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 City of Boston (proper, not metro) doesn't even have 50 square miles of land. Just 48.4! Then again, because resistance to annexation began here (with the Town of Brookline saying No Way! in 1873), Massachusetts has generally had small-area municipalities. (Over 350 of them in a land area of just over 7800 square miles.)
Kinda hard to get the 50 densest square miles of a metro.
I think objectively off data it’d be this
NYC
CHICAGO
SF
LA
PHILLY
BOSTON
DC
SEATTLE
MIAMI
BALTIMORE
Boston and Philly might be tied.
Yeah, my answer would be pretty much this. Although, LA would probably be functionally lower than it's density would indicate given it's nodal setup. Miami may also have similar concerns.
Baltimore is probably still top 10 in pop density and certainly structural density. Although there maybe other cities that have more amenities their core 50 miles.
Wouldn't there be various 50 sq mile tracts in surrounding areas of NYC, SF, etc.? I would guess the areas around Hoboken, Jersey City, Newark, etc. would make a denser area than, say, Seattle.
Yea man I mean ...NYC. There’s just a ton of cities in northeast NJ we could pick
The City of Boston (proper, not metro) doesn't even have 50 square miles of land. Just 48.4! Then again, because resistance to annexation began here (with the Town of Brookline saying No Way! in 1873), Massachusetts has generally had small-area municipalities. (Over 350 of them in a land area of just over 7800 square miles.)
Yea but if you just tack on Cambridge or Quincy or Cambridge or Everett it goes to 50 square miles and either stays as dense or gets more dense.
Yeah if Boston drops Hyde Park and the Southwestern suburban area, and in return picked up Cambridge, Somerville, Chelsea and Everett (~303k people in 16 square miles), Boston would increase it's density a lot
I would have up until a few years ago, but the amount of development has been so rapid and intense in Seattle relative to in Baltimore that I think it's hit a point where even the great inherited structural density of Baltimore neighborhood doesn't really win it anymore. The population density difference for the most urban 50 square miles. as well as the daytime bump from the surrounding area along with all the businesses and activities that supports is just too much in favor of Seattle. Seattle's densest 50 contiguous square miles does do detached SFH and it's uneven, but the expansion of its downtown and the growth of various nodes have developed enough now that it's hard to ignore. That population explosion also came with changes that improved in some ways bus, rail, and bicycling infrastructure and that's not something that Baltimore has really made all that much headway on in comparison over the last decade.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 10-06-2020 at 07:54 AM..
Philadelphia definitely outbeats Boston 5 years ago. Now it's tied.
Boston might become more urban in said radius by 2024, especially with Suffolk Downs, infill development around the city, Seaport fill, Cambridge Crossing, Allston/West Station development, Parcel Filling, Mystic River explosion, Dorchester Bayside Development. Those are atleast 70,000 housing units by 2025.
I would have up until a few years ago, but the amount of development has been so rapid and intense in Seattle relative to in Baltimore that I think it's hit a point where even the great inherited structural density of Baltimore neighborhood doesn't really win it anymore. The population density difference for the most urban 50 square miles. as well as the daytime bump from the surrounding area along with all the businesses and activities that supports is just too much in favor of Seattle. Seattle's densest 50 contiguous square miles does do detached SFH and it's uneven, but the expansion of its downtown and the growth of various nodes have developed enough now that it's hard to ignore. That population explosion also came with changes that improved in some ways bus, rail, and bicycling infrastructure and that's not something that Baltimore has really made all that much headway on in comparison over the last decade.
It will be interesting to see what Baltimore does this decade regarding development. For a city so we’ll located its amazing how stagnant it has become relative to its peers. That being said it has a lot going for it. The infill development around the Harbor is on fire right right now and there’s several +150-100m projects in the immediate pipeline.
It’s one of the cities I’m most looking forward to rebound and really boom DC/Seattle style
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.
