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.
My numbers aren't necessarily wrong, but apparently we cited different sources. The source you cited (Demographia) says the urban footprint of Atlanta is 7,400 km2. The source I cited (OECD) has a much lower number (2,713 km2). There may be a difference in methodology. As far as I have read and understand it, the OECD may exclude vegetation from urban land, which is why the number is far lower.
So it excludes the 1 acre lots in Buckhead?
It simply does not pass the smell test. Atlanta is the least dense major urban area in the US.
Los Angeles is first and San Francisco 2nd and San Jose 3rd, but New York is a clear 4th. Miami it appears is 6th behind Las Vegas. Atlanta, on the other hand, is 49th of the top 50 behind only Charlotte, less than half the density of Chicago and less than a 3rd that of New York.
Los Angeles is first and San Francisco 2nd and San Jose 3rd, but New York is a clear 4th. Miami it appears is 6th behind Las Vegas. Atlanta, on the other hand, is 49th of the top 50 behind only Charlotte, less than half the density of Chicago and less than a 3rd that of New York.
Again, those numbers which are from the highly official OECD aren't necessarily wrong. It's just a different approach to measuring density. There may be a reason that goes beyond your local knowledge, why Atlanta is so dense in this metric. And I already have provided an alternative to those numbers in this thread. Your numbers are only about the US.
I created an Excel file from the Demographia data as well. According to this data, Los Angeles is the densest urban area in the United States, even before New York. Yet most of LA consists of low density single family homes. This is really fascinating. It seems to be that the density in LA is more evenly distributed, while New York has a very dense core, but becomes less dense towards the urban fringe. This shows that New York is actually a very sprawling urban area. Los Angeles on the other side can not sprawl any more, because of natural barriers in the way, so everything is cramped between the pacific and the mountains with low density housing. This causes the severe housing crisis in LA.
That's precisely it.
California suburbs are developed at a more uniform density than those on the East Coast, in the Midwest, or in the South. Suburbs in those parts of the country have densities that span a much wider range, especially in the Northeast.
However, if the OECD washes undeveloped land or open space out of its "functional urban area" definition, then it will produce density figures for East Coast suburbia higher than what most US analyses produce thanks to the way open space is scattered across American suburbia. I will wager that the OECD doesn't produce maps to show what they include in each city's functional urban area, but I will also wager that for many cities in the US, their suburbs will show up as archipelagoes rather than a continuous, contiguous mass. And the opposite will be the case for those in California, except where natural features like mountains or water get in the way.
California suburbs are developed at a more uniform density than those on the East Coast, in the Midwest, or in the South. Suburbs in those parts of the country have densities that span a much wider range, especially in the Northeast.
However, if the OECD washes undeveloped land or open space out of its "functional urban area" definition, then it will produce density figures for East Coast suburbia higher than what most US analyses produce thanks to the way open space is scattered across American suburbia. I will wager that the OECD doesn't produce maps to show what they include in each city's functional urban area, but I will also wager that for many cities in the US, their suburbs will show up as archipelagoes rather than a continuous, contiguous mass. And the opposite will be the case for those in California, except where natural features like mountains or water get in the way.
To be fair, the OECD does not wash undeveloped land or open space out of its functional urban areas (FUAs). I just used the population of the FUAs and divided it by what the OECD defined as "urban areas" within these FUAs. The OECD may exclude any vegetation from these "urban areas". If you keep this in mind I think, that it may not be to so absurd that metros like Atlanta appear to be much denser than in common density measures. I think these results are interesting. On the other hand I know that the Demografia data excludes exurban development from the metropolitan area. Those numbers may not be this representative either.
To be fair, the OECD does not wash undeveloped land or open space out of its functional urban areas (FUAs). I just used the population of the FUAs and divided it by what the OECD defined as "urban areas" within these FUAs. The OECD may exclude any vegetation from these "urban areas". If you keep this in mind I think, that it may not be to so absurd that metros like Atlanta appear to be much denser than in common density measures. I think these results are interesting. On the other hand I know that the Demografia data excludes exurban development from the metropolitan area. Those numbers may not be this representative either.
Looking at the map of the United States, it looks to me like the OECD follows Federal Office of Management and Budget practice and simply includes entire counties in the FUA. The Census Bureau also has a narrower definition called "urbanized area" that includes only built-out areas.
The clue can be found in Southern California, where Greater Los Angeles and the Las Vegas FUA touch. The only reason they do so is because San Bernardino County, which is part of the LA FUA, spans almost the entire width of the state (LA County keeps it from stretching to the sea). However, most of San Bernardino County consists of unpopulated desert and scrub land; about 99 percent of the county's residents cram themselves into its southwest corner, around the city of San Bernardino itself.
"Jackson (MO)", btw, is Kansas City (the original portion of which is located in Jackson County).
Last edited by MarketStEl; 07-09-2022 at 04:55 AM..
Looking at the map of the United States, it looks to me like the OECD follows Federal Office of Management and Budget practice and simply includes entire counties in the FUA. The Census Bureau also has a narrower definition called "urbanized area" that includes only built-out areas.
The clue can be found in Southern California, where Greater Los Angeles and the Las Vegas FUA touch. The only reason they do so is because San Bernardino County, which is part of the LA FUA, spans almost the entire width of the state (LA County keeps it from stretching to the sea). However, most of San Bernardino County consists of unpopulated desert and scrub land; about 99 percent of the county's residents cram themselves into its southwest corner, around the city of San Bernardino itself.
"Jackson (MO)", btw, is Kansas City (the original portion of which is located in Jackson County).
For that reason I didn't use the entire FUA, but only what is defined urban there. The problem is you need to have commonly defined urban areas. The Census Bureau data is not necessarily compatible how other countries define it. I think the Demografia data which uses satellite land cover data is probably the closest to what is commonly understand as urban, I am not sure.
Again, those numbers which are from the highly official OECD aren't necessarily wrong. It's just a different approach to measuring density. There may be a reason that goes beyond your local knowledge, why Atlanta is so dense in this metric. And I already have provided an alternative to those numbers in this thread. Your numbers are only about the US.
Los Angeles metro, which consists mostly of low density housing being this dense isn't intuitive either.
Even if its not wrong, its not meaningful.
If a measure calls Atlanta more dense than Chicago, it is quite simply useless and should be ignored.
Possibly Atlanta has more people per household, but that is not density.
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.
