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's larger urban area population in less than half the land area of Atlanta's contributes to it feeling larger. As of 2010, Miami's urban area had nearly a million more people. Urban areas are different from MSAs because they aren't county based & inclusive of everyone in a county. While both urban areas have certainly grown since then, Miami has done so with limited opportunity to expand outward due to the geographic limitations, meaning that Miami's growth is visually dominated by urban infill. Miami's tiny city limits alone have added about 2000 people per square mile this past decade through 2018 according to the Census estimates, and much of that has come in the form of dozens of residential towers. Even much of Miami's suburban area is on grid and dense compared to the more spread out nature of much of Atlanta's suburbia that's typical in much of the Southeast. Miami's suburbia is much more like parts of suburban Los Angeles in that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frustratedintelligence
Beat me to it.
Miami UA - 4,442.4 ppsm
Atlanta UA - 1,706.9
Atlantans love to boast about their tree canopy and vast, ordinate landscapes, but get heated when someone brings up how the heavy forestation significantly detracts from the city feel. Can't have your cake and eat it too.
This is mostly about perception, and the majority of votes agree Miami feels larger.
I already created a counter to this another post.... While Miami is denser, And I stated feel more urban, but ATL the census urban data is largely misldeading. cause people tend think density is the same though out when it's not.
The census will continue the urban area as long as there 1 a sq mi, but outer areas are less dense than inner proportion, So the longer the urban area it's more off set the core actual density is.
Atlanta urban area is 4.5 million in 2,645 sq mi, but Atlanta already is about 4 million just 1,700 sq mi. Meaning the census include another 900 sq mi to Atlanta that only adds half a million, which drops Atlanta density dramatically.
Quote:
Originally Posted by R1070
Exactly. You can’t have an urban city and also be in the woods.
DT and MT ATL, in the parts that are more urban in design, have far fewer trees than the rest of Atlanta. While it’s boasted as a plus, it makes ATL feel smaller than it is and actually feels rural in some parts.
Metro Atlanta has like 3 levels of lots sizes small dense neighborhoods, medium lots sizes neighborhoods, and huge lots neighborhoods. but it's not just the huge lot neighborhoods creating Atlanta forest.
Even denser neighborhoods Atlanta would still be for more forest than most American cities.
For example Miami would neighborhoods like this Miami
So yes Atlanta does have large lots forest neighborhoods but that's not the whole story to why Atlanta is forested, Even in denser no/small lot neighborhoods. Atlanta does amazing job of keeping/planting Trees.
I think people are not use to seeing so much trees in populated areas. I don't think metro Atlanta is meant to look more urban rather the metro is built to be scenic with in nature, How ever "feel" would be a different story 'feel" would more than just looks., because regardless of how Forested an neighborhood is it isn't going change the feel create by proximity to animities, entertainment, shopping, restaurants and population, that come with a larger metro. So I would say Miami metro area looks more urban but they "feel" about similar sizes. Out side of water/beach related stuff there nothing in Miami you can't get in Atlanta that's reflective of their sizes.
Last edited by chiatldal; 03-12-2020 at 02:07 PM..
I already created a counter to this another post.... While Miami is denser, And I stated feel more urban, but ATL the census urban data is largely misldeading. cause people tend think density is the same though out when it's not.
The census will continue the urban area as long as there 1 a sq mi, but outer areas are less dense than inner proportion, So the longer the urban area it's more off set the core actual density is.
Atlanta urban area is 4.5 million in 2,645 sq mi, but Atlanta already is about 4 million just 1,700 sq mi. Meaning the census include another 900 sq mi to Atlanta that only adds half a million, which drops Atlanta density dramatically.
I haven't seen anyone suggest that Atlanta has the same level of density throughout, but the OP is asking us to consider which city feels larger as a whole, not just when you're standing in the middle of downtown. The same measuring criteria is being used for every city, so if Atlanta comes up short it just comes up short.
Quote:
Metro Atlanta has like 3 levels of lots sizes small dense neighborhoods, medium lots sizes neighborhoods, and huge lots neighborhoods. but it's not just the huge lot neighborhoods creating Atlanta forest.
Even denser neighborhoods Atlanta would still be for more forest than most American cities.
For example Miami would neighborhoods like this Miami
So yes Atlanta does have large lots forest neighborhoods but that's not the whole story to why Atlanta is forested, Even in denser no/small lot neighborhoods. Atlanta does amazing job of keeping/planting Trees.
I think people are not use to seeing so much trees in populated areas. I don't think metro Atlanta is meant to look more urban rather the metro is built to be scenic with in nature, How ever "feel" would be a different story 'feel" would more than just looks., because regardless of how Forested an neighborhood is it isn't going change the feel create by proximity to animities, entertainment, shopping, restaurants and population, that come with a larger metro.
Old street trees planted in an intown district isn't what we're talking about. It's the very suburban neighborhoods built within existing forests that makes the difference here, and you don't even need to go outside of 1,700 square miles to see it.
I already created a counter to this another post.... While Miami is denser, And I stated feel more urban, but ATL the census urban data is largely misldeading.cause people tend think density is the same though out when it's not.
The census will continue the urban area as long as there 1 a sq mi, but outer areas are less dense than inner proportion, So the longer the urban area it's more off set the core actual density is.
Yeah but the census bureau also has a standard in place to bypass the issue that comes from standard density's limitation. They have the population-weighted density metric just for that purpose. It factors out the geographical barriers and measures the average density levels at which residents live in a built environment. It is based off of subareas.
What is population-weighted density?
Quote:
Population-weighted density is the mean of the densities of subareas of a larger area weighted by the populations of those subareas. It is an alternative to the conventional density measure, total population divided by total area.
The logic underlying population-weighted density is that it represents the average density experienced by the residents of the urban area.
The census bureau's own explanation of what population-weighted density is:
Quote:
Population-weighted density is derived from the densities of all the census tracts included within the boundary of the CBSA. A metro or micro area's population-weighted density can be thought of as the average of every inhabitant's census tract density.
In summary, it is the average density level that a resident in any particular urbanized area lives in.
Population-weighted density is measured every 10 years following the census results since it is derived from the urbanized area metric.
Here were the Top 50 urbanized areas in the United States in 2010 by population-weighted density:
As it has been mentioned earlier on this thread, the Miami/Fort Lauderdale MSA and the Miami/Fort Lauderdale Urban Area (U.S. one) is almost completely maxed out. Meaning every pinch and sliver of land is more or less built out. I'd estimate that 96% of the entire MSA's developable land area is built out with the only semi-large swath remaining being the land just west of Highway 1 between Goulds and Florida City in Miami-Dade County.
I say that to point out that when the 2020 population-weighted density for urbanized areas comes out that Southeast Florida will be one of the few large metropolises actually gaining in density, just as it was in 2010. Almost all of its growth has been infill, so there wont be any more addition of land.
The lowest density in the Top 50 urbanized areas by population-weighted density is Pittsburgh, which comes in at #50 with a weighted density of 2,990 people per square mile. If you're wondering about Atlanta's weighted density then it is 2,173 people per square mile.
By Austin Contrarian:
Quote:
5. Austin barely made the list at number 48. Atlanta did not -- its 2010 MSA weighted density was only 2,173 ppsm.
By the time the 2020 information comes out, I fully expect Miami to move up to #7, up from #9. Miami has high population growth among the larger MSAs and its entire growth is almost 100% infill, which will add to the density since no new land area is being added in. Simply put, it's built out horizontally and is increasing density by going vertical. That's essentially the only way that Miami can grow in its urbanized area now.
Yeah but the census bureau also has a standard in place to bypass the issue that comes from standard density's limitation. They have the population-weighted density metric just for that purpose. It factors out the geographical barriers and measures the average density levels at which residents live in a built environment. It is based off of subareas.
What is population-weighted density?
The census bureau's own explanation of what population-weighted density is:
In summary, it is the average density level that a resident in any particular urbanized area lives in.
Well, now I understand better what chiatldal was getting at. +1
I haven't seen anyone suggest that Atlanta has the same level of density throughout, but the OP is asking us to consider which city feels larger as a whole, not just when you're standing in the middle of downtown. The same measuring criteria is being used for every city, so if Atlanta comes up short it just comes up short.
I wasn't talking about DTs
You posted the entire Atlanta urban area which is over 2,645.4 sq mi, rnc2mbfl stated "Miami's larger urban area population in less than half the land area of Atlanta's"
The ATL 4.5 mil in 2,645.4 sq mi. which is 1,706.9 ppsm
My point is that is misleading because urban area continues as a long as there 1k sq mi, because Atlanta continue to have 1k for a longer area, it offset how actually dense the core of the metropolitan actually is.
The ATL 4.5 mil in 2,645 sq m but Atlanta is already near 4 mil 1,700 sq mi..................... meaning there an extra 900 sq mi being added to Atlanta urban area because it's over 1k sq mi. dragging down the density.
I already stated Miami is more urban that isn't my point, Miami is 4,442.4 ppsm one of the most dense urban area in the country but how ever in similar sq mi as Miami urbanized area, Atlanta Urban would be in 3,000 ppsm. Even if Atlanta isn't a dense Miami the core area is is top dozen dense areas in the country. People often post the full urban area of Atlanta to present Atlanta as one less metros in the country. When that is misleading.
Quote:
Old street trees planted in an intown district isn't what we're talking about. It's the very suburban neighborhoods built within existing forests that makes the difference here, and you don't even need to go outside of 1,700 square miles to see it.
I'm responding to multiple posters, that part wasn't towards you
but I literally said in lower part of the post you just quoted first line "Metro Atlanta has like 3 levels of lots sizes small dense neighborhoods, medium lots sizes neighborhoods, and huge lots neighborhoods."... Otherwise I already said Atlanta variety of lot home sizes. This is usually in wealthier neighborhoods.
Miami is built more akin to westerm grid metros because the age Miami was built. Metro Atlanta is built more similar to others in the South and north east metro areas. They are also have a large variety of home lot sizes in there suburbs. So those large forested lot forest isn't Unique to Atlanta. My point was Atlanta forest isn't just created just by the bigger lot neighborhoods even the smaller and medium lot neighborhoods are often forested in Atlanta. So forest have little to do with how dense or low dense a neighborhood is in Atlanta area. It's there regardless, This is why Atlanta has the appearance that forest goes already up to CBDs, and Edge cities, and Skyscrapers look like they appear out of no where.
Last edited by chiatldal; 03-12-2020 at 11:42 PM..
Yeah but the census bureau also has a standard in place to bypass the issue that comes from standard density's limitation. They have the population-weighted density metric just for that purpose. It factors out the geographical barriers and measures the average density levels at which residents live in a built environment. It is based off of subareas.
What is population-weighted density?
The census bureau's own explanation of what population-weighted density is:
In summary, it is the average density level that a resident in any particular urbanized area lives in.
Population-weighted density is measured every 10 years following the census results since it is derived from the urbanized area metric.
Here were the Top 50 urbanized areas in the United States in 2010 by population-weighted density:
As it has been mentioned earlier on this thread, the Miami/Fort Lauderdale MSA and the Miami/Fort Lauderdale Urban Area (U.S. one) is almost completely maxed out. Meaning every pinch and sliver of land is more or less built out. I'd estimate that 96% of the entire MSA's developable land area is built out with the only semi-large swath remaining being the land just west of Highway 1 between Goulds and Florida City in Miami-Dade County.
I say that to point out that when the 2020 population-weighted density for urbanized areas comes out that Southeast Florida will be one of the few large metropolises actually gaining in density, just as it was in 2010. Almost all of its growth has been infill, so there wont be any more addition of land.
The lowest density in the Top 50 urbanized areas by population-weighted density is Pittsburgh, which comes in at #50 with a weighted density of 2,990 people per square mile. If you're wondering about Atlanta's weighted density then it is 2,173 people per square mile.
By Austin Contrarian:
By the time the 2020 information comes out, I fully expect Miami to move up to #7, up from #9. Miami has high population growth among the larger MSAs and its entire growth is almost 100% infill, which will add to the density since no new land area is being added in. Simply put, it's built out horizontally and is increasing density by going vertical. That's essentially the only way that Miami can grow in its urbanized area now.
A lot look at urbanized area and see how low dense it is, And don't pay attention to sq mi. What they don't realize it's misleading because the more Atlanta counts the outer sprawl the more it offset how dense the inner region of the metro is. Even if Atlanta MSA was cut in half Atlanta still would be the 9th largest MSA.
60% of the Metro region live less than 25% of the region. and other 40% is across the other 75% of area. but urban area isn't to going distinguish that.
Atlanta is not as dense as Miami, but Atlanta is still among the top of the list of population under 2,000 sq mi. So for Atlanta anyways the urban area can be misleading. If people don't understand what it's measuring....... A lot of people don't realize The Urban area is measuring a set population over distance, and not a population with in a set distance.
A lot look at urbanized area and see how low dense it is, And don't pay attention to sq mi. What they don't realize it's misleading because the more Atlanta counts the outer sprawl the more it offset how dense the inner region of the metro is. Even if Atlanta MSA was cut in half Atlanta still would be the 9th largest MSA.
Moderator cut: link removed, competitor site
Use this for density. Bookmark it so that way you've got it as a reference for future use, it's a handy tool to have. It's using data from Census ACS 2017, so it's pretty current and it maps out the density level for any jurisdiction that you want whether it is state, county, census tracts, so on. It shows a lot of things, like demographical data, age data, education data, income data, housing unit type, and all of those things. I think you'll be able to make great use of it.
Once you click open the link, make sure the first drop down bar says "Population Density (Per. Sq. Mile) and then after that find where it says "by State" in the second drop down bar right underneath the first one and press the drop down bar. Then it will give you a menu of options. Press "census tracts" and then zoom into the city or area of your choice and you can view the census tracts by population density as of 2017 according to the census bureau using their population estimates feature.
I understand what you're getting at and I agree with most of it. Essentially what you're saying is that Atlanta contains the bulk of its population in a smaller footprint and that the outer fringes that consume vast swaths of land but hold scarce populations of people drag down the overall density of the area. I understand. However you have to realize that it doesn't negate the broader point the other posters were making. It's not that Miami is denser than Atlanta, it's that systematically it must be built denser than Atlanta. That's a circumstance of its geography. For that reason, you have the absolute highest peak density in Southeast Florida topping out at 79,130 people per square mile (Census Tract #67.11). Whereas in Atlanta it is 23,945 people per square mile (Census Tract #11). Miami-Dade has a couple more over 60,000 people per square mile, several over both 30,000 people per square mile and 40,000 people per square mile. That's increasingly becoming a likelihood for tightly built areas along the coast in South Florida. It's not a density threshold that Atlanta has a match for as of right now and without a larger scale street-grid network, it's possible that Atlanta will have a very tough time developing contiguous tracts of density at that threshold. In the U.S. context: the one thing the street-grid does is that it makes it so that the urban form is free flowing from one area onto the next without the impediments that restrict consistent density development. It gives things a more uniform configuration you could say.
The one thing I noticed both in actual life the last time I was in Atlanta as well as on the map that I linked you to is that Atlanta's density has to be concentrated in nodes and that the density level falls off a good deal when you begin moving away from it in nearly any direction. With the major exception being Midtown where there are six or seven high density census tracts concentrated in one area (high density in this sense meaning over 10,000 people per square mile) and then a big drop off from that to places all around that are in the 5,000s, or 4,000s, or 3,000s, or 2,000s. Much of Atlanta is sort of like a "density island" so to speak. Even in the suburbs, you have a patchwork of good density and then it just falls rapidly as soon as you move away from it in seemingly any direction. Without using any names because it isn't a part of this thread but another major city in the South has a clustering of nine tracts over 10,000 people per square mile and then two or three tacts with 8,000 or 9,000 people per square mile linking it to another clustering of like seven tracts with over 10,000 people per square mile and then two or three tracts with 6,000, or 7,000, or 8,000 people per square mile linking it to another clustering of six tracts above 10,000 people per square mile, so on and so forth. You're able to transition from one area to the next without the massive or noticeable drop off in population density.
I think that's the point the other posters are trying to make in this thread. They're just trying to illustrate the difference in the density level within the urban format of these cities. It isn't to takeaway from Atlanta's urban form but to point out the differences between the two cities.
In Miami-Dade, when you go from a census tract that is 40,000 people per square mile then the next tract is also either a 40,000 people per square mile tract or a 30,000 people per square mile tract or a high 20,000-29,000 per person census tract. Then from that tract it's the same thing, another 30,000 per person tract or a high 20,000 per person tract. Then from a high 20,000 per person tract to another high 20,000-29,000 per person tract or a high 10,000-19,000 per person tract. The leveling off in density is more gradual while using the street grid, the development is able to stay more consistent to where the density doesn't fall off the theoretical cliff, so to speak.
Regarding the side discussion about trees and large lot sizes, I actually don't have any issues with Atlanta's style on either. The trees keep the air cleaner and give Atlanta a nice aesthetic environment. The lot sizes, even in the core of the city are alright with me. Typically I fashion high density but I am known to make exceptions when something works well in its setting. In this case, I think some of the older homes and neighborhoods in Atlanta's core fit that. Lots of nice homes with a good amount of area, lots of trees, for the type of city that Atlanta's built and the type of topography in its proximity, I'd say the look works for it. South Florida itself has strong and consistent tree coverage all throughout as well, albeit the forestation isn't as thickly concentrated in South Florida as Greater Atlanta, but still a large amount though.
The lot sizes, even in the core of the city are alright with me. Typically I fashion high density but I am known to make exceptions when something works well in its setting. In this case, I think some of the older homes and neighborhoods in Atlanta's core fit that. Lots of nice homes with a good amount of area, lots of trees, for the type of city that Atlanta's built and the type of topography in its proximity, I'd say the look works for it. South Florida itself has strong and consistent tree coverage all throughout as well, albeit the forestation isn't as thickly concentrated in South Florida as Greater Atlanta, but still a large amount though.
I messed up on the delivery of this statement.
Just to be clear, I don't advocate for detached single family homes on somewhat large lots being so close to a city's core but given the parameters of it existing already, so I'm fine with it. As long as the urban parts of the city are pushing up their density level and urbanizing.
I do think that if you had to build single family homes near the core of a major city then either go with small lot sizes or go with townhomes like these that make efficient use of space and don't impede on density levels:
but I literally said in lower part of the post you just quoted first line "Metro Atlanta has like 3 levels of lots sizes small dense neighborhoods, medium lots sizes neighborhoods, and huge lots neighborhoods."... Otherwise I already said Atlanta variety of lot home sizes. This is usually in wealthier neighborhoods.
Miami is built more akin to westerm grid metros because the age Miami was built. Metro Atlanta is built more similar to others in the South and north east metro areas. They are also have a large variety of home lot sizes in there suburbs. So those large forested lot forest isn't Unique to Atlanta. My point was Atlanta forest isn't just created just by the bigger lot neighborhoods even the smaller and medium lot neighborhoods are often forested in Atlanta. So forest have little to do with how dense or low dense a neighborhood is in Atlanta area It's there regardless, This is why Atlanta has the appearance that forest goes already up to CBDs, and Edge cities, and Skyscrapers look like they appear out of no where.
It has plenty do with it. You yourself admitted that Atlanta is great at saving its trees. You will find countless structures on larger lots surrounded by old growth forest (as in trees that have never been touched). In Miami and most Sunbelt cities, that forest would be razed to make room for another building. This isn't the only reason Atlanta has such an impressive canopy, but it does make a big difference. If it were built like Miami it wouldn't look nearly as green because there wouldn't be enough room for all of those trees.
Sometimes these lots aren't even taken up by many trees but instead it's these huge front yards which, again, are far from common in South Florida. Does all of Atlanta look like this? No, but it is more typical than most other places.
Atlanta is not as dense as Miami, but Atlanta is still among the top of the list of population under 2,000 sq mi. So for Atlanta anyways the urban area can be misleading. If people don't understand what it's measuring....... A lot of people don't realize The Urban area is measuring a set population over distance, and not a population with in a set distance.
Then do we not have to consider that for every city? Atlanta is not the place that gets far less dense on the outskirts.
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.
