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.
Miami city proper only covers 35 sq miles. I always wondered how would the city rank if it covered more area or actually annexed some of the surrounding municipalities. I presented this same question on the Miami forum a few months ago and they crucified me for it. Smh
Miami city proper only covers 35 sq miles. I always wondered how would the city rank if it covered more area or actually annexed some of the surrounding municipalities. I presented this same question on the Miami forum a few months ago and they crucified me for it. Smh
Miami is another one of those cities. At 35sq mi it's density is off the charts. It has also gained people on every census and is continuing to do so, so it's only getting denser. If It were even 100sq mi I wonder what it's population would be. Cities I wonder about as well are the New England cities that are all in that 60k-150k range that have small foot prints, Michigan and Ohio also have a lot of cities that have been boxed in by small footprints.
When people start talking about El Paso as the 19th largest city in the country I cringe. When Lexington is grouped in with cities that are 300k+ while it's urban area is smaller than it's city proper population, and has less people than places like Ann Arbor or Hartford, It's a dis-service. I wonder how much $ states could save if they eliminated suburbs as autonomous from the greater region. Eliminating all those separate administrations that cost millions, school districts with redundant overhead, police, fire depts. I would think it'd be millions upon millions. It'd also force people to look at cities they had always overlooked differently.
Using 2013 numbers, SF has a contiguous population of 1,768,233 in 159 square miles for a density of 11,102 ppsm. If current growth keeps up, by 2020 the same area will have 1,903,851 people for a density of 11,954 ppsm.
Broken into SF/northern peninsula and Oakland/surrounding cities (East Bay) is as follows:
SF/Peninsula - 1,050,798 people in 69 square miles for a density of 15,196 ppsm, expected to grow to 1,131,948 people and a density of 16,369 ppsm by 2020
East Bay - 717,435 people in 90 square miles for a density of 7,961 ppsm, expected to grow to 771,903 people and a density of 8,566 ppsm by 2020
The one tweak I made was to take a few thousand people out of Alameda's population as half of the square mileage is vacant naval land (granted a good 25-35% of SF is "vacant" as well...i only made tweaks to Alameda since it was easy and doesn't really affect numbers).
No point in doing NYC - though what would be interesting is comparing metro weighted densities. In this realm NYC, LA, and SF/SJ dominate the rest of the US. LA and SF rarely dip below 6,000 ppsm anywhere there are people residing. NYC has countryside within its metro but then these really really dense/large nodes and hubs extending out in all directions for many miles, and these contain the bulk of metro NYC population.
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,750 posts, read 23,828,256 times
Reputation: 14665
The urban fabric of Boston spills right over into Cambridge, Somerville, Medford, Everett, Chelsea, Revere, Winthrop, Quincy, Watertown, and parts of Brookline. It's pretty much the same level of urban density in all these adjacent cities that Boston's residential neighborhoods have. If you consolidated all these adjacent cities and annexed it all to Boston it would be a city of about 1.2 million, about the same as Dallas. Though that urban footprint of Boston and its adjacent cities combined achieves 1.2 million in an area of about 185 square miles, where as Dallas is more than double that at 385 square miles.
One could do the same for Providence. The urban spillover extends into Pawtucket, Cranston, East Providence, and North Providence. All consolidated Providence would be a city about 400,000 in only 80 square miles. Nearly the same sized city as Tulsa, OK which also has about 400,000 in a land area of 196 square miles.
Last edited by Champ le monstre du lac; 09-06-2014 at 11:02 PM..
No point in doing NYC - though what would be interesting is comparing metro weighted densities. In this realm NYC, LA, and SF/SJ dominate the rest of the US. LA and SF rarely dip below 6,000 ppsm anywhere there are people residing. NYC has countryside within its metro but then these really really dense/large nodes and hubs extending out in all directions for many miles, and these contain the bulk of metro NYC population.
For NYC, you could look at the densest 135 or 150 square miles. Brooklyn + Bronx + Manhattan is 162 square miles. From what I remember the weighted densities of the San Francisco and Los Angeles urban areas are around 12k/ sq mile, NYC around 30k / sq mile.
Using 2013 numbers, SF has a contiguous population of 1,768,233 in 159 square miles for a density of 11,102 ppsm. If current growth keeps up, by 2020 the same area will have 1,903,851 people for a density of 11,954 ppsm.
Broken into SF/northern peninsula and Oakland/surrounding cities (East Bay) is as follows:
SF/Peninsula - 1,050,798 people in 69 square miles for a density of 15,196 ppsm, expected to grow to 1,131,948 people and a density of 16,369 ppsm by 2020
East Bay - 717,435 people in 90 square miles for a density of 7,961 ppsm, expected to grow to 771,903 people and a density of 8,566 ppsm by 2020
The one tweak I made was to take a few thousand people out of Alameda's population as half of the square mileage is vacant naval land (granted a good 25-35% of SF is "vacant" as well...i only made tweaks to Alameda since it was easy and doesn't really affect numbers).
No point in doing NYC - though what would be interesting is comparing metro weighted densities. In this realm NYC, LA, and SF/SJ dominate the rest of the US. LA and SF rarely dip below 6,000 ppsm anywhere there are people residing. NYC has countryside within its metro but then these really really dense/large nodes and hubs extending out in all directions for many miles, and these contain the bulk of metro NYC population.
NY easily gets to like 14 million or so maintaining continuous 15+K density
Also you chose to cut off right before airports (well included Oakland) etc.
SF and the bay is dense but the bay is a pretty big barrier from sustained density moreso than rivers
Also you chose to cut off right before airports (well included Oakland) etc.
No, Oakland's airport and it's massive port and historically industrial areas, are wholly located in the city's 55 sq mile land mass.
Quote:
SF and the bay is dense but the bay is a pretty big barrier from sustained density moreso than rivers
How so? If anything the bay and hills have created sustained density over a much wider area than anywhere not named NY or LA.
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.
