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.
The reason why Atlanta can ever show up as somewhat densely populated metro-wise is because a large portion of the population spreads WAY far away form the core of the city. So there are urbanized areas and counties far far away from the core that are heavily populated, but the density is still rather small, but larger than 1000 ppsm. In other words, maybe 10% of metro Atlanta is >3000 ppsm, 30% may be 1000 ppsm to 3000 ppsm, but 60% is around 1000 ppsm. In cities like Seattle or Minneapolis, it's different. The areas further away from the core are very sparsely populated and if they aren't true suburbs, they are very sprawling. People simply don't commute more than say 40 miles in the Twin Cities, and the parts of the counties that are >40 miles from the core are almost bare. It's a different lifestyle, for sure. One thing that's true of Minneapolis at least, is that the density drops further and further as you get further away from the core, until the absolute newest suburbs, which are starting to build smarter and denser. There is a suburb here called Shakopee which may be roughly 25 or 30 square miles. Less than half of it is developed. Part of it is an old river city that was built 150 years ago. Part of it was developed in the 80's when sprawl was king and the city wasn't really connected to the rest of the metro. The rest of it (maybe 50%) is brand new and while I wouldn't call it "dense", there are areas where they are developing communities at maybe 5,000 to 10,000 ppsm.
Quote:
^Yes they are! There are "suburbs" of Atlanta like 70 miles away from the core. The only true suburb that is even close to that far away from the core is Elk River (maybe 35 miles). Forest Lake, St. Cloud, Jordan, Stillwater (not that far anyways), aren't suburbs, just part of the metro. I DO think that the Twin Cities suburbs are not very dense though, and that's something that kind of bothers me. Not because density is king or whatever, but because it's wasteful. I can believe that there are suburbs of Atlanta where densities exceed those of Minneapolis, but not by a ton. And remember, Minneapolis AND St. Paul both have densities of roughly 6,000 or 7,000 ppsm for a population of close to 700,000 (or 20%-25% of the metro population). That's a large part of the population that lives in a moderately dense area (MODERATELY). I can't say that for Atlanta, but I can for Seattle. Denver has moderately dense suburbs that are more like 4,000 to 5,000 ppsm. The only suburbs of Minneapolis that are anywhere close to that are maybe St. Louis Park, Hopkins, S. St. Paul or Columbia Heights, and their COMBINED population is less than 100,000.
I think you have a totally delusional idea of how Atlanta is laid out. For some reason you seem to think that the people in this huge urbanized area around Atlanta you keep referring to are equally spaced out. I really don't think you have ever been to the Atlanta area if you think a suburb close to town is as thinly populated as one 70 miles away (I've never even heard of a suburb that far out actually). Anybody who has spent time in Atlanta would know better. Atlanta's density does increase a great deal as you approach the central counties.
ITP (inside the Perimeter - I285 - Atlanta) is mostly a different world from OTP Atlanta. That is because the huge urbanized area you seem to think people are thinly spread out over in Atlanta probably covers about 20 counties. (remember counties are small in Georgia compared to other States).The majority of the people in the Atlanta Metro Area however live in the Five small counties that are closest to the city of Atlanta. The further out you get from the center of Atlanta the density does drop. Dramatically, when you really get far off.
For instance the County of Dekalb right next to Atlanta like I said before is about the same size and density as the city of Fort Worth, Texas. Directly South West of there Clayton County is about the same size and density as Denver's suburb of Aurora (and has a less urban feel and quality to it IMO) further south from there in Henry or Fayette county the density drops more and towns are less urban. When you leave those counties south into Butts or Lamar counties it's almost rural. Some who live in Atlanta or Dekalb would never even consider those counties part of Metro Atlanta even though statistically they are. I know I never go into those counties unless I am traveling south on my way to Florida.
So this idea you have that all people in Atlanta are constantly commuting 60 miles one way to work, 40 miles to a mall, 70 miles to see their girl friend, etc. etc. is just absurd. Sure distances traveled on average is greater but the majority of Metro Atlanta's inhabitants don't live anywhere near as far out from the core as you seem to think.
Last edited by Galounger; 03-22-2011 at 06:19 AM..
Well said Gallounger. I certainly haven't ever been to Atlantas, but what you say is just common sense. Anyone who thinks otherwise is not really thinking. Also, as I have shown with the whole metro area stats, even across it's large area (though it's loads smaller than Denver's) it's density is the highest among all the cities we are talking about.
^Yes they are! There are "suburbs" of Atlanta like 70 miles away from the core. The only true suburb that is even close to that far away from the core is Elk River (maybe 35 miles). Forest Lake, St. Cloud, Jordan, Stillwater (not that far anyways), aren't suburbs, just part of the metro. I DO think that the Twin Cities suburbs are not very dense though, and that's something that kind of bothers me. Not because density is king or whatever, but because it's wasteful. I can believe that there are suburbs of Atlanta where densities exceed those of Minneapolis, but not by a ton. And remember, Minneapolis AND St. Paul both have densities of roughly 6,000 or 7,000 ppsm for a population of close to 700,000 (or 20%-25% of the metro population). That's a large part of the population that lives in a moderately dense area (MODERATELY). I can't say that for Atlanta, but I can for Seattle. Denver has moderately dense suburbs that are more like 4,000 to 5,000 ppsm. The only suburbs of Minneapolis that are anywhere close to that are maybe St. Louis Park, Hopkins, S. St. Paul or Columbia Heights, and their COMBINED population is less than 100,000.
I'm not defending sprawl here. If you look on Google Earth and do a 25 miles radius of Atlanta, you incorporate most of the metro. There are a few places a bit farther away, but 70 miles away is Macon. I'm sure people commute from there, but it sure has hell can't be common (similar to Rochester, I suspect).
So...
There are around 8-9 decent sized cities in the Atlanta area with density greater than 3,000 ppsm.
The Twin Cities have (excluding Land Fall, Hilltop, and smaller than 5k suburbs): About 18. Even Apple Valley is on the verge of 3,000 ppsm. Columbia Heights and Richfield both over 5,000 ppsm.
What I think factors in to this sprawl is existing land use. If you look at a satellite image of Atlanta, you see people living out in the boonies 10 miles from the edge of the metro. These people lived here before the metro creeped up on them, yet they are counted as sprawl.They might never travel to the city. Atlanta has regular folk who live on the metro's fringe, whereas the Twin Cities has farmland.
Either way, the sprawl is clearly worse in Atlanta, per satellite image. Subdivisions in the middle of nowhere, exurban counties booming, ect., but the majority of people live in a similar geographic area (square mile wise) as the Twin Cities. Not everyone in Atlanta lives 50 miles from downtown.
The thing is, based on the Census Bureau's metro definitions, Atlanta's metro is not the largest of the 4, Denver's is. I think it depends which stats you use, there seem to some fro every place that can either make it look dense or not dense. The stats I've calculated from all of their counties puts Atlanta's density as the highest for these 4 (and higher than the other cities I like; Portland and Austin). I know, due to some heated discussion, that Seattle's counties are large and even have mountains in the east, so that does skew it, but I'm just showing how even a place that everybody loves to pin as sprawling can be painted as dense with the right stats.
Yep. The numbers are so easy to skew. The larger the counties in a region, the less dense its metro is going to be because half of the fringe counties may be undeveloped. That is where the "urbanized area" statistic becomes more useful.
I think we can agree that all these areas look equally dense/un-dense from the street. Its not the difference between NYC and Jacksonville, Florida here.
Yep. The numbers are so easy to skew. The larger the counties in a region, the less dense its metro is going to be because half of the fringe counties may be undeveloped. That is where the "urbanized area" statistic becomes more useful.
I think we can agree that all these areas look equally dense/un-dense from the street. Its not the difference between NYC and Jacksonville, Florida here.
Too true, and those are good polar opposites.
Urban areas always worry me because I don't know how they are worked out. Are they calculated on a municipal basis? I guess they must be.
It would just be a hell of a lot easier if there was something in between counties and municipalities, like hundreds or something. I forget how the New England City and Town areas are worked out, but they seem to give a better definition than just lumping a county into a metro because one small municipality might have a large commuter population despite it being 99% wilderness (like Park County, Colorado).
Urban areas always worry me because I don't know how they are worked out. Are they calculated on a municipal basis? I guess they must be.
It would just be a hell of a lot easier if there was something in between counties and municipalities, like hundreds or something. I forget how the New England City and Town areas are worked out, but they seem to give a better definition than just lumping a county into a metro because one small municipality might have a large commuter population despite it being 99% wilderness (like Park County, Colorado).
That is the main issue. It is very difficult to find an accurate measurement that treats every metro equally.
Its strange. We all complain that certain counties aren't added to our MSA or CSA because we want the extra population. Conversely, we complain about the lack of density, which is attributed to adding those extra counties.
That is the main issue. It is very difficult to find an accurate measurement that treats every metro equally.
Its strange. We all complain that certain counties aren't added to our MSA or CSA because we want the extra population. Conversely, we complain about the lack of density, which is attributed to adding those extra counties.
That's good info, thank you emcee. Here's a website that provides a good indicator of population density in center city areas ranked by zipcode: Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowed Just change the state to find the densities in each respective city. I'll leave it to someone else to analyze the zipcode land area to density ratio, though it could easily be done. On a quick glance though, I can see that Atlanta's density isn't as high as Seattle, Denver, or Minneapolis. I looked at the most densely populated 10 square miles of zip codes from each of the cities and found Seattle to be the most dense. These more densely populated areas are conserving more land and infrastructure resources. They tend to have more services and amenities within walking distance, so I believe this is a good indicator of the quality of a city (although it is just one factor.)
Man, I already provided you guys with a good measure of urban density right here^^^ Zip codes are a much better measure than whole counties, urban areas or city limits because they are smaller. Ranking the most dense zip codes gives you a much better idea of how dense a city is. You do have to account for each zip code's land area, but anyone with a little spare time can do that if they're interested. Just check the link and you'll see Atlanta only has 13 zipcodes that have more than 4000 PPSM. Denver has 35, Seattle has 51, MSP has 31, and Portland has 21.
Man, I already provided you guys with a good measure of urban density right here^^^ Zip codes are a much better measure than whole counties, urban areas or city limits because they are smaller. Ranking the most dense zip codes gives you a much better idea of how dense a city is. You do have to account for each zip code's land area, but anyone with a little spare time can do that if they're interested. Just check the link and you'll see Atlanta only has 13 zipcodes that have more than 4000 PPSM. Denver has 35, Seattle has 51, MSP has 31, and Portland has 21.
Well yeah you did give us that, and that last bit, about how many zip codes each has over 4000 /sq mi. I guess I'll have a look. My worry before was that I didn't know enough about how each city was broken up into zip codes, but that's cool, it's all done for me. I'll check it out.
Oh, and an EDIT for my previous post, of course NECTARs use New England towns as building blocks. Duh. It's in the name.
EDIT: OH, no I see that site, it doesn't have maps, I figured it would. Also, it's based on the 2000 numbers, but then I guess they wouldn't have been able to put the 2010 stuff on there yet. No matter, you gave us what we needed.
Man, I already provided you guys with a good measure of urban density right here^^^ Zip codes are a much better measure than whole counties, urban areas or city limits because they are smaller. Ranking the most dense zip codes gives you a much better idea of how dense a city is. You do have to account for each zip code's land area, but anyone with a little spare time can do that if they're interested. Just check the link and you'll see Atlanta only has 13 zipcodes that have more than 4000 PPSM. Denver has 35, Seattle has 51, MSP has 31, and Portland has 21.
I was attempting to look through it. My internet is a bit suspect this morning.
I'm a bit shocked that there are no ZIP codes in Atlanta with over 10,000 ppsm.
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.
