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.
With a population of around 8,274,527 people squeezed into 304 sq miles NYC is easily the densest major city with 27,147 people per sq miles. But what would be the population of other cities if they had the same density? Find out now.
With 767 sq miles of land Jacksonville would have to have about 20,800,000people to be as dense as NYC.
With 579.4 sq miles of land Houston would have to have about 15,750,000 people to be as dense as NYC.
With 469 sq miles of land Los Angeles would have to have about 12,750,000 people to be as dense as NYC.
With 227 sq miles of land Chicago would have to have about 6,160,000 people to be as dense as NYC.
With 131 sq miles of land Atlanta would have to have about 2,790,000 people to be as dense as NYC.
With 48.4 sq miles of land Boston would have to have about 1,319,000 people to be as dense of NYC.
With 46.7 sq miles of land San Francisco would have to have about 1,270,000 people to be as dense as NYC.
With 35.6 sq miles of land Miami would have to have about 965,000 people to be as dense as NYC.
I calculated these numbers by taking the land area of these cities and then increasing the population and dividing it by the land area until I could get the closet density possible to NYC. There is probablly a more algebraic method of doing this but oh well algebra has never been my best subject. Enjoy
Many of NY's suburbs are more dense than some of the cities mentioned on that list. The list of largest cities in the US has lost much of its meaning in recent years due to newer cities incorporating suburbs into their city limits.
Call me crazy, but San Francisco realistically has the best chance to pull that off from your list in the next 20 years. The only thing stopping it is the cost of living.
Call me crazy, but San Francisco realistically has the best chance to pull that off from your list in the next 20 years. The only thing stopping it is the cost of living.
I could see that happening. Jacksonville will never have 20,000,000 people living in the city but cities like SF, Boston, and Miami could acheive this density if they starting building up and lowered their inflated cost of living.
Many of NY's suburbs are more dense than some of the cities mentioned on that list. The list of largest cities in the US has lost much of its meaning in recent years due to newer cities incorporating suburbs into their city limits.
Agreed Jacksonville's city limits are crazy. Much of the area the city annexed is rural and has trailer parks and livestock.
And I believe Union City, NJ is the densest city in the nation with 52,977 people per sq mile but I didn't include that because it is not a major city.
I posted this once before, but if Texas had the population density of NJ, the entire population of the US would live within its' borders.
I like posts like this!
I also heard somewhere that if New Jersey were as densely populated as New York City, the whole population of the U.S. would fit into it! It's amazing to me that, dense as NJ is, it doesn't have a much higher population than NYC.
Call me crazy, but San Francisco realistically has the best chance to pull that off from your list in the next 20 years. The only thing stopping it is the cost of living.
San Fran would have to wipe out 75% of their housing stock and build highrises in their place for that to happen.
I live in Boston and I would not want to see the pop density shoot up like that. Lots of great neighborhoods with great houses would have to go.
I also heard somewhere that if New Jersey were as densely populated as New York City, the whole population of the U.S. would fit into it! It's amazing to me that, dense as NJ is, it doesn't have a much higher population than NYC.
It's because NJ is a lot, lot, lot, less dense than NYC. NJ has something like 1,000 people per sq mile while NYC has over 27,000 ppl per sq mile. Even though NJ is considered dense as a state if it were a city it would be much less dense than Los Angeles, Houston, and Atlanta, so its hard to compare state wide density to a city's. Also as you probablly know NJ has a lot of sprawled out suburbs and farmland in Central and Southern NJ which takes away from the bulk of the density that is concentrated in Northern NJ.
San Fran would have to wipe out 75% of their housing stock and build highrises in their place for that to happen.
I live in Boston and I would not want to see the pop density shoot up like that. Lots of great neighborhoods with great houses would have to go.
Good point and New York's density comes with a major price. I grew up in Queens and I cannot tell you how many of the old 1 and 2 family houses I seen destroyed to build these horrible brick multifamily houses that they are building since the 80s. There is no historic NY architecture, no stoop, no porch or even a roof line and the entire front yard is a driveway.
I really believe the city does not care how it looks and cares more about developers pockets than it does the quality of life for its residents.
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.
