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.
That's what I'm getting at. Charlotte is sparsely populated (or was in 2020) no matter how close/far you draw the lines. In much of the country, even the newer suburbs are denser than Charlotte in any radius.
As for the new transit construction, that's good, but just the start if you want to hit six million eventually, and preferably it should be grade-separated.
In 4 years Charlotte hasn't developed that rapidly from 2020. I think it's hard for many posters who love the South, to accept just how contrasted in scale they are in urbanity to non-southern cities of similar weight...
I'd take Charlotte over almost every non-southern city in the country, save maybe 5, but I'm not choosing Charlotte because of how dense and developed it is, that's not a comparably strong suit it has...
I'll give Charlotte, Nashville, and other Southern cities some credit for having apartment clusters that can give some tracts decent numbers. Charlotte had a tract at 28,862/sm in 2020, which was higher than the peak of some big legacy Midwest cities. But the density outside of the new apartment clusters is generally sparse.
The density argument is a weak one when basing off whether a city is truly big or can hit a certain population milestone. Growth is NOT relative to density.Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, Miami are in the top ten in msa's and csa's in the country and yet are some of the least dense. Yet at the same time their inner cores urbanity are severely underestimated. Urbanity is not relative to Growth otherwise Philly, D.C., San Fran, etc would be growing faster than thos metro areas and they are not. Same with Charlotte and Raleigh, Austin, etc... Gor what it's worth the sunbelt cities are growing much faster than the other cities in this poll. CSA Charlotte is already at 3.4 million in a csa that is smaller in land area than Minneapolis which is at 3.7 million in its msa. It's csa is at 4.1 million a ridiculous sized area. But yet Charlotte is growing much faster. Again density and population growth are two different things. Urbanity is not going to stop people from moving to a place lol.
I'll give Charlotte, Nashville, and other Southern cities some credit for having apartment clusters that can give some tracts decent numbers. Charlotte had a tract at 28,862/sm in 2020, which was higher than the peak of some big legacy Midwest cities. But the density outside of the new apartment clusters is generally sparse.
Yeah Charlotte definitely has and still is throwing up a lot of 5 over 1 one apartments, but outside of Uptown & South End its density is more or less the same as it's contemporary sunbelt cities.
You're right, density and urbanity aren't central to whether these cities will hit six million.
PS, you get back to the density topic comparing CSAs. Densities of MSAs and CSAs is never useful...they're based on counties. Some are primarily uninhabited wilderness despite having cities on their edges.
The density argument is a weak one when basing off whether a city is truly big or can hit a certain population milestone. Growth is NOT relative to density.Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, Miami are in the top ten in msa's and csa's in the country and yet are some of the least dense. Yet at the same time their inner cores urbanity are severely underestimated.
MSA/CSA density is incumbent on county municipal size, not physical distribution of population which is why the Urban Area metric exist. Miami is the 4th densest urban area in the US after LA, The Bay Area & NYC and feels every inch of it.
Their inner cores aren't underestimated, not by a long shot. They are rightfully placed in the spectrum of major cities in the us because there are statistics that back those metrics up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by QC Dreaming 2
Urbanity is not relative to Growth otherwise Philly, D.C., San Fran, etc would be growing faster than thos metro areas and they are not. Same with Charlotte and Raleigh, Austin, etc... Gor what it's worth the sunbelt cities are growing much faster than the other cities in this poll.
I agree urbanity is not correlated to growth but sunbelt cities are growing due to a CoL exudes, not because they inherently offer "more" from a ergonomic/quantitive city perspective. It's a bang for the buck ratio (at least temporarily)
Quote:
Originally Posted by QC Dreaming 2
CSA Charlotte is already at 3.4 million in a csa that is smaller in land area than Minneapolis which is at 3.7 million in its msa. It's csa is at 4.1 million a ridiculous sized area. But yet Charlotte is growing much faster. Again density and population growth are two different things. Urbanity is not going to stop people from moving to a place lol.
MSP also has more people in its Urban Area than Charlotte does in it's MSA, and MSP isn't a dense city in the grand scheme of American cities.
MSP Urban Area - 2.91 million, 1,015 sq/mi - 2,872.4 ppsm
Charlotte Urban Area - 1.37 million, 658 sq/mi - 2,098.3 ppsm
Urbanity does not stop people from moving to places, but the nuances of how/where those people live absolutely is felt on the ground and impacts a cities "feel".
Charlotte's inner 4.2 mi² has ~23,000 people, which is around ~5500 residential density. Charlotte's inner 8.4 mi² has ~42,000 people, which is ~5000 residential density...
Most of Charlotte drops off pretty demonstrably after that, though there are still peaks in the 5-7k range, but they are small tracts. The inner 8.4 mi² I just defined above is the most densely packed region of Charlotte, the city clearly doesn't maintain ~5000 ppsm throughout...
That inner 8.4 mi² is part of the core, one of these days I'll map out Charlotte's inner 30 mi² for us but I can assure you it's not the same density as most cities it's size, inner 30 mi². At best, I'll estimate Charlotte has 150,000 in its innermost 30 mi², that would be 5000 ppsm...
Charlotte is an outstanding city so for me and apparently others, the fact that it isn't that urban or walkable doesn't detract much from its livability and attraction. But we don't have to pretend it's more urban than it actually is; it's pretty much the same scale of urbanity that you'd expect for large southern cities. It, Nashville, and Raleigh are all of comparable scale...
Just so we understand what our frame of reference is here, Raleigh's "inside the beltline" states are ~119,000 in 33.6 mi², which is 3500 ppsm. This is the most developed region of Raleigh, and Raleigh doesn't have as dramatic a drop off as either Nashville or Charlotte; Raleigh's overall city density is ~3200 ppsm...
Charlotte feels larger and more grand than Raleigh, but it isn't that much more urban in scale, so in the same space Raleigh has 119,000 people, I'd expect Charlotte to be around 150,000. But it's close...
Nashville's inner ~102 mi² are what residents really call "the city of Nashville", and that's only ~251,000 people. True enough that every single one of these cities have walkable nodes and areas, but not only are they relatively few given the size of these cities, they also all peak much lower in scale of urbanity compared to most comparable non-southern cities. It just is what it is and it's okay because we who love these particular southern cities, love them regardless lol. It's not the urbanity or walkability that drive our affection for them, and those aren't any of these cities strongest traits!
Great point, but what 250k city has the equivalent of a Broadway or a Gulch or major sports stadiums. I think what I am getting at here is that, like some have stated, a big city is more than population psm or or consistently large areas of walkability. It more about civic and cultural offerings which, as I think you pointed out, is what make some of these Southern, growing cities so appealing to many--even beyond just having a lower cost of living as the primary attraction.
What is the next big major North American City? (6 million plus). I definitely think it is Austin. Austin is also underrated (for example, it has one of the largest towers being built currently - yet no one talks about it). Austin also seems to be safe from natural disasters, similar to Phoenix.
Please share your thoughts and/or vote below on the next big city.
If one thinks its none of these big cities on poll, do not vote and please explain the city.
I wish I could revote because I voted Charlotte without reading 6,000,000. At that range Austin will get there of the listed cities. But I think Phoenix is obvious. Then Riverside area followed by Seattle and then SF when it hits enough critical mass to merge with SJ. Then Tampa and honestly very possibly Orlando with Austin/Charlotte making up the rest. The Tampa/Orlando shouts is do to the massive amount of fast growing midsized metros in Central and Coastal Florida. If both of those cities add another million people they'll likely be able to grab another million each just from sprawling into nearby metro areas. After that besides a San Antonio and Salt Lake City shout, I don't expect many if any other metros to cross that line.
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.
Denver, Charlotte, MInneapolis
