What's the most "least" urban major city? (map, equal, Philadelphia)

[sweetclimber]

Originally Posted by SouthCali4LifeSD

besides san diego, cuz God know's everyone in texas is going to say san diego (okay okay, maybe only sweetclimber), what's the most "least urban major city" in the united states?

i'd have to say houston because it covers an area of 10,000 square feet with only 6,000,000 people and is a very flat zone free metro region -- the one of the world's largest low density metro regions of its size and class!

let the opinions fly!

Actually, Phoenix feels the least urban followed by Vegas, but San Diego isn't exactly that urban either!

[SouthCali4LifeSD]

Originally Posted by jfre81

Wow....I knew we had immigrants piling into little bitty apartments but jeez...

lol, oops! i didn't realize i said square feet, but with all this talk about the mortgage crisis, i'm stuck on the size of homes and not metro areas apparently!

[mm34b]

New York - 26,401 residents per square mile
Los Angeles - 7,876
Chicago - 12,749
Houston - 3,372
Philadelphia - 11,233
Phoenix - 2,782
San Diego - 3,772
Dallas - 3,470
San Antonio - 2,808
Detroit - 6,885
San Jose - 5,118
Indianapolis - 2,163
San Francisco - 16,633
Jacksonville - 971
Columbus - 3,383
Austin - 2,610
Baltimore - 8,058
Memphis - 2,327
Milwaukee - 6,214
Boston - 12,165
Washington - 9,316
El Paso - 2,263
Seattle - 6,717
Denver - 3,617
Nashville - 1,152
Charlotte - 2,232
Fort Worth - 1,828
Portland - 3,939
Oklahoma City - 834

Data from the last census

[CarolinaBredChicagoan]

Originally Posted by mustang34

So Des Moines, IA; Omaha, NE; Albuquerque, NM; and Honolulu, HI aren't major?

A) Gimme a break, chucklehead.
B) I wouldn't call them major, really. Not particularly.

[Spade]

Oklahoma City - 834

Good Lord.

[lammius]

Haha sorry I meant to edit but I deleted instead.

That list of densities is shocking! I had no idea some of those cities had such low population densities! The whole state of NJ (rural, urban, pine barrens and all) has a density equal to the city of Nashville. Surprising. I'm also surprised to see Baltimore at 8,000 ppsm. I expected higher.

[gameguy56]

Originally Posted by lammius

Haha sorry I meant to edit but I deleted instead.

That list of densities is shocking! I had no idea some of those cities had such low population densities! The whole state of NJ (rural, urban, pine barrens and all) has a density equal to the city of Nashville. Surprising. I'm also surprised to see Baltimore at 8,000 ppsm. I expected higher.

many of the big southern cities (Jacksonville, Louisville, Nashville) are actually city-county mergers. So they don't reflect true 'urban' boundaries.

[desert sun]

As of 2006-

Albuquerque(pop.504,949)
land area-180 square miles
2737 people per square mile

Des Moines(pop.193,886)
land area-75 square miles
2554 people per square mile

Omaha(pop.419,545)
land area-115 square miles
3582 people per square mile

Honolulu(pop.377,357)
land area-85 square miles
4398 people per square mile

not as major as yall think OKC is but at least they have much more density, and I dont think of OKC as a major city in the first place, its just another city that happened to swallow up a whole bunch of land to look bigger.

[Spade]

Originally Posted by lammius

Haha sorry I meant to edit but I deleted instead.

That list of densities is shocking! I had no idea some of those cities had such low population densities! The whole state of NJ (rural, urban, pine barrens and all) has a density equal to the city of Nashville. Surprising. I'm also surprised to see Baltimore at 8,000 ppsm. I expected higher.

Actually, that maybe is because Baltimore losing population over the past few decades. I believe the population is just over 600,000. I'm sure it was well over that number 30 years ago.

[gameguy56]

Originally Posted by Spade

Actually, that maybe is because Baltimore losing population over the past few decades. I believe the population is just over 600,000. I'm sure it was well over that number 30 years ago.

Baltimore's peak population density was at 10,300 persons/mi^2 about 60 years ago.