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 always found that so intriguing about Houston and its city limits..with a whopping 600sq mi it has a pop of 2.1 million people...while Chicago has 2.7 million with 227sq mi and Philly has 1.6 with 135sq mi. As you said they're dramatically developed differently of course..but what the hell would the pop of Philly and Chicago be if they were extended to 600sq mi? or rather if Houston was down to 135sq mi or 227sq mi? (its rhetorical, however feel free if you want)
You would understand more if you saw the flood plain map of Houston.
Google earth views are good too. The City is more a patchwork of neighborhoods than a continuously developed city. A lot of the development jumps Bayous and flood prone areas, and the eastern half of the City is highly industrial. I would not be surprised to hear that 40% of Houston is covered by unused land/ flood plain/ wetlands. add to that Houston has over 70 sq miles of water, 56,500 acres of park land in the city and 20,000 acres of additional greenspace.
So almost 120 sq miles of the Houston area is parks. That is almost the size of the City of Philly.
Add the miles of water and flood plain and you will see that over half of the City is unused land.
That leaves the city with a density of about 7000 ppsm which is about the average for the neighborhoods around the city.
People talk about the 600sq mile area saying what if Philly had that much area, well if Philly had that much area it would have to take the 300 sq miles of unusable area too.
according to Wikipedia Philly has 142.6 sq miles of which only 7 is water and 10k acres (15 sq miles) are parks. So Philly has 120sq miles of useable land or 85% of its city limits while Houston has less than 50%
Houston has almost ten times the amount of Greenspace as Philly. You can fit Philly in Houston's Greenspace
from Wikipedia:
Quote:
The total parkland amounts to about 10,334 acres (41.82 km2).[48] Philadelphia's largest park, Fairmount Park, encompasses 9,200 acres (37 km2) of this parkland and includes 63 neighborhood and regional parks.
Quote:
Of the 10 most populous U.S. cities, Houston has the most total area of parks and green space, 56,405 acres (228 km2)[130] The city also has over 200 additional green spaces—totaling over 19,600 acres (79 km2) that are managed by the city—including the Houston Arboretum and Nature Center.
The density of the City is hurt by the amount of greenspace more than any other large City. Not that it would be a lot more dense without that, you have to admit an unusual amt of land is unusable.
Chicago is larger than Philly and has even less park space:
Quote:
Today, the Chicago Park District consists of 552 parks with over 7,300 acres (3,000 ha) of municipal parkland
thats about 10 square miles of park so Chicago uses 216 sq miles of land. That is a whopping 95% land use
I always found that so intriguing about Houston and its city limits..with a whopping 600sq mi it has a pop of 2.1 million people...while Chicago has 2.7 million with 227sq mi and Philly has 1.6 with 135sq mi. As you said they're dramatically developed differently of course..but what the hell would the pop of Philly and Chicago be if they were extended to 600sq mi? or rather if Houston was down to 135sq mi or 227sq mi? (its rhetorical, however feel free if you want)
oh I forgot to answer your second portion.
Danny did a calculation of the South west quadrant of Houston. That area has very little water and not that many big parks.
He got about 1.4M in about 120 sq miles. so not quite the population of Philly, but not bad at all.
STL could most of its suburbs and get its needed 10,000 ppl to overtake santa ana, california but to have the least amount of gain above santa ana's population st.louis would need to annex jennings, missouri.
Jennings, Missouri-14,000 ppl 3.7 sq miles
+
STL- 318,000 ppl 69 sq miles
Danny did a calculation of the South west quadrant of Houston. That area has very little water and not that many big parks.
He got about 1.4M in about 120 sq miles. so not quite the population of Philly, but not bad at all.
The Loop is like 550-600K I guess this is some other areas.
Also remember though that only about 90 sq miles are actually inhabited in Philly. When you include the Port, Refineries and two airports. I am assuming the Houston number did not include any of that type of stuff for perspective
I am a tad suspect on the 1.4 million in 120 sq miles. That would mean 1.4 million people basically in above 10k ppsm density. The weighted density of Houston is like 4K ppsm. And just a quick pervue of the Houston census data would suggest few tracts (well under 150K in total of people actually live above 10K ppsm) and like one or two nabes at this level. While I dont have the data it just doesnt pass the common sense or rationale test quite honestly.
Based on 2010 census data and this chart are you actually suggesting Houston at 120 sq miles or to the population of 1.4 million far exceeds the consitent density of DC? Really? Actually about on par with Boston, really?
Atlanta is currently the 40th largest city and the next biggest would be VA Beach. To pass VA beach Atlanta would need to add about 17,000 residents. Atlanta could Annex Decatur to push it pass VA beach and barely squeak by Mesa.
The Loop is like 550-600K I guess this is some other areas.
Did I mention the loop? Half the loop is factories, swamp etc etc why every time someone mentions an area you compare the loop, when we tell you over and over again that loop is NOR the densest area of the city. It is not even the second densest
Jersey City is right behind Fort Wayne, IN by 5,500 residents. To catch Fort Wayne, JC would have to add 0.1 sq miles (or about 8 square blocks) of neighboring Hoboken, or Union City, or Bayonne (take your pick). Fort Wayne spreads over 110 square miles compared to Jersey City's 14.
If all of Hudson County (47 sq miles) were a city, it would rank right behind Memphis (315 sq miles). Hudson County would have to add about 15,000 residents, which it could do by adding 0.8 square miles of Cliffside Park in neighboring Bergen County. This would give Hudson Co. a total land area of about 48 square miles.
Jersey City is right behind Fort Wayne, IN by 5,500 residents. To catch Fort Wayne, JC would have to add 0.1 sq miles (or about 8 square blocks) of neighboring Hoboken, or Union City, or Bayonne (take your pick). Fort Wayne spreads over 110 square miles compared to Jersey City's 14.
If all of Hudson County (47 sq miles) were a city, it would rank right behind Memphis (315 sq miles). Hudson County would have to add about 15,000 residents, which it could do by adding 0.8 square miles of Cliffside Park in neighboring Bergen County. This would give Hudson Co. a total land area of about 48 square miles.
Exactly
Newark has more people in a 100 mile radius than any other city in the US. Jersey City right there by its shoulder.
People like to label much of NJ as "suburbia" when Northern Jersey can easily come up with an interestingly innovative city with a better transit system, bigger and more populated than most US cities.
I'm not sure, but I wish my city (Baltimore) would give some of its land back to the county. It would increase density further, bring the median income up, make the city a bit more manageable especially for the police department, and anything else positive; as long as the land given back are the right areas. I don't mind the population dropping because that's not what matters, but since your talking about annexation we could easily annex Towson and any area in between, which would bring the population north of 700,000 but that cannot happen since Towson is the County Seat of Baltimore County.
Did I mention the loop? Half the loop is factories, swamp etc etc why every time someone mentions an area you compare the loop, when we tell you over and over again that loop is NOR the densest area of the city. It is not even the second densest
Well you still didnt even remotely address my question nor did I say it was only the loop but the Loop example is part of the point, it is one of the denser areas of Houston and is at about 6,500 ppsm and agaon you suggest an area of 120 sq miles with 1.4 million, sorry HTown that just doesnt make sense nor can it be supported by facts. There is no possible way there are a continuous 1.4 million people living in above 10K ppsm average density in Houston.
Actually there is not enough population at above 5K ppsm to get to 1.4 million let alone 10K+ ppsm; your assertion is just wildly off and does not make any sense in relation to you original post
Danny did a calculation of the South west quadrant of Houston. That area has very little water and not that many big parks.
He got about 1.4M in about 120 sq miles. so not quite the population of Philly, but not bad at all.
Yes it wouldnt be bad at all if it even close to being true, which it is not
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.
)
