The most spread-out major city in the US. (suburbs, residential)
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.
Although this list of U.S. Urban areas is from 2000, it should give you an idea of what the land area and density was at that time (an eye opener for some of you):
The link provided really doesn't show the big picture. The list simply shows what cities get rural quicker because the intro states "In the table, UA refers to "urbanized area" (urban areas with population over 50,000) and UC refers to "urban cluster" (urban areas with population less than 50,000). Therefore, if cities have suburbs with 50,000 plus then that town is considered to be in the urban area.
The density numbers from within the city, MSA and CSA are better indicators of sprawl.
Boston still has several areas which San Antonio can't even come close to touching.
Of course it does, but we're not just speaking about the city center now, we're speaking about the Urban Area. Boston starts out pretty dense at its core and then sprawls out pretty good. Don't think for a second that Boston is immune to sprawl.
Of course it does, but we're not just speaking about the city center now, we're speaking about the Urban Area. Boston starts out pretty dense at its core and then sprawls out pretty good. Don't think for a second that Boston is immune to sprawl.
The Boston metro area within the MSA and CSA is one of the top 10 densest in the U.S. If Boston is sprawled then pretty much everything is.
The Boston metro area within the MSA and CSA is one of the top 10 densest in the U.S. If Boston is sprawled then pretty much everything is.
While its true that Boston, Cambridge, and Somerville rate very high in density in the US, most suburbs are developed as low density. Once you get past the core of Boston, it sprawls pretty heavily eating up just as much land as the LA urban area, which obviously has more population in its urban area. As an entire urban area, Boston is one of the worst sprawlers. What this means is that when looking at an entire urban area, places like LA, Phoenix have a more evenly spread density and are more dense throughout the entire urban areas than people give them credit for.
Now, if going by weighted density, Boston does rate higher because more of its population is centered around the core than its low-density suburbs, but not by a huge amount. That doesn't negate the fact that there are many eastern cities that are not immune to sprawl, in fact, in some cases, they are the worst offenders.
When going by standard density of Urban Areas (i.e., total population/total land area):
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana
San Francisco-Oakland
San Jose
New York City-Newark-NY/NJ/CT
Honolulu
Las Vegas
Miami
Denver-Aurora
Chicago-IL/IN
Sacramento
Phoenix-Mesa
Riverside-San Bernadino
San Diego
Washington DC-VA/MD
Portland-OR/WA
San Antonio
Detroit
Baltimore
Houston
Dallas-Ft. Worth-Arlington
Philadelphia-NJ/DE/MD
Seattle
Austin
Cleveland
Milwaukee
Minneapolis-St. Paul
Virginia Beach, VA
Tampa/St. Petersburg
St. Louis-MO/IL
Kansas City-MO/KS
Boston-MA/NH/RI
Cincinnati-OH/KY/IN
Pittsburgh
Atlanta
When going by weighted density of Urban Areas (as of March 2008):
New York City-Newark-NY/NJ/CT
San Francisco-Oakland
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana
Honolulu
Chicago-IL/IN
San Jose
Philadelphia-NJ/DE/MD
Boston-MA/NH/RI
San Diego
Baltimore
Washington DC-VA/MD
Miami
Las Vegas
Milwaukee
Phoenix-Mesa
Denver-Aurora
Sacramento
Cleveland
Detroit
Seattle
Dallas-Ft. Worth-Arlington
Riverside-San Bernadino
Houston
Portland-OR/WA
Minneapolis-St. Paul
San Antonio
Austin
Virginia Beach, VA
Pittsburgh
St. Louis-MO/IL
Tampa/St. Petersburg
Cincinnati-OH/KY/IN
Kansas City-MO/KS
Atlanta
While its true that Boston, Cambridge, and Somerville rate very high in density in the US, most suburbs are developed as low density. Once you get past the core of Boston, it sprawls pretty heavily eating up just as much land as the LA urban area, which obviously has more population in its urban area. As an entire urban area, Boston is one of the worst sprawlers. What this means is that when looking at an entire urban area, places like LA, Phoenix have a more evenly spread density and are more dense throughout the entire urban areas than people give them credit for.
Now, if going by weighted density, Boston does rate higher because more of its population is centered around the core than its low-density suburbs, but not by a huge amount. That doesn't negate the fact that there are many eastern cities that are not immune to sprawl, in fact, in some cases, they are the worst offenders.
When going by standard density of Urban Areas (i.e., total population/total land area):
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana
San Francisco-Oakland
San Jose
New York City-Newark-NY/NJ/CT
Honolulu
Las Vegas
Miami
Denver-Aurora
Chicago-IL/IN
Sacramento
Phoenix-Mesa
Riverside-San Bernadino
San Diego
Washington DC-VA/MD
Portland-OR/WA
San Antonio
Detroit
Baltimore
Houston
Dallas-Ft. Worth-Arlington
Philadelphia-NJ/DE/MD
Seattle
Austin
Cleveland
Milwaukee
Minneapolis-St. Paul
Virginia Beach, VA
Tampa/St. Petersburg
St. Louis-MO/IL
Kansas City-MO/KS
Boston-MA/NH/RI
Cincinnati-OH/KY/IN
Pittsburgh
Atlanta
When going by weighted density of Urban Areas (as of March 2008):
New York City-Newark-NY/NJ/CT
San Francisco-Oakland
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana
Honolulu
Chicago-IL/IN
San Jose
Philadelphia-NJ/DE/MD
Boston-MA/NH/RI
San Diego
Baltimore
Washington DC-VA/MD
Miami
Las Vegas
Milwaukee
Phoenix-Mesa
Denver-Aurora
Sacramento
Cleveland
Detroit
Seattle
Dallas-Ft. Worth-Arlington
Riverside-San Bernadino
Houston
Portland-OR/WA
Minneapolis-St. Paul
San Antonio
Austin
Virginia Beach, VA
Pittsburgh
St. Louis-MO/IL
Tampa/St. Petersburg
Cincinnati-OH/KY/IN
Kansas City-MO/KS
Atlanta
No, Boston does not sprawl in the suburbs. I am not talking about my experiences, but facts from the internet. The only metro areas in the United States going off of MSA or CSA that is as dense or denser than Boston is the following : NYC, Chicago, Philly, D.C./Baltimore, San Fran and LA.
So, Boston is really in the top 7 densest, not top 10. If people on this site think Boston is sprawled then I would love to hear what they think about Phoenix, Atlanta, Dallas, Nashville, Houston and Charlotte.
Nashville is not dense at all outside of downtown. I remember going to my friend's house in Nashville. He lived in a subdivision surrounded by fields. It was very rural/suburban, didn't feel like a city at all, but we were in the city limits.
No, Boston does not sprawl in the suburbs. I am not talking about my experiences, but facts from the internet. The only metro areas in the United States going off of MSA or CSA that is as dense or denser than Boston is the following : NYC, Chicago, Philly, D.C./Baltimore, San Fran and LA.
So, Boston is really in the top 7 densest, not top 10. If people on this site think Boston is sprawled then I would love to hear what they think about Phoenix, Atlanta, Dallas, Nashville, Houston and Charlotte.
We are speaking about Urban Areas, and YES, the Boston Urban Area does sprawl. Using an MSA/CSA isn't even as accurate as there are some MSA's that have countless sq miles of land that no one lives on. Maricopa and Pinal Counties in AZ are a perfect example. The majority of that land is just desert. No one lives there, but the Census Bureau counts it as part of the MSA. We are talking about continuously built out areas from the core. The Census Bureau defines an Urban Area as: contiguous census block groups with a population density of at least 1,000 inhabitants per square mile (386.1 /km2) with any census block groups around this core having a density of at least 500 inhabitants per square mile (193.1 /km2).
We are speaking about Urban Areas, and YES, the Boston Urban Area does sprawl. Using an MSA/CSA isn't even as accurate as there are some MSA's that have countless sq miles of land that no one lives on. Maricopa and Pinal Counties in AZ are a perfect example. The majority of that land is just desert. No one lives there, but the Census Bureau counts it as part of the MSA. We are talking about continuously built out areas from the core. The Census Bureau defines an Urban Area as: contiguous census block groups with a population density of at least 1,000 inhabitants per square mile (386.1 /km2) with any census block groups around this core having a density of at least 500 inhabitants per square mile (193.1 /km2).
Moderator cut: off-topic/personal
First in bold..... People do live in those areas and they commute into their city everyday for work/activities, which is why it's included.
Moderator cut: off-topic/personal
Last edited by Bo; 12-18-2009 at 02:39 PM..
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.
