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 believe the OP is speaking in regards to the city proper, or urban core of cities.
As others said before, Miami should be a suburban city. Yes, it's very dense, but that's because there are tons of condo scrapers. Move away from the beach, and *POOF* watch the high-density disappear! It doesn't exactly turn to cornfields once you leave the coast, but it does turn into a relatively densely built suburban grid.
Miami Beach is urban, but it would be tough to argue that for the city as a whole.
Walkability defines urban for me much moreso than tall buildings. Short blocks, organized street patterns, few parking lots, narrow streets all contribute to urban environment. Dubai is tall as hell but they have sixteen-lane highways going through their skyscrapers.
Walkability defines urban for me much moreso than tall buildings. Short blocks, organized street patterns, few parking lots, narrow streets all contribute to urban environment. Dubai is tall as hell but they have sixteen-lane highways going through their skyscrapers.
I agree with you 100%. I was actually intending to mention Dubai's similarity with Miami, but decided it may de-rail the thread. The thing is, much of Miami Beach is exactly what you're talking about. Check out the satellite view from Bing.com/maps
Unfortunately, this list is a "half truth". The so called urban cities all have less than 100 sq/mi of land. The so called suburban cities all have over 100 sq/mi of land. Almost every city in the World (including American cities) are denser at the core.
The bottom line is if the "urban cities" had as much land as the "suburban cities", the "urban cities" would have smaller densities.
Cincinnati vs. Charlotte is a perfect example. Cincinnati has 78 sq/mi of land with a population of 333,000. Charlotte has 280 sq./mi of land with a population of 687,000.
Cincinnati has a density of 4,269 per sq/mi "on paper".
Charlotte has a density of 2,462 per sq/mi. "on paper".
In reality, Charlotte has close to 300,000 people in the city's inner 78 sq/mi of land. This is a density of 3,846 per sq/mi if Charlotte had the same amount of land as Cincinnati.
So if Charlotte had as small of land area as Cincinnati, it would still have a lower population density than Cincinnati? LOL. Sorry but that example does absolutely nothing to further your argument. What you're basically saying is that if Southern cities didn't sprawl so much, then they'd be denser, which has to be one of the most obvious statements ever made on the City-Data Forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbancharlotte
As for Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta; I am certain these cities are more urban and dense than Cincinnati at their inner 78 sq./miles. The bottom line is that this thread is based on old and dated stigmas of the south.
I already said in my first post that Cincinnati could easily be placed in the Suburban Cities category because of its low population density, yet you keep using that particular city to prove your point that Southern cities are just as urban as Northern cities. What about the other cities mentioned like Seattle or Pittsburgh? How about instead of scaling down the land area of the Southern cities to equal that of the Northern cities, you just look at the cores of each city? I know that Downtown Seattle has nearly 60,000 residents living there, which I would be willing to bet is more residents than Downtown Charlotte, Downtown Atlanta, Downtown Dallas, and Downtown Houston combined.
I agree with you 100%. I was actually intending to mention Dubai's similarity with Miami, but decided it may de-rail the thread. The thing is, much of Miami Beach is exactly what you're talking about. Check out the satellite view from Bing.com/maps
I suppose I'm focusing more on South Beach.
My opinion of a true urban area is great public transit, wide sidewalks, less single family homes,etc
So if Charlotte had as small of land area as Cincinnati, it would still have a lower population density than Cincinnati? LOL. Sorry but that example does absolutely nothing to further your argument. What you're basically saying is that if Southern cities didn't sprawl so much, then they'd be denser, which has to be one of the most obvious statements ever made on the City-Data Forum.
I already said in my first post that Cincinnati could easily be placed in the Suburban Cities category because of its low population density, yet you keep using that particular city to prove your point that Southern cities are just as urban as Northern cities. What about the other cities mentioned like Seattle or Pittsburgh? How about instead of scaling down the land area of the Southern cities to equal that of the Northern cities, you just look at the cores of each city? I know that Downtown Seattle has nearly 60,000 residents living there, which I would be willing to bet is more residents than Downtown Charlotte, Downtown Atlanta, Downtown Dallas, and Downtown Houston combined.
You might be right, but Atlanta alone I think has 30,000 people living in it's downtown, and Downtown Dallas has about 10k now. Houston might be like 5-6k.
Btw, Houston's real core (Inner loop = 98sqm) has around the same population as Seattle. Houston is not really spread out as you may think; It includes lots of land, but large parts of it can't be built on.
You might be right, but Atlanta alone I think has 30,000 people living in it's downtown, and Downtown Dallas has about 10k now. Houston might be like 5-6k.
Btw, Houston's real core (Inner loop = 98sqm) has around the same population as Seattle. Houston is not really spread out as you may think; It includes lots of land, but large parts of it can't be built on.
Nice #'s...those seem very small though... I wonder where Chicago and New York stack up, or how those #'s are counted... is this for CBD only?
You might be right, but Atlanta alone I think has 30,000 people living in it's downtown, and Downtown Dallas has about 10k now. Houston might be like 5-6k.
Btw, Houston's real core (Inner loop = 98sqm) has around the same population as Seattle. Houston is not really spread out as you may think; It includes lots of land, but large parts of it can't be built on.
I highly doubt 600,000 people live in the Inner Loop....
This is all I could find on Demographics for the Inner Loop, Houston. It gives a figure of 13,000 people in all IL zip codes.
The population of the inner loop is around 550,000 and this was as of 2006. A member by the name of Shasta broke down each zip code and it's population a few years ago and place the number around there. It could be at 600,000 around 5 years from now.
New York City
Boston
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Baltimore
Washington DC
Cincinnati
St. Louis
Chicago
Milwaukee
San Francisco
Los Angeles City of Miami Beach----> City of Miami
Seattle
Suburban Cities:
Atlanta
Charlotte
Orlando
Houston
Dallas
Phoenix
^^ yeah, Miami beach is indeed Urban... whoever says otherwise most likely has not been to the area.
I am including Miami as a whole in the Urban category though, although not the highest Urban city out there I think it is safe to say that it passes sort of like LA.
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.
