Most "big city" feel of the south (unemployment, live, best)
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.
It's not even necessary to go to the other parishes. Gentilly, the West Bank and many lakeside hoods have comparable density to the average inner loop district. NO East could be practically anywhere within Beltway 8.
The Northshore equivalent would be the Northeast/Lake Houston area. Katy just reminds me of DFW.
That is the average density, when you take the urban area density New Orleans surpass it. Miami has the largest and densest UA in the South. New Orleans has the 2nd densest while DFW has the second largest. Houston is denser than DFW but has less people.
Urban density 2010 in people per sq mile:
Miami 4442
New Orleans 3578
Houston 2978
San Antonio 2944
DFW 2878
Austin 2604
Tampa 2551
Memphis 2131
Jacksonville 2008
Richmond 1937
Nashville 1720
Atlanta 1706
Charlotte 1685
And your second paragraph is wholly and totally untrue.
Are you making up numbers?
New Orleans density: 2,274 per sq mile
Houston: 3,662 per sq mile.
And from what I've seen it is very true. I've been to New Orleans a lot. leaving the French Quarter, it doesn't feel dense at all.
The numbers you are stating come from the census study of urban areas which is an inaccurate way of stating which city is denser then the other. If this was the case and you look at the 2010 US Census urban areas, LA comes in first at 6,999.3 people per sq mile. New York City comes 5th at 5,318.9 per sq mile. Anyone in the right mind knows NYC is a lot denser than LA. For this reason, densities of cities aren't determined by urban area. They're determined by the density of the city as a whole. Houston tops New Orleans with 3,662 per sq mile over New Orleans' 2,274 per sq mile.
Yes, Miami still remains in first with an impressive 11,135.9 per sq mile. But that's outside of the point.
Houston ends up topping New Orleans both in population and in density so there's no comparison. It's actually funny to make such a comparison.
The numbers you are stating come from the census study of urban areas n.
Again, take the time to read. The argument was that the built environment in NOLA, drops off outside the quarter and I started that the entire urban area is compact.
That's the whole point of the urban area.
So read and understand before you start throwing accusations
The numbers you are stating come from the census study of urban areas which is an inaccurate way of stating which city is denser then the other. If this was the case and you look at the 2010 US Census urban areas, LA comes in first at 6,999.3 people per sq mile. New York City comes 5th at 5,318.9 per sq mile. Anyone in the right mind knows NYC is a lot denser than LA. For this reason, densities of cities aren't determined by urban area. They're determined by the density of the city as a whole. Houston tops New Orleans with 3,662 per sq mile over New Orleans' 2,274 per sq mile.
Yes, Miami still remains in first with an impressive 11,135.9 per sq mile. But that's outside of the point.
Houston ends up topping New Orleans both in population and in density so there's no comparison. It's actually funny to make such a comparison.
Actually urbanized area IS a more standard way of looking at density because it's not subject to arbitrary municipal boundaries and looks at consistent development beyond the city limits. And yes, LA's urbanized area is indeed denser than NYC's.
Also, don't confuse density and urbanity. They are correlated but not the same.
Actually urbanized area IS a more standard way of looking at density because it's not subject to arbitrary municipal boundaries and looks at consistent development beyond the city limits. And yes, LA's urbanized area is indeed denser than NYC's.
Also, don't confuse density and urbanity. They are correlated but not the same.
Finally we agree. 🙌
Density and urbanity are not the same.
The French Quarter is being mentioned a lot here, but it is not particularly dense. And that is because of the number of dwellings per acre. If memory serves me right the average number of dwellings in the 1/4 is 20
Let's compare that to an area like Midtown Houston where the average is 35. So the density of midtown is deceptively higher than that of the 1/4 but feels far less urban.
That is because, like I mentioned a couple pages back, The other big cities use land differently. Given 10 lots, Houston, Atl, etc would use three of the lots, built three 10 story buildings, while NOLA users all 10 lots but only build 3 stories high. So although the number of units end up being the same, Houston and Atlanta end up with more density, but the gaps result in lower urban feel.
Midtown Houston is 605 acres in size and the last time I read about it 350 of those acres were vacant. So it builds more densely, but having half the space empty kills the feel of the neighborhood.
Personally I prefer a mixture of the two. The more built out pattern of New Orleans makes for a more walkable neighborhood. But I do like tall buildings
Don't worry. Atlanta will be dropped pretty soon because Houston and DFW have been widening that gap.
Not hating the ATL because that city is awesome. Just going off of what I see when I look at GDP, Fortune HQs, pop growth, and income.
Much of that is cyclical and Atlanta got hammered pretty hard during the recession and took longer to recover than most cities; however job growth is very strong now and future job growth projections are high. On the other hand, Houston has slowed down a bit with the drastic decrease of oil prices. DFW is doing well all around right now and Miami is still Miami LOL.
Thinking long term, at least one of these cities is bound to eclipse the others in most ways. My money is on Houston. The city is a sleeping giant.
I'd put my money on Houston too. It's underrated for sure. I'd also place a smaller insurance bet on dfw metro unless miami can turn its economy around. I agree w southernboy, Hou and DFW have widened the gap on atl. They will continue to do so as long as its government continues with business friendly policies that are bringing big business and people into the state in droves.
Texas and CA are the only states bringing in over a million people every four years. TX is bringing in close to two million people every four years. Raw numbers seem skewed so ill also add that TX is 2nd on the list with highest % change in its population behind North Dakota.
TX also has the 2nd most fortune 500 companies but will quickly get the top spot. Way more than the Southern states (almost 30 more to be exact). Houston metro has the 2nd most fortune five hundred behind nyc metro. Dallas metro is third.
Dallas metro and Houston metro are already larger and more populous than atl and mia. They have higher GDP, more businesses, and more people moving in from outside. There is no slowing down those metros. Big business and business in general will continue to flock to the state. Much like entertainers flock to the entertainment mecca of usa. And tech entrepreneurs do the same in the bay. CEOs will flock to TX to be amongst the large amount of executives and ceos of big and moderately big businesses. Atl is way behind with no signs of catching up.
One thing atl has going for it is its location. Its close to the se, ne, mid west and tx. Miami has its beauty going for it. Its a magnet for sure.
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.