of Texas
18,627 posts, read 27,042,193 times
Reputation: 9576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ant131531 View Post
Atlanta has a more built up urban core area than Houston and Dallas, but outside of this core, Atlanta has a lot of low density single family home neighborhoods that rapidly drop the density, not to mention Buckhead and it's huge mansions that take up many acres of land.

Here's a recent aerial of the Atlanta urban core:



Very dense downtown/midtown and surrounding area, then the green voids are just single family home neighborhoods, then obviously the Buckhead urban core further to the north.
Yes, this is what I was talking about.

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1537/...17f01bcc_h.jpg

Houston also has many single family home neighborhoods but the homes are much closer together to the point at from an angle, they could pass as row homes. This is evident miles away from the core but still with in the loop. Most single family homes going up and around the core of Houston are being constructed like this now. Then you have the midrise apartments going up in these same neighborhoods as well as some high-rises. This helps Houston's density stay uniform from the core.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2017, 10:34 AM
 
308 posts, read 186,142 times
Reputation: 279
Before someone jumps all over me for the bold claims I made last night I just wanted to clear some things up. I was very tired last night and I don't think I made myself clear enough. I made the claim that South Florida has more than 20 times the amount of dense, tall buildings right on the coast around the beach than any other urban area in the entire world. I still stand by that statement wholeheartedly. I'm strictly talking about an area that is 1/3 mile from the water going inland. The next areas below South Florida in order would be Los Angeles then Toyko then NYC. The other urban areas of the world are even further behind and have a lot less than 1/20th the amount that South Florida has.

I have a feeling a lot of people would say the NYC metro has more than South Florida since they are including Manhattan. There is no way that the waterfront of Manhattan should be referred to as a "coast". It's 20 miles away from the ocean, and most of the waterfront is on a river. Since when do we call riverfronts coasts? It's like saying Chicago is on the coast of Lake Michigan​ instead of the "shore". But even if Chicago, or any other city outside of NYC, was included, and we were talking about any and all waterfront development such as around Manhattan and the whole Chicago shore, all the other urban areas in the world outside of NYC would still have less than 1/20 the amount of South Florida.

NYC is the only area in the world that even comes close, and it destroys South Florida in the 1/3rd mile inland cutoff metric I have been using. I truly believe NYC should only be able to include Southern Brooklyn and Long Island, and a few smaller areas, when taking about "coastlines". Does that mean South Florida can use it's hundreds of miles of inlets, waterways and bays in this discussion? Look how many buildings that would add if we included that as the "coast" of South Florida. It would add hundreds and hundreds of miles more coastline, which is why it shouldn't be considered the coastline, and never is. The South Florida metro and coastline is 110 miles long already.

I know vocabulary varies from person to person, and that's why I'm trying to clear things up a little. I would never make the claim I did if Manhattan was included. I have been there numerous times and fully understand the tall building density on the waterfront there. Southern Brooklyn and Long Island are the major coasts of the NYC metro area. South Florida destoys those coasts in tall building density right on the waterfront, hence the 20 times more number. If you don't believe me take a look at both coasts and compare. Read my other post above on this page for more details on how to compare from yesterday.

Next we have Southern California. Even when taking the whole area from Tiajuana, Mexico all the way up to Santa Monica it still doesn't compare at all. The area right by the beach from Homestead to Jupiter in South Florida makes the area right on all of Southern California's coastline look like a low density suburban town, in which the majority of it resembles anyways. It has way less than 1/20th the amount of high rises that South Florida has on the beach.

I want to make it clear that I'm talking about the area right on the beach which is an area from the water going inland around 1/3rd mile. Feel free to compare the two areas in 3-d mode of Google Maps. The Southern California coast is dominated by single family homes, while South Florida's is dominated by high rises. Do you understand how much density is added to an area by adding even just one high rise? It's like adding hundreds of homes in a super tiny area. Southern California has nothing remotely close to compare to Downtown Miami or Miami Beach on it's coast, let alone the thousands of other dense, tall buildings going up the coast over 140 miles long with absolutely no breaks in development. Like i said before, South Florida has more than 20 times the amount of high rises right on the ocean coast than any other place in the entire world. Take a look at all these areas on Google Earth if you do not believe me.

The Tokyo area is inside a bay just like Manhattan, so I'm also hesitant to say it's "on the coast". But even if the entire water front of the Tokyo area was included in this discussion it still wouldn't​ have even 1/20th the amount of tall, dense buildings right on the waterfront that South Florida does. Take a look at the Tokyo area on Google Maps. It is a monster but most of the buildings right on the waterfront are either houses or industrial areas. There are​ barely any tall buildings in the areas right on the bay.

If anyone has any other urban areas that compare to South Florida in this regard, please tell me. I guarantee no place compares when talking about the metrics i specified. I think a lot of people are unaware of the massive scale of the coastline density down there.

Last edited by pinytr; 04-09-2017 at 12:04 PM..
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.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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