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 01-05-2010, 12:15 PM
rah
 
Location: Oakland
3,315 posts, read 8,122,855 times
Reputation: 2508

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago60614 View Post
Cities like San Fran and Boston are extremely dense, but you can see how they're helped with the lack of huge industrial areas, airports that are either not in the city limits or are squeezed to within a few square miles, and don't have large tracts of undeveloped land.
As far as San Francisco goes, I added up the land area of the parks, and got 2.3 square miles for The Presidio, 1.6 square miles for Golden gate Park, 0.5 square miles for McLaren Park, and I figure there are about 1.5 square miles of other parkland within the city, so that's 6.1 square miles total...I then figured there's about 2 square miles of completely unpopulated industrial area in SF as well, so that leaves 38.6 square miles and 808,976 people, which gives a population density of 20,958 people per square mile, rather than 17,323.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-05-2010, 12:54 PM
 
Location: Denver
6,628 posts, read 12,509,915 times
Reputation: 4054
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago60614 View Post
^ right. I mean Chicago is 237 square miles and has 12,500 or whatever population density.

You can back 10 square miles for the airports, 10 square miles of the Wolf Lake area on the south side that's undeveloped, huge railroad yards and southside industrial areas and suddenly the average density of developed areas starts changing quickly.

Cities like San Fran and Boston are extremely dense, but you can see how they're helped with the lack of huge industrial areas, airports that are either not in the city limits or are squeezed to within a few square miles, and don't have large tracts of undeveloped land.

Certainly saying those cities aren't dense, but I think that's one of the reasons people focus on urban density or residential density many times over just using the official boundries of cities that might include 50 square miles of farmfields or desert.
I see what you're saying...but look at Boston. We do include our airport (yea I know it's not as big as the Chicago ones), and we've got plenty of industrial areas in the city. Just look South of downtown and North of Charlestown on the Mystic River. Much of that area is undeveloped, industrial or Seaport. We've got one of the highest amount of parkland as a % of city area too (16.3%). Look at the harbor islands. They've got almost zero development on them, but count in our land area. Granted the total area may be relatively small, but it's there.

(That's why if you look at Wikipedia, our total area is 89.63 sq miles, but our land area is only 48.43 sq miles)

We've got plenty of open/undeveloped areas in Boston, which is why you'll see most of our inner neighborhoods are around 20,000-30,000 ppsm...with the North End topping 63,000 ppsm. Even relatively outter neighborhoods like Allston and Brighton have densities of 16,350 ppsm and 16,180 ppsm.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2010, 02:45 PM
 
Location: Phoenix
3,995 posts, read 8,867,493 times
Reputation: 901
Quote:
Originally Posted by rah View Post
As far as San Francisco goes, I added up the land area of the parks, and got 2.3 square miles for The Presidio, 1.6 square miles for Golden gate Park, 0.5 square miles for McLaren Park, and I figure there are about 1.5 square miles of other parkland within the city, so that's 6.1 square miles total...I then figured there's about 2 square miles of completely unpopulated industrial area in SF as well, so that leaves 38.6 square miles and 808,976 people, which gives a population density of 20,958 people per square mile, rather than 17,323.
This is rather different than comparing the urban footprint. If we further reduced Phoenix' square mileage based on the industrial areas, parkland IN the urban footprint, the airport, etc we'd be talking about Phoenix having 12,000-15,000+ people per square mile. Phoenix has the nation's largest park system and one of the largest single municipal parks in the world. There are also parks in the "inner-city" that overshadow Central Park acreage; Papago Park, and Tres Rios and other huge parks (though smaller) like Steele Park, Hance Park, and Encanto Park...

The difference is that the undeveloped land in Phoenix is designated as such by the will of the people and by law. These areas cannot have any type of development built on them whatsoever. Industrial areas can be converted to residential (warehouse districts for instance) and the airports are hardly unpaved and open land.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2010, 03:22 PM
 
Location: SW Michigan
111 posts, read 294,803 times
Reputation: 68
2683 people per square mile in South Bend Indiana. Most of us have yards and single family homes. I find my former home of Indianapolis to be shocking at 2209 people per square mile. Indy is very spread out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2010, 04:55 PM
 
Location: STL
1,124 posts, read 3,226,539 times
Reputation: 575
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnc2mbfl View Post
Here's 4 in Florida that are more dense:

Miami Beach - 12,502 per sq mile
North Miami Beach - 8230 per sq mile
Miami - 6,558 per sq mile
Ft Lauderdale - 5100 per sq mile

There are others that are more dense but many are really small towns on slivers of land.
Ummm? Miami is almost twice that. 362,470 people in 36 sq. miles for a population density of 10,161 people per sq. mile.
Remember to use the city's land area rather than the total area.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2010, 11:24 PM
 
Location: Pensacola, FL
122 posts, read 363,086 times
Reputation: 53
I live in a suburb of Pensacola, FL

My suburb is Warrington:
Population density: 1275 people per square mile

The suburb of my childhood.. where I lived since I was 2 years old until I was 23. Bellview:
Population density: 610 people per square mile

Pensacola, FL:
Population density: 2371 people per square mile
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2010, 09:37 AM
 
Location: Tennessee
34,689 posts, read 33,695,295 times
Reputation: 51900
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.
Have to go by the 2000 Census - 320 people per square mile.

You do know not all cities are big, population-wise, right? I technically live in a Southern city with its own city utilities, schools, fire and police but the population is only about 27,500.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2010, 10:37 AM
 
Location: Jackson, Mississippi
11 posts, read 31,412 times
Reputation: 14
Based on a 2006 Estimate: 1089 people/sq. mile - Clinton, MS It feels like a good number
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2010, 02:18 AM
 
Location: In the heights
22,142 posts, read 23,668,851 times
Reputation: 11622
I think it's a good idea to list both the land area and density of a census tract because that gives a better feel for how dense a place actually is. Otherwise we get misleading numbers for places that have a large amount of parkland/industrial areas/water/airports/etc. which really skew the story a bit. (Chicago might be +12,000 people per square mile for the city as a whole, but there are neighborhoods that are +90,000 per square mile).

Where I'm currently staying in Brooklyn, the census tract is just shy of 2 square miles with a density of +45,000.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2010, 06:26 AM
 
Location: Orlando, FL
1,988 posts, read 6,372,731 times
Reputation: 645
Orlando - 2,282.36/Sq miles

This is the definition of sprawl. However some of Orlando suburbs are more dense than parts of the city (like Winter Park) and I am not sure that this statistic takes into consideration all the water area from all the lakes in the area.
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