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 fact that New Orleans is one of the least-dense cities (2300 ppm) but also one of the denser urbanized areas (3806 ppm) is telling.
Wow, I didn't know there were any situations where the city was actually less dense than the UA. Besides like Anchorage I guess (city's density on paper is like 100 ppsm iirc)
IMO any comparison based on city limits is dumb. City limit lines are arbitrary and drawn in very different ways in different metros. Urban area or MSA density would be more meaningful to look at it. Or just counting the census tracts over given density thresholds.
Again southern MSA and northern MSAs aren’t the same in terms of development. I’ve been saying this for years. Maybe it’s not fair to Houston which has suburbs as dense and diverse as the city but it’s more than fair for Philly NYC or Boston. The road network and annexation patterns just aren’t built to be dense suburbia for hundreds of miles. The suburbs of those cities aren’t the cities. That’s sunbelt and western things. Our suburbs are (mostly) intentionally very different and separate for on the city. He seems the massive disparities in density..
I thought Philadelphia would be higher. New Orleans was a surprise at first, but it makes sense given the geography.
I mean how much higher do you really expect? Philadelphia has 1.6 million people in 134.1 sq miles equaling 12,000 ppsqm. Pretty impressive considering only Philly, NYC, Chicago and LA are the only cities over a million and over 100 square miles (also Philly, Chicago and NYC are the only 1M+ plus cities with over 10,000 ppsm) on the most dense list. Every other city has smaller boundaries (often 60 sq miles and smaller) which bolster both their positions on this list and their overall city density. With that said, every city on the list has legit claim to being among the most urban and dense cities in the U.S.
The fact that New Orleans is one of the least-dense cities (2300 ppm) but also one of the denser urbanized areas (3806 ppm) is telling.
That manly stems from 1/3rd of the cities limits being a wildlife refuge. Denver also runs into this "quirk" becuase 30% of the cities land area is dedicated entierly to the airport.
That being said, a lot of cities have massive swaths of land dedicated to ports, airports, logistic center, undustrial zoning, parks, etc.. so all of them in reality are denser then their official metrics.
Again southern MSA and northern MSAs aren’t the same in terms of development. I’ve been saying this for years. Maybe it’s not fair to Houston which has suburbs as dense and diverse as the city but it’s more than fair for Philly NYC or Boston. The road network and annexation patterns just aren’t built to be dense suburbia for hundreds of miles. The suburbs of those cities aren’t the cities. That’s sunbelt and western things. Our suburbs are (mostly) intentionally very different and separate for on the city. He seems the massive disparities in density..
Exactly. Aside from very select parts of California or the Seattle metro, very low-density suburbia is just non-existent in the Western half of the US.
That's the main reason I'm not too keen on the development style of Western metro areas overall. It's a higher overall density baseline, but the density is too high to really get the benefits of bucolic suburban life, but too low to get the benefit of true urbanism, even in the vast majority of Western city "cores."
The gradient of urbanity is what makes the built environment of the Eastern US so interesting, but I digress.
I mean how much higher do you really expect? Philadelphia has 1.6 million people in 134.1 sq miles equaling 12,000 ppsqm. Pretty impressive considering only Philly, NYC, Chicago and LA are the only cities over a million and over 100 square miles (also Philly, Chicago and NYC are the only 1M+ plus cities with over 10,000 ppsm) on the most dense list. Every other city has smaller boundaries (often 60 sq miles and smaller) which bolster both their positions on this list and their overall city density. With that said, every city on the list has legit claim to being among the most urban and dense cities in the U.S.
DC’s original diamond that includes Arlington, VA and Alexandria, VA was 100 sq. miles. Today DC, Arlington, and Alexandria make up 102.33 sq. miles with a 2020 population of 1,087,655 people. That places the density of the original DC diamond at 10,629 people per sq. mile for the 2020 census.
Philadelphia had a population density of 11,944 people per sq. mile for the 2020 census, but the housing development happening in DC, Arlington VA, and Alexandria VA will put the original diamond over 11,000 people per sq. mile very soon. It will be interesting to study these data points as DC proper approaches 1,000,000 people, Arlington approach 300,000 people, and Alexandria approaches 200,000 people. That would put the original DC diamond at 1.5 million people in a 102.33 sq. mile boundary with a population density of 14,658 people per sq. mile.
That manly stems from 1/3rd of the cities limits being a wildlife refuge. Denver also runs into this "quirk" becuase 30% of the cities land area is dedicated entierly to the airport.
That being said, a lot of cities have massive swaths of land dedicated to ports, airports, logistic center, undustrial zoning, parks, etc.. so all of them in reality are denser then their official metrics.
Exactly. Look at all the area within NOLA's city limits that is water (mostly Lake Ponchartrain) and swampland (especially the far Eastern reaches of the city that come within a few miles of the state of Mississippi.) More than half of the city's area fall into this category.
I mean how much higher do you really expect? Philadelphia has 1.6 million people in 134.1 sq miles equaling 12,000 ppsqm. Pretty impressive considering only Philly, NYC, Chicago and LA are the only cities over a million and over 100 square miles (also Philly, Chicago and NYC are the only 1M+ plus cities with over 10,000 ppsm) on the most dense list. Every other city has smaller boundaries (often 60 sq miles and smaller) which bolster both their positions on this list and their overall city density. With that said, every city on the list has legit claim to being among the most urban and dense cities in the U.S.
DC, SF, Miami & Boston would match Philly's population even at 134 sq. miles. Density/built enviornment doesn't magically stop becuase political boundaries do.
The next closest cities are Seattle & San Diego, neither of which reach 900k in 100 sq. mi. MSP has a shade over ~730k edging out Baltimore's ~700k.
*Denver would techincally split MSP & Baltimore if the airport was excluded, but then you'd have to also adjust non-residential usage in the cities for fairness. I'd argue both are denser objectively in real life.
Last edited by Joakim3; 04-29-2022 at 03:34 AM..
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.
