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.
Well, let's do a side-by-side comparison between the two to look at you statement.
S.A. 1: Population is now over 1.3 million people. (largest it's ever been)
2: City is 407 Sq Miles
3: Density is 2,808 per Sq mile
Pittsburgh 1: Population is now around 312,000 people and continues to shrink. (population in the 1950's was around 700,000)
2: City is 55 Sq Miles
3: Density is 5,636 people per Sq mile (double what S.A.'s is)
Now remember, Pittsburgh have loss MORE than 50% of it's population. It's DENSITY years ago was was over 12,000 people per Sq mile. Where as S.A. has the largest population it ever has and continues to grow, but it's DENSITY is still pitiful. (typical of a sunbelt)
S.A. city limits are 8 times the size of Pittsburgh's. S.A.'s population is more than 4 times larger than Pittsburgh's. Yet, S.A.'s DENSITY is half of Pittsburgh's. Imagine trying to compare it with the 1950's Pittsburgh DENSITY.
Pittsburgh's job DENSITY is still ranked 6th in the nation.
The cities in the sunbelt are SPRAWL, to say otherwise is inaccurate. Cities in the Northeast or Eastcoast were built up and heavily populated before the car was even built. Sunbelt cities were built around the car, BIG difference! Everybody moves to a sunbelt city, and wants to live in a city, but have a home like they would in the suburbs!.... Move to the burbs then!
'If' you've ever been to Pittsburgh, you'd know the difference. The narrow streets and rowhouses is what creates density and makes the nabes walkable!
What city do YOU think has the most diverse housing stock. Post some pics of northern cities. Im not trying to be confratational, I just wanna see some photos.
Well, let's do a side-by-side comparison between the two to look at you statement.
S.A. 1: Population is now over 1.3 million people. (largest it's ever been)
2: City is 407 Sq Miles
3: Density is 2,808 per Sq mile
Pittsburgh 1: Population is now around 312,000 people and continues to shrink. (population in the 1950's was around 700,000)
2: City is 55 Sq Miles
3: Density is 5,636 people per Sq mile (double what S.A.'s is)
Now remember, Pittsburgh have loss MORE than 50% of it's population. It's DENSITY years ago was was over 12,000 people per Sq mile. Where as S.A. has the largest population it ever has and continues to grow, but it's DENSITY is still pitiful. (typical of a sunbelt)
S.A. city limits are 8 times the size of Pittsburgh's. S.A.'s population is more than 4 times larger than Pittsburgh's. Yet, S.A.'s DENSITY is half of Pittsburgh's. Imagine trying to compare it with the 1950's Pittsburgh DENSITY.
Pittsburgh's job DENSITY is still ranked 6th in the nation.
The cities in the sunbelt are SPRAWL, to say otherwise is inaccurate. Cities in the Northeast or Eastcoast were built up and heavily populated before the car was even built. Sunbelt cities were built around the car, BIG difference! Everybody moves to a sunbelt city, and wants to live in a city, but have a home like they would in the suburbs!.... Move to the burbs then!
'If' you've ever been to Pittsburgh, you'd know the difference. The narrow streets and rowhouses is what creates density and makes the nabes walkable!
That is just as ignorant as saying "Pittsburgh is all steel mills and coal mines." For one thing, your "sunbelt cities" weren't all magically built at the same time, so very many of them were bustling, growing cities long before the rise of the automobile. Do some reading and investigate that fact - it will help you intelligently discuss U.S. cities. (A correction to your population statistic above...Pittsburgh peaked at 676,000 and steadily declined in population through the 1950s and beyond)
Atlanta's population was 331,000 in 1950 (incidentally larger than the current Pittsburgh) and the city had been growing steadily since the Civil War. Atlanta has done a lot of growing since 1950 (incidentally Pittsburgh hasn't), but was already grown up - a large city - by the time the automobile became a common form of transportation. Atlanta had a very extensive electric trolley system and was already the commercial, industrial, political, financial, and transportation center of the southeast. You need to realize that Atlanta isn't much further west than Pittsburgh, so as the U.S. grew in that direction the cities developed.
I'm pretty sure I discussed this with you before...this isn't a fantasy or exaggeration. Take the opportunity to learn something new and expand your horizons, because you are certainly not educated about life outside of your little environment. If you had any knowledge of "sunbelt cities" (that nickname has almost run its course) you would know those cities are all very different from one another - as is every city everywhere. Each one has both advantages and drawbacks that are completely different; each city also has a separate and unique history. That's a very easy concept to grasp...the unique indivduality of people and places.
So San Antonio isn't the most densely populated city that ever existed. That's just one aspect of that city, and obviously not the most important one to the many, many, many people who have relocated there. By the way, Atlanta's density of 4,000/sq.mi. is not far behind Pittsburgh's 5,600/sq.mi. - and Atlanta's density is increasing as the population of the city increases, while Pittsburgh's is decreasing. (I'm sure you realize that Pittsburgh's metro sprawls over 5400 sq.mi. - far from a compact expanse)
You might want to read up on some current information about Atlanta and other cities because I know you love to hurl the word "sprawl" at your "sunbelt cities". This 2008 Planetizen article titled The End of Atlanta's Sprawl may give you some insight into at least one "sunbelt city": The End of Atlanta's Sprawl | Planetizen
Pittsburgh proper may be more dense, but its and all cities' metros sprawl ridiculously outward. Pittsburgh proper may be losing population, but its suburbs are gaining population; it is sprawling just like every other American city. In San Antonio's case, much of its metro population is within the city proper because they annex all of the surrounding suburbs that Pittsburgh and other northern cities don't; I guarantee you that San Antonio's density within Loop 410 is very close if not more than Pittsburgh's, and its metro density is the same as Pittsburgh's. All cities sprawl whether you want to admit it or not.
That is just as ignorant as saying "Pittsburgh is all steel mills and coal mines." For one thing, your "sunbelt cities" weren't all magically built at the same time, so very many of them were bustling, growing cities long before the rise of the automobile. Do some reading and investigate that fact - it will help you intelligently discuss U.S. cities. (A correction to your population statistic above...Pittsburgh peaked at 676,000 and steadily declined in population through the 1950s and beyond)
Atlanta's population was 331,000 in 1950 (incidentally larger than the current Pittsburgh) and the city had been growing steadily since the Civil War. Atlanta has done a lot of growing since 1950 (incidentally Pittsburgh hasn't), but was already grown up - a large city - by the time the automobile became a common form of transportation. Atlanta had a very extensive electric trolley system and was already the commercial, industrial, political, financial, and transportation center of the southeast. You need to realize that Atlanta isn't much further west than Pittsburgh, so as the U.S. grew in that direction the cities developed.
I'm pretty sure I discussed this with you before...this isn't a fantasy or exaggeration. Take the opportunity to learn something new and expand your horizons, because you are certainly not educated about life outside of your little environment. If you had any knowledge of "sunbelt cities" (that nickname has almost run its course) you would know those cities are all very different from one another - as is every city everywhere. Each one has both advantages and drawbacks that are completely different; each city also has a separate and unique history. That's a very easy concept to grasp...the unique indivduality of people and places.
So San Antonio isn't the most densely populated city that ever existed. That's just one aspect of that city, and obviously not the most important one to the many, many, many people who have relocated there. By the way, Atlanta's density of 4,000/sq.mi. is not far behind Pittsburgh's 5,600/sq.mi. - and Atlanta's density is increasing as the population of the city increases, while Pittsburgh's is decreasing. (I'm sure you realize that Pittsburgh's metro sprawls over 5400 sq.mi. - far from a compact expanse)
You might want to read up on some current information about Atlanta and other cities because I know you love to hurl the word "sprawl" at your "sunbelt cities". This 2008 Planetizen article titled The End of Atlanta's Sprawl may give you some insight into at least one "sunbelt city": The End of Atlanta's Sprawl | Planetizen
First of all, I said, "aound 700,000". Plus that was the 1950 stat. Who's to say in the early 1950's Pittsburgh population didn't increase a liitle more.
Atlanta stands at a DENSITY of 3,921 people per sq mile. They have around 300,000 more people, yet Atlanta STILL is NOT as DENSE as the dying city of Pittsburgh! These facts, you cannot argue!
My knowledge is VAST about the "sunbelt cities", or "SPRAWL cities with sun"...
You talk about Pittsburgh's "sprawl"? You ain't talking about the 'city center core'! Nobody is talking about burbs here, atleast I ain't! I'm talking about the 'actual' cities themselves! Big difference my man, BIG!
Pittsburgh proper may be more dense, but its and all cities' metros sprawl ridiculously outward. Pittsburgh proper may be losing population, but its suburbs are gaining population; it is sprawling just like every other American city. In San Antonio's case, much of its metro population is within the city proper because they annex all of the surrounding suburbs that Pittsburgh and other northern cities don't; I guarantee you that San Antonio's density within Loop 410 is very close if not more than Pittsburgh's, and its metro density is the same as Pittsburgh's. All cities sprawl whether you want to admit it or not.
Alright then, 'if' you want to compare DENSITY that way, the old nabe I lived in Pittsburgh, Bloomfield has a DENSITY of around 20,000 per Sq mile. Density varies from nabe to nabe in EVERY city. They simply average it out. So trying to compare one nabe over the entire city doesn't truely show how dense a city really is.
Why do you keep bring up suburbs? I'm talking about 'cities' here, not burbs! Typical thinking of "sunbelt'ers"......
Well, let's do a side-by-side comparison between the two to look at you statement.
S.A. 1: Population is now over 1.3 million people. (largest it's ever been)
2: City is 407 Sq Miles
3: Density is 2,808 per Sq mile
Pittsburgh 1: Population is now around 312,000 people and continues to shrink. (population in the 1950's was around 700,000)
2: City is 55 Sq Miles
3: Density is 5,636 people per Sq mile (double what S.A.'s is)
Now remember, Pittsburgh have loss MORE than 50% of it's population. It's DENSITY years ago was was over 12,000 people per Sq mile. Where as S.A. has the largest population it ever has and continues to grow, but it's DENSITY is still pitiful. (typical of a sunbelt)
S.A. city limits are 8 times the size of Pittsburgh's. S.A.'s population is more than 4 times larger than Pittsburgh's. Yet, S.A.'s DENSITY is half of Pittsburgh's. Imagine trying to compare it with the 1950's Pittsburgh DENSITY.
Pittsburgh's job DENSITY is still ranked 6th in the nation.
The cities in the sunbelt are SPRAWL, to say otherwise is inaccurate. Cities in the Northeast or Eastcoast were built up and heavily populated before the car was even built. Sunbelt cities were built around the car, BIG difference! Everybody moves to a sunbelt city, and wants to live in a city, but have a home like they would in the suburbs!.... Move to the burbs then!
'If' you've ever been to Pittsburgh, you'd know the difference. The narrow streets and rowhouses is what creates density and makes the nabes walkable!
Just to discredit this by 100 percent. You just love to spice up threads don't you.
Allegheny county 745 square miles. includes all more urban and dense Pittsburgh that you claim.
Allegheny county 745 sq miles. 1,281,666 1,761 per square mile
San Antonio is more dense. 1.4 million @ 300(408 with newely annexed undeveloped land) square miles.
First of all, I said, "aound 700,000". Plus that was the 1950 stat. Who's to say in the early 1950's Pittsburgh population didn't increase a liitle more.
Atlanta stands at a DENSITY of 3,921 people per sq mile. They have around 300,000 more people, yet Atlanta STILL is NOT as DENSE as the dying city of Pittsburgh! These facts, you cannot argue!
My knowledge is VAST about the "sunbelt cities", or "SPRAWL cities with sun"...
You talk about Pittsburgh's "sprawl"? You ain't talking about the 'city center core'! Nobody is talking about burbs here, atleast I ain't! I'm talking about the 'actual' cities themselves! Big difference my man, BIG!
The sunbelt is SPRAWL CENTRAL, PERIOD!
Your knowledge of "sunbelt cities" is quite obviously NOT vast. You can say it over and over, but you exhibit your lack of knowledge of these cities in your misinformed, biased words.
So...when someone else points out Pittsburgh's massive sprawl, you immediately refer to the city's downtown/urban areas; yet when I've let you know that the sprawl in Atlanta and other southern cities IS IN THE SUBURBS and that, like Pittsburgh, the city is the city. Ya know, that little tidbit just exposes your unreasonable arguments for what they are...over-adoration for your still deteriorating city and unnecessary hatred for growing, popular cities.
We aren't stealing your people...they are leaving dead-end cities for a better life and better environment - on their own free will. Your resentment toward the "sunbelt cities" (have you learned anything yet about the huge differences between these cities and their individual histories?) is strangely focused on the cities, but you lash out at anyone representing those cities in any way. If you really examined your situation, you might be able to see how silly it looks.
Alright then, 'if' you want to compare DENSITY that way, the old nabe I lived in Pittsburgh, Bloomfield has a DENSITY of around 20,000 per Sq mile. Density varies from nabe to nabe in EVERY city. They simply average it out. So trying to compare one nabe over the entire city doesn't truely show how dense a city really is.
Why do you keep bring up suburbs? I'm talking about 'cities' here, not burbs! Typical thinking of "sunbelt'ers"......
Dude, YOU bring up the suburbs with your SPRAWL comments. Do you really think that all of this imaginary sprawl exists in these cities? Sprawl is a suburban phenomenon...so if you don't want to discuss suburbs, stop over using the word in attempts to diminish other cities. It can be used to diminish your city just as easily.
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.
Move to the burbs then!
