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.
i don't recall your claim to an urban degree or urban development, therefore, i will use my limited and as accurate working definition regarding urban sprawl as the one you decided to use. as this is by far no scientific poll, and used as a sounding board for entertainment, i should think that you are the one who shares and attempts to direct you pointless drivel. at any rate, nashville continues to suffer from a 51% density issue, because you must count people: not people, farm animals, nor cycaidias. you and your attempts to direct those on this board are irrelevant.
i don't recall your claim to an urban degree or urban development, therefore, i will use my limited and as accurate working definition regarding urban sprawl as the one you decided to use. as this is by far no scientific poll, and used as a sounding board for entertainment, i should think that you are the one who shares and attempts to direct you pointless drivel. at any rate, nashville continues to suffer from a 51% density issue, because you must count people: not people, farm animals, nor cycaidias. you and your attempts to direct those on this board are irrelevant.
That's nice (barely readable, but nice). You still made the statement that Nashville had the lowest density of any of the top 100 metros (which is downright false) and claimed to have the research "in hand." Yet you have posted nothing to back up this claim (you can't, because it isn't true).
When will you own up to it and admit you are wrong? My guess is never.
And what is a "51% density issue"? Do you just make this crap up?
nashvol, i doubt that you could hit the ground w/your hat, but you do your own research. it is posted from the direct source, it is posted at other locations, but i insist that you locate it, and get back to me w/ an apology. hope you will have enough reading comprehension to understand this note. now, get to work.
As always, Kingchef needs his facts checked. For one, Oklahoma City's metro is less dense than Nashville.
Nashville: 233/sq mile (1,600,358 in 6,868 sq miles)
OK City 208/sq mile (1,322,459 in 6,349 sq miles)
No one's arguing that Nashville's metro IS dense because it's not but this is LARGELY due to the inclusion of large but rural counties that drag down the numbers....consider this:
You could eliminate 8 counties from the MSA (trousdale, smith, macon, hickman, dickson, cheatham, robertson, and cannon) and lose only 243,054 people.
That brings the density up to 342 per sq mile.
1,357,304 in 3,965 sq miles
That's a much more accurate reflection of the true Nashville metropolitan area. The people who live in those other counties definitely rely on Nashville and its immediate suburbs for jobs but they aren't really connected to the city like the 5 core counties.
...and Oklahoma City, at over 600 square miles within the city limits, is the largest city geographically that isn't a consolidated city-county
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.
