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)
 
Old 03-06-2010, 09:39 AM
Bo Bo won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Tenth Edition (Apr-May 2014). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Ohio
16,834 posts, read 33,273,369 times
Reputation: 13658

Advertisements

Some posts above were deleted. It's not necessary to nitpick other members' posts. Here's a reminder of the original topic. Just stick to that topic and the thread will remain helpful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cityboi757 View Post
My city's population density is:

4362/sq. mile. Norfolk,Va

I also want to find a southern city that can top that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-06-2010, 11:49 AM
 
Location: Atlanta
7,732 posts, read 12,176,933 times
Reputation: 2774
I live in an unicorporated section of DeKalb County, a mid-century built out suburban area approx. 3.5 miles outside of Atlanta.

Population density as of 2000 is 4,903 people per square mile.

Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowed

Last edited by Yac; 03-30-2010 at 07:42 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2010, 05:13 PM
 
Location: Seattle & Bellevue
253 posts, read 852,120 times
Reputation: 111
Seattle is 6,717/miČ
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2010, 06:26 PM
 
5,969 posts, read 7,767,052 times
Reputation: 1614
Collingswood, NJ

7,616 people per square mile
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2010, 06:59 PM
 
4 posts, read 8,292 times
Reputation: 11
New Orleans density is very misleading. In 2000 the city may have been 180 sq miles, but the people were packed into 66.7 sq miles. Giving it a somewhat more realistic density of 7,266 ppsm.

I say realistic because the area is listed as having 2,684 ppsm. Only someone who has never been there would believe that. If you go to the city and you're expecting a city with a population density less than Houston then you'll be for a big surprise. Fact is few southern cities can compete with the city for sheer building and population density.

In my opinion the best way to measure a city's population density is not the population and the land area. I mean if the bronx was it's own city and it merged with westchester county-let's say westchester was undeveloped-would that mean the people living in what is the current built up area of the bronx be living a very suburban lifestyle of 2,845 ppsm? After all the stats would say that so it must be true.

The best way to measure population density is the population and the residential land area. Here's an example-

Year 2000
Houston-----3,372 ppsm--Residential density-13,236 ppsm
New Orleans-2,684 ppsm--Residential density-18,906 ppsm

Keep this in mind quite a few homes in New Orleans don't even have a front yard, the house is built right up to the sidewalk. If I had to take a guess I would say 50% or more of the houses either don't have a front yard or have a yard that measures about 8 feet or less from the front of the house to the sidewalk.

If you need more evidence look at these pics. Keep in mind Houston is "officially" more densely populated.

A typical area in Houston
[IMG][/IMG]

A typical area in New Orleans
[IMG][/IMG]
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2010, 07:38 PM
 
Location: Chicago
409 posts, read 1,091,605 times
Reputation: 261
Minneapolis:

6,722 /sq mile
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2010, 03:28 PM
 
22 posts, read 53,488 times
Reputation: 18
Skokie, IL: 6588/sq. mi
Chicago: 4883/sq. mi

Skokie has been growing, tho, some think it will be in the 7000s by the time we see the census results.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2010, 07:36 PM
 
196 posts, read 388,567 times
Reputation: 57
Mine has about 620 per sq. mile, but Boston, the closest major city to me, has about 12,700 per sq. mile.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2010, 08:04 PM
 
Location: Back home in Kaguawagpjpa.
1,990 posts, read 6,983,766 times
Reputation: 1057
My city of Clifton, NJ has a density of 6,965. But my hometown of Paterson has a density of 17,675. However, I think it is actually higher than that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2010, 08:16 PM
 
Location: Chicago
721 posts, read 1,576,321 times
Reputation: 449
Quote:
Originally Posted by skompton View Post
Skokie, IL: 6588/sq. mi
Chicago: 4883/sq. mi

Skokie has been growing, tho, some think it will be in the 7000s by the time we see the census results.
Skokie! But please, don't insult us with "Skompton." Anyway, are you joking about Chicago? It's almost 13,000/sq mile...
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.
Similar Threads
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