U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [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 06-26-2014, 10:24 AM
 
4,959 posts, read 8,562,432 times
Reputation: 2086

Advertisements

12 maps show how American cities sprawl differently - Greater Greater Washington
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-26-2014, 10:47 AM
 
Location: The City
22,347 posts, read 32,253,704 times
Reputation: 7749
great maps here - thanks for sharing

of course Philly got off at trenton and is in the in NYC image would be curious to see NYC and Philly combined
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2014, 10:48 AM
 
Location: Morgantown, WV
1,000 posts, read 1,602,080 times
Reputation: 493
That's pretty cool. They should do Charlotte and Phoenix.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2014, 12:26 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,993 posts, read 42,140,379 times
Reputation: 14811
These are just as interesting:

These Cool GIFs Show How 8 U.S. Cities Have Sprawled – Next City

Unlike most maps I've seen, it's of housing unit growth not just population growth. So old cities show significant growth due to housing units being built even though population is stagnant or declining (declining household size).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2014, 12:45 PM
 
Location: The City
22,347 posts, read 32,253,704 times
Reputation: 7749
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
These are just as interesting:

These Cool GIFs Show How 8 U.S. Cities Have Sprawled – Next City

Unlike most maps I've seen, it's of housing unit growth not just population growth. So old cities show significant growth due to housing units being built even though population is stagnant or declining (declining household size).
Houston and Atlanta grew out and now growth in the fringe and core

Phx just keeps growing out

interesting none the less
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2014, 01:33 PM
 
Location: Vineland, NJ
8,484 posts, read 10,499,962 times
Reputation: 5401
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly View Post
great maps here - thanks for sharing

of course Philly got off at trenton and is in the in NYC image would be curious to see NYC and Philly combined
Yeah, they are missing several counties for Philly but when just looking at the map, do I dare say that Philly looks more sprawling compared to Dallas? I'm sure if the other counties where included, it would look even more sprawling.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2014, 01:52 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,993 posts, read 42,140,379 times
Reputation: 14811
this image, via a comment from the OP's link is impressive. the Madrid metro superimposed on the Dallas-Fort Worth metro. Both have about the same number of people. Area taken up is rather different.



WALKABLE Dallas-Fort Worth: Meeting CPH Accord Through Releasing Pent-up Demand
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2014, 09:08 PM
Status: "Got the rocking modern neon sound" (set 28 days ago)
 
Location: Boston
2,091 posts, read 2,016,673 times
Reputation: 1788
I'm a little confused/surprised by Boston's map.

It looks like a city north of Boston (Lawrence?) has a higher peak density than Providence..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2014, 10:27 PM
 
5,772 posts, read 13,756,839 times
Reputation: 4583
Quote:
Originally Posted by iAMtheVVALRUS View Post
I'm a little confused/surprised by Boston's map.

It looks like a city north of Boston (Lawrence?) has a higher peak density than Providence..
According to CD's pages for those cities, this is correct. Lawrence: 77,326 in 6.96 sq. mi. for a density of 11,110 psm; Providence: 178,432, 18.5 sq. mi., density 9,662.

Providence is a larger city in terms of population, but because it spreads over nearly three times the area of Lawrence, Providence does not pack in the residents the way Lawrence does in its tiny area.

Speaking of Lawrence and Providence, something I notice is that these maps bear out the idea that older cities in the Northeast and the Great Lakes region have dense population nodes scattered throughout their metro areas, with relatively low density in between, while Sun Belt metros tend to have closer to an even distribution of population outside their cores. One clear exception is Detroit, which is fairly flat throughout the metro.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2014, 10:38 AM
 
1,709 posts, read 1,681,802 times
Reputation: 1843
Quote:
Originally Posted by ogre View Post
According to CD's pages for those cities, this is correct. Lawrence: 77,326 in 6.96 sq. mi. for a density of 11,110 psm; Providence: 178,432, 18.5 sq. mi., density 9,662.

Providence is a larger city in terms of population, but because it spreads over nearly three times the area of Lawrence, Providence does not pack in the residents the way Lawrence does in its tiny area.

Speaking of Lawrence and Providence, something I notice is that these maps bear out the idea that older cities in the Northeast and the Great Lakes region have dense population nodes scattered throughout their metro areas, with relatively low density in between, while Sun Belt metros tend to have closer to an even distribution of population outside their cores. One clear exception is Detroit, which is fairly flat throughout the metro.
I think the only reason Detroit is so flat and low is because of its depopulation. Apart from demolished areas, Detroit still has a much higher structural density than population density due to it having emptied out over the years. If we looked at Detroit today with a population closer to its peak (say, 1.6 million), it would likely be much less uniform and far higher and denser.
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 > General Forums > Urban Planning
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