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.
i'm talking about cities though. Of course suburbs do. I don't know why on this site, when somebody mentions a city, the suburbs are automatically included. I've never seen this until I've been on city-data.
I've always included a city and it's suburbs as one entity. So do many studies for sprawl.
tmac9wr: In general, I agree with your last sentence. However, if you're looking at a metro area as a whole, Boston is not all that dense. Period. I've seen the New Hampshire suburbs. They're quite pastoral. The homes are on large plots of land, an acre or more in some cases. The numbers show that Boston MSA has a density of 997 people/sq mi.
Oh there's definitely rural areas in the outer burbs like in New Hampshire, but isn't that the way it's supposed to be? (Also, not to be picky but Boston's MSA is actually just a hair over 1,000/sq mile) The urban area of Boston accounts for over 89% of the population of the MSA in less than 40% of the land. (Metro: 4,522,858, 4,511 sq miles; Urban: 4,032,484, 1,774 sq miles). I guess I'm just being picky, but I'd call that a pretty dense area.
Quote:
There are a lot of mistaken assumptions on this thread, too. People talk about "new" southwestern cities. What's "new" about Phoenix, Albuquerque, etc? They've been around a long time. People who have never been there assume (big problem) that these low densities mean people are scattered all over, when, in fact, in many cases the people are pretty much centralized and there is a lot of open land in these MSAs.
I think when people talk about "new" Phoenix, they're not referring to whether or not it was here 30 years ago...just that it's not the same city. Cities like Phoenix and Atlanta have experienced extremely fast growth in recent years, which has lead to a change in not only population, but culture. So one could argue that they are "new" cities.
I've always included a city and it's suburbs as one entity. So do many studies for sprawl.
True. I'm not sure I've ever come across a study for sprawl that only considered cities - and not metro areas. Most large cities don't have anywhere to really sprawl to...it's the suburban areas that do all the sprawling.
I've always included a city and it's suburbs as one entity. So do many studies for sprawl.
Well I guess that depends on what you are looking at. When I do read studies for sprawl, the "newer" cities in the south usually get mentioned. Other areas of the country were built up long ago so when sprawl gets mentioned there, its the suburbs that are brought up.
I think when people talk about "new" Phoenix, they're not referring to whether or not it was here 30 years ago...just that it's not the same city. Cities like Phoenix and Atlanta have experienced extremely fast growth in recent years, which has lead to a change in not only population, but culture. So one could argue that they are "new" cities.
So New York and Chicago are new cities too, by that definition...
I'm not all that familiar with Phoenix, but Atlanta is not a new city. Experiencing growth does not make it new...Atlanta has been booming for many decades.
Atlanta circa 1920
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10054722@N07/3411496415/ (broken link)
So New York and Chicago are new cities too, by that definition...
I'm not all that familiar with Phoenix, but Atlanta is not a new city. Experiencing growth does not make it new...Atlanta has been booming for many decades.
I was meaning it in the sense that Atlanta is new to power. It's looked at in a much different sense now than it was forty years ago. Its metro has grown by 21% since 2000 and is listed as Forbes' 4th fastest growing city.
I wasn't meaning Atlanta wasn't in existence earlier this century.
I've always included a city and it's suburbs as one entity. So do many studies for sprawl.
Me, too. In my city (Denver), 5 people live in the burbs for every one in the city. Don't we count, too? I mean we both contribute to Denver's economy (many work there) and its problems by using services that we aren't really paying for. (Though I will say we do better than many cities in that we have a scientific and cultural facilities tax that is metro-wide and supports the DPL, the zoo, most of the city-owned museums and so on, plus gives money for arts in the burbs.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmac9wr
Oh there's definitely rural areas in the outer burbs like in New Hampshire, but isn't that the way it's supposed to be? (Also, not to be picky but Boston's MSA is actually just a hair over 1,000/sq mile) The urban area of Boston accounts for over 89% of the population of the MSA in less than 40% of the land. (Metro: 4,522,858, 4,511 sq miles; Urban: 4,032,484, 1,774 sq miles). I guess I'm just being picky, but I'd call that a pretty dense area.
I think when people talk about "new" Phoenix, they're not referring to whether or not it was here 30 years ago...just that it's not the same city. Cities like Phoenix and Atlanta have experienced extremely fast growth in recent years, which has lead to a change in not only population, but culture. So one could argue that they are "new" cities.
30 years ago? Surely you jest! Phoenix was incorporated in 1881! That is 128 years ago. Denver, 1861. We've been around longer than you think out here in the "wild west".
Me, too. In my city (Denver), 5 people live in the burbs for every one in the city. Don't we count, too? I mean we both contribute to Denver's economy (many work there) and its problems by using services that we aren't really paying for. (Though I will say we do better than many cities in that we have a scientific and cultural facilities tax that is metro-wide and supports the DPL, the zoo, most of the city-owned museums and so on, plus gives money for arts in the burbs.)
30 years ago? Surely you jest! Phoenix was incorporated in 1881! That is 128 years ago. Denver, 1861. We've been around longer than you think out here in the "wild west".
I know...keep reading my post. I said it's not whether the city was around 30 years ago, it's that it's much different than what it was before. Denver is a much different place than it was 10 years ago. My dad has a company in Commerce City (then)/Denver (now), and when I was a little tyke a few years ago, Denver was much different. Stapleton, Lowry, etc. My point is these cities are considered new not due to their age, but due to the recent population growth.
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.
