Quote:
Originally Posted by pwduvall
You are correct, I did use 2000 land area. I couldn't find 2010 land area. Can someone send me a link?
In reference to city/county combinations not really being comparable to cities with borders that are over 100 years old, this is kind of the point. Baltimore County (which doesn't include but surrounds Baltimore City) has a population of over 800,000 and would be a top 20 city if it was a city. Its urban index would be higher than Jacksonville's, hard to believe when the northern third is still a major farming area.
|
I understand the premise of what you are trying to do...but I don't think using land area alone is the best way to accomplish that. I mean, it probably does hold true to an extent (especially with older cities with locked in borders as opposed to newer cities with the ability to annex land and spread out their development)...but I wonder exactly what you are trying to do with such a list.
To me, ranking urbanity in relation to population density/housing units/etc can be quite deceptive at times. I think it would take a much more in depth and thorough look to get an accurate view of a city's "urbanness" than using the common data available online, especially from the Census Bureau and wikipedia.
Let's use a few hypothetical situations to explore this. We'll use 4 cities from each region of the US with distinctively different histories and development patterns (these are all made up cities, btw...so don't guess what cities they are actually supposed to be).
City A - a northeastern city with a stagnant population, very old development, and lots of midrise buildings with partial occupancy...no room for city expansion due to locked in borders, and very little opportunity for new development, because the city has completely built out. Because there is very little new development, we'll say that the occupation rate for most of these buildings is 60% (people seeking new development and places to raise children are moving to suburbs away from the city). Almost every square inch of land is taken up by building development...whether it be occupied or not. Lots of older concrete and brick midrise residential and commercial buildings. There are single family homes, but many have become higher crime areas and have a low occupation rate. A number of factories and urban parks also dot the landscape. The streets are quite narrow for a city its size.
The city takes up 35 square miles of land area, and has a population of 200,000. At its peak, this city had 400,000 residents some 50 years ago.
City B - a midwestern city with a declining population, and a ton of early 20th century industrial development. Midrise and highrise structures dominate the central city. There are a large number of single family homes on very small lots, but due to a downturn in the economy, many are abandoned. Vast brownfields cover the city, where thriving factories once stood nearly a century ago. Many of the old factories are still standing, but empty. The residential and commercial high rises in the central city still have a decent occupancy rate, which is one of the only reasons why it doesn't seem to be a ghost town.
The city takes up 75 square miles of land area, and has a population of 300,000. The population peaked at nearly 750,000 in the 1940s.
City C - a quickly growing, sprawling southern city with a mix of old, traditional dense development in the inner city, with newer shiny glass office and residential high rises dotting the central city. Outside of the core, there are large areas of single family houses on medium sized lots, as well as sprawling apartment complexes of medium density. The city's core is small, but has the same sort of development pattern as the previous two cities...but the area outside the core was developed during the auto age and includes winding streets and houses with decent sized yards, shopping centers, and more open space. A lot of the development is adapted to the landscape it covers, filling in open fields and valleys, and winding around hills and dense forests. The occupancy rate is relatively high throughout the city, outside of some of the older, neglected in-town areas.
A number of years ago, the city was more compact in size, covering 100 square miles, and having a population of nearly 400,000. However, the city and county governments agreed to consolidate, bringing the new land area up to 400 square miles, but only increasing the population to 600,000.
City D - a very rapidly growing western city, with most development coming in the last 50 years. With vast amounts of open land, the city is annexing and developing large tracts all at once, and planning development in advance. The occupancy rate, like the southern city, is very high, but the development is a little more dense. There is also a strict grid pattern in this city, as the land is flat, and there are no forests and very few waterways to consider. However, unlike the northeastern and midwestern cities, the development caters to automobile usage, with much more space considered for parking and wide roads and highways. However, the population density remains high due to large condo developments throughout the city, and the very tight nature of the single family houses. Since the land is flat, there is very little undeveloped space.
The city covers 200 square miles of land area, and has a population of 1,000,000. It continues to expand rapidly, both in terms of land and population. 50 years ago, the city covered 100 square miles and had just
300,000 people.
If you strictly look at the statistics, it breaks down something like this:
Population density:
City A - 5,714 ppsm (was 11,429 at peak)
City B - 4,000 ppsm (was 10,000 at peak)
City C - 1,500 ppsm (was 4,000 before consolidation)
City D - 5,000 ppsm (was 3,000 before population boom)
These numbers are all over the place. For one to get a real look at the "urbanness" of each city, they would have to consider things outside of just the statistics available.
City A is rather tiny compared to the others...but it is built up from end to end. City D, with a similar population density to City A, takes up more than 5 times the land area. In fact, City D would have a higher overall population density if you were to include the suburbs of City A in its total.
Likewise, City C has a similar looking core to City A, only a little smaller (and with more new structures). In fact, City C has a higher population density in its core than City A does in the entire city...but City A has a lower occupancy rate and a larger area of contiguous higher density development.
In the end, I think for the purpose of "urbanness," you have to dig a little deeper than just what the development gives you. I've said before, I think it would be wonderful if there was a way to find out the developed square footage of an area per square mile...because building density has as much or more to do with urbanity than population density.
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.
