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.
Total population of the Inner Loop 13 years ago was 528,075
Basically Dallas, Denver, Las Vegas, Houston are around the same density over the same area. To put into relation these four are 50% denser in the core 100 square miles than every sort of city in the Southeast be it Orlando, Raleigh, Atlanta or wherever else (minus Miami). However they are 25% less dense than Seattle, which in turn is 25% less dense than Washington DC. Which in turn (Washington) is 80% less dense than Chicago in the inner 100 square miles.
All still substantially less dense and urban than Chicago and probably will remain to be for at least another 40-60 years given the gap. Also, weird thing is, Washington DC doesn't seem to have that big of a lead on these places in terms of density. I expected more but it's lead is easily surpassable if mass infill continues.
Got the land area and zip code populations via zipatlas. You're free to check the math.
Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 12-15-2013 at 04:47 PM..
Total population of the Inner Loop 13 years ago was 528,075
Basically Dallas, Denver, Las Vegas, Houston are around the same density over the same area. To put into relation these four are 50% denser in the core 100 square miles than every sort of city in the Southeast be it Orlando, Raleigh, Atlanta or wherever else (minus Miami). However they are 25% less dense than Seattle, which in turn is 25% less dense than Washington DC. Which in turn (Washington) is 80% less dense than Chicago in the inner 100 square miles.
All still substantially less dense and urban than Chicago and probably will remain to be for at least another 40-60 years given the gap. Also, weird thing is, Washington DC doesn't seem to have that big of a lead on these places in terms of density. I expected more but it's lead is easily surpassable if mass infill continues.
Got the land area and zip code populations via zipatlas. You're free to check the math.
Thanks for the map, totally agree with what you said about DC, very unimpressive for so called "eastcoast urban"
Total population of the Inner Loop 13 years ago was 528,075
Basically Dallas, Denver, Las Vegas, Houston are around the same density over the same area. To put into relation these four are 50% denser in the core 100 square miles than every sort of city in the Southeast be it Orlando, Raleigh, Atlanta or wherever else (minus Miami). However they are 25% less dense than Seattle, which in turn is 25% less dense than Washington DC. Which in turn (Washington) is 80% less dense than Chicago in the inner 100 square miles.
All still substantially less dense and urban than Chicago and probably will remain to be for at least another 40-60 years given the gap. Also, weird thing is, Washington DC doesn't seem to have that big of a lead on these places in terms of density. I expected more but it's lead is easily surpassable if mass infill continues.
Got the land area and zip code populations via zipatlas. You're free to check the math.
The Texas cities have a western-like built environment where they have consistent density whereas Atlanta and other Southeast cities are built more Eastern-like and have a nodal-type density.
D.C.'s metro is sprawly as hell, but it has a quickly densifying urban core that blows any Southern city out the water.
Population, land area, and density of the Inner Loop from 13 years ago.
Total population of the Inner Loop 13 years ago was 528,075
Basically Dallas, Denver, Las Vegas, Houston are around the same density over the same area. To put into relation these four are 50% denser in the core 100 square miles than every sort of city in the Southeast be it Orlando, Raleigh, Atlanta or wherever else (minus Miami). However they are 25% less dense than Seattle, which in turn is 25% less dense than Washington DC. Which in turn (Washington) is 80% less dense than Chicago in the inner 100 square miles.
All still substantially less dense and urban than Chicago and probably will remain to be for at least another 40-60 years given the gap.
Interesting. Inner-loop Houston has done a lot of densifying in the last 13 years. It would be interesting to see what those numbers are today. I would have to think the inner-loop has broken the 600K mark since then, which would place it at a higher PPSM than I previously guessed.
I agree about Denver and Dallas being basically equal to Houston in terms of density, but I lived in Las Vegas from 2003 to 2007, and it felt significantly less dense to me than those cities. Vegas really has no built-up core. It's almost 100% suburban. Maybe it's the high-rises along the strip that skew those numbers, who knows?
I don't know if Houston will ever become as dense as Chicago. Chicago experienced the bulk of it's urban growth prior to WW2, before the single-family sunbelt model of development became the norm. I think Houston will continue to bulk up in certain areas, but to think it will ever pass Chicago on that level is pretty hard to imagine.
Gotta say, I agree with this 100%. If the city limits were scaled back the way I proposed, Houston would probably drop from #4 to #11 or maybe even #12, but it would still be considered a big city, with equal importance in the grand scheme of things. Not to mention it would be much more manageable and have a much more solid indentity. Then San Antonio could toot it's horn as "biggest city in Texas", and Dallas could move back up to #2.
The MSA would remain just that - the MSA. Still sitting pretty at #5 with a population of 6.2 million and growing. And if all those unincorporated suburbs were to either incorporate independently or become annexed by nearby incorporated suburbs like Katy-proper, Bellaire, Sugarland, Pearland, etc., they would only stand to gain infrastructure and better services.
Lol true. But I say all Texas cities need to do it.
Lol true. But I say all Texas cities need to do it.
Well yes. Actually, you could also say that about Phoenix (517 sq. miles) and Tucson (227 sq. miles). Even L.A., at 469 sq. miles is quite the expansive behemoth, though it has done a much better job of filling up it's gaps and bulking up it's core.
It seems to be more of an issue with "West of the Mississippi" sunbelt cities than specifically just Texas.
Still, at 628 sq. miles, Houston needs to be the first to address this issue.
Well yes. Actually, you could also say that about Phoenix (517 sq. miles) and Tucson (227 sq. miles). Even L.A., at 469 sq. miles is quite the expansive behemoth, though it has done a much better job of filling up it's gaps and bulking up it's core.
It seems to be more of an issue with "West of the Mississippi" sunbelt cities than specifically just Texas.
Still, at 628 sq. miles, Houston needs to be the first to address this issue.
Interesting that another site talked about something similar as we are regarding Houston.
Quote:
“[Judge] Emmett frequently notes that about 500,000 people live within Loop 610, about 1.5 million live between Loop 610 and the Sam Houston Tollway
Within the loop is around 95 sq miles. How many square miles is everything inside Beltway 8 and it's Houston because you have some communities within the Beltway that are not part of the city?
(“[Judge] Emmett frequently notes that about 500,000 people live within Loop 610, about 1.5 million live between Loop 610 and the Sam Houston Tollway)
Within the loop is around 95 sq miles. How many square miles is everything inside Beltway 8 and it's Houston because you have some communities within the Beltway that are not part of the city?
Not sure exactly where that (Judge Emmett) quote came from, but from what I've been able to gather from some more recent studies, the current inner loop population is more like 600K than 500K. Also, there are parts of the inner loop (Bellaire-West U-Southside Place) that are not Houston-proper either.
I don't know if the inner loop densification is slowing down or not (I would have to imagine not), but I know there are efforts under way to seriously bulk up the East End neighborhoods between the 59 freeway and roughly York St., which should add a few numbers to the inner loop population, and then there's the controversial gentrification efforts in the 3rd ward. Not to mention I have heard there are several proposals on the table to add more residential high and mid-rises to downtown... so just taking a guess, I would think that in the near future the inner loop will see more growth than the inner beltway. I'm just speculating though.
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.
