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.
Location: Cleveland bound with MPLS in the rear-view
5,509 posts, read 11,872,410 times
Reputation: 2501
Advertisements
[quote=chiatldal;15168259]How can a semi rual area be dense? Actually this a Minneapolis Advantage, because population from the whole metro was counted, while only the core population of ATL, DFW and Houston were counted for them.
Is that seriously all you gathered from what I said? I'm not even sure where that question comes from. Density does not mean dense....it's a ratio of population to land area, in this instance. And I guess you don't understand my point at all with your updated figures, since you still are using land area and not %urban area. Try replacing Scott, Anoka and Dakota county with Ramsey county, as neither Scott, Anoka or Dakota are 100% developed. Hell, even Hennipen county isn't 100% developed. How many of your Dallas, Houston and Atlanta core counties are fully developed? Just measure the urbanized area instead. However, I'll give you the fact that Houston and Dallas suburbs are probably a little denser than Minneapolis', especially the 2nd and 3rd ring suburbs here. But considering Minneapolis is 56 sq. mi. and St. Paul is similar, my point was that the core 100 sq. mi. or Dallas, Houston or Atlanta are not as densely populated as Minneapolis/St. Paul. But the original point of all of this and the reason I chimed in in the first place was that NONE of these cities are particularly dense, and it's a strange argument to me. Again, similar to the argument of which rust belt city has the best beaches or which Sunbelt city has the most snow.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,990,056 times
Reputation: 7333
Quote:
Originally Posted by west336
Is that seriously all you gathered from what I said? I'm not even sure where that question comes from. Density does not mean dense....it's a ratio of population to land area, in this instance.
This, unfortunately, is the only part you got right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by west336
And I guess you don't understand my point at all with your updated figures, since you still are using land area and not %urban area. Try replacing Scott, Anoka and Dakota county with Ramsey county, as neither Scott, Anoka or Dakota are 100% developed.
I doubt that highly. The only two counties in all of America I would call 100% developed is New York County and San Francisco county.
Quote:
Originally Posted by west336
Hell, even Hennipen county isn't 100% developed. How many of your Dallas, Houston and Atlanta core counties are fully developed?
None, which incidentally is the exact same amount there are in the Twin Cities areas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by west336
Just measure the urbanized area instead. However, I'll give you the fact that Houston and Dallas suburbs are probably a little denser than Minneapolis', especially the 2nd and 3rd ring suburbs here. But considering Minneapolis is 56 sq. mi. and St. Paul is similar, my point was that the core 100 sq. mi. or Dallas, Houston or Atlanta are not as densely populated as Minneapolis/St. Paul.
Now I'll admit that a lot of people don't give credit enough due credit to Minneapolis/St. Paul as they should in terms of it's cityscape, but to pretend that both combined are anyway near as developed as central Houston, Dallas or Atlanta based on population density (which you explained is a misnomer because it is just an equation of land area divided by population) requires only a hearty "LOL" from me. LOL.
Quote:
Originally Posted by west336
But the original point of all of this and the reason I chimed in in the first place was that NONE of these cities are particularly dense, and it's a strange argument to me.
What are you basing this off of? Google Maps touring? All three cities have medium-high to high density development for the most part that gets hidden by the over all population density.
Quote:
Originally Posted by west336
Again, similar to the argument of which rust belt city has the best beaches or which Sunbelt city has the most snow.
Why would that be an odd argument? Chicago has pretty nice beaches:
And it snows in the Sunbelt:
You really should stop living in a black and white world where you have no room to learn anything new...
Location: Cleveland bound with MPLS in the rear-view
5,509 posts, read 11,872,410 times
Reputation: 2501
waronxmas:
You make terrible points, and I'm embarrassed for you!
1.) you take the concept of "fully developed" way too literally. My point was the Scott, Anoka and Dakota counties are less than 50% developed, and I'm guessing some of those Texas and Georgia counties are a little more than 50% developed.
2.) there is NO WAY that the CORE 100 SQUARE MILES of Dallas, Houston or Atlanta have more than 650,000 people, which is what Minneapolis + St. Paul have, approximately. Hence, its population density in that core 100 sq. mi. is greater than any of those cities, especially yours, Atlanta!
3.) Sadly for you, you don't realize that any of these sunbelt cities are the epitome of "sprawlurbia", most specifically in the core cities, but not as much in the suburbs surrounding them. They are "inside-out" cities in this regard. When people think of density often times images of New York or Chicago enter their heads, and not very often do they think of suburbs of cities like LA or Phoenix.
4.) The argument about beaches in Chicago would make sense, if I defined Chicago as a Rust Belt city (I don't). Previously on this thread, I said that comparing the densities of Houston, Dallas and Atlanta is like comparing the beaches of Detroit, Cleveland and Buffalo. And as sure as I am that there are damn fine beaches in any of those cities, it's just not as interesting as comparing beaches in Miami, Los Angeles and San Diego. Get it?
Hopefully you can wrap your mind around the fact that Atlanta just isn't known for its urbanity, at least not in the traditional sense.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,990,056 times
Reputation: 7333
Quote:
Originally Posted by west336
waronxmas:
You make terrible points, and I'm embarrassed for you!
Quote:
Originally Posted by west336
1.) you take the concept of "fully developed" way too literally. My point was the Scott, Anoka and Dakota counties are less than 50% developed, and I'm guessing some of those Texas and Georgia counties are a little more than 50% developed.
What?
If you say fully developed I take that to mean fully developed. Not half developed, or sorta developed. The core counties of Houston, Dallas or Atlanta are extremely developed, but given county size is not a constant, the numbers will look like they may not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by west336
2.) there is NO WAY that the CORE 100 SQUARE MILES of Dallas, Houston or Atlanta have more than 650,000 people, which is what Minneapolis + St. Paul have, approximately. Hence, its population density in that core 100 sq. mi. is greater than any of those cities, especially yours, Atlanta!
Based on what data? I don't know enough about Dallas or Houston to comment on them, but if I were to gerrymander my own 100 sq miles in the core of Atlanta (and remove certain sections from the current city limits) and swing it east or northeast into Dekalb county, I could easily come up with way more than 650,000 people in that area. I'm sure the same could be done in Dallas or Houston.
Quote:
Originally Posted by west336
3.) Sadly for you, you don't realize that any of these sunbelt cities are the epitome of "sprawlurbia", most specifically in the core cities, but not as much in the suburbs surrounding them.
1.) What in the world is sprawlburbia?
2.) You seriously think the suburban areas outside Atlanta, Dallas, or Houston or more densely populated/built up than the core cities? That doesn't even make sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by west336
They are "inside-out" cities in this regard. When people think of density often times images of New York or Chicago enter their heads, and not very often do they think of suburbs of cities like LA or Phoenix.
I still seriously have no idea what you're talking about here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by west336
4.) The argument about beaches in Chicago would make sense, if I defined Chicago as a Rust Belt city (I don't).
Well you don't get to do that. Here's the actual rust belt definition:
Quote:
Although manufacturing exists nationwide, the region is roughly defined as comprising the northern sections of Illinois (particularly the southern portion of the Chicago Metropolitan Area); northern and central Indiana and Ohio; southeastern and northwestern Wisconsin; the Lower Peninsula of Michigan; western and central New York, especially around Buffalo, Rochester, and Syracuse; Northern New Jersey and the outer boroughs of New York City;[citation needed] most of Pennsylvania; far western portion of the Maryland panhandle; and the northern part of West Virginia, particularly the Northern Panhandle. Saint Louis, Missouri may be considered a manufacturing center, although the surrounding parts of Missouri and Illinois are not part of the region.[5]
Chicago is a rust belt city, it's just recovered way more than the rest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by west336
Previously on this thread, I said that comparing the densities of Houston, Dallas and Atlanta is like comparing the beaches of Detroit, Cleveland and Buffalo. And as sure as I am that there are damn fine beaches in any of those cities, it's just not as interesting as comparing beaches in Miami, Los Angeles and San Diego. Get it?
No. Anything can be compared if it exists in reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by west336
Hopefully you can wrap your mind around the fact that Atlanta just isn't known for its urbanity, at least not in the traditional sense.
1.) I don't care what Atlanta is known for, just along as it isn't something people believe that's not true.
2.) You seriously think the suburban areas outside Atlanta, Dallas, or Houston or more densely populated/built up than the core cities? That doesn't even make sense.
That's very possible, actually. I'm not saying that's the case in Houston or Atlanta, but it happens.
Edit: Actually that is the case with some Dallas and Houston suburbs
Last edited by WestbankNOLA; 07-23-2010 at 03:21 PM..
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,990,056 times
Reputation: 7333
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestbankNOLA
That's very possible, actually. I'm not saying that's the case in Houston or Atlanta, but it happens.
Edit: Actually that is the case with some Houston suburbs
In theory, but not in real "on the ground terms". Like it's entirely possible to have a suburb that is higher density than the city. For instance (and this comes from another infamous thread on here ) Hoboken is denser than New York City. Now if you were to go up to an average New Yorker and tell them Hoboken was more urban and densely built up than New York City, they'd look at you stupid after they stopped laughing at you. Given that a suburb usually has much smaller city limits than a central city, it is possible to have a higher population density. That doesn't translate into a more highly urbanized and built up area. It's the fallacy of population density that people wont ever acknowledge on C-D.
In theory, but not in real "on the ground terms". Like it's entirely possible to have a suburb that is higher density than the city. For instance (and this comes from another infamous thread on here ) Hoboken is denser than New York City. Now if you were to go up to an average New Yorker and tell them Hoboken was more urban and densely built up than New York City, they'd look at you stupid after they stopped laughing at you. Given that a suburb usually has much smaller city limits than a central city, it is possible to have a higher population density. That doesn't translate into a more highly urbanized and built up area. It's the fallacy of population density that people wont ever acknowledge on C-D.
No it isnt, Manhattan, Bronx and Brooklyn are all denser, Queens is on par and Staten Island is god know what
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.
Actually this a Minneapolis Advantage, because population from the whole metro was counted, while only the core population of ATL, DFW and Houston were counted for them. 
) Hoboken is denser than New York City. Now if you were to go up to an average New Yorker and tell them Hoboken was more urban and densely built up than New York City, they'd look at you stupid after they stopped laughing at you. Given that a suburb usually has much smaller city limits than a central city, it is possible to have a higher population density. That doesn't translate into a more highly urbanized and built up area. It's the fallacy of population density that people wont ever acknowledge on C-D.
