MSA vs. Urbanized Area - Which statistics represents the true size of a city (city hall, calculation)

[Maintainschaos]

Originally Posted by the Instigator

Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold on just a minute, are you actually telling me NYC is the most sprawly metro well I'll be a monkey's uncle

Urban area sprawl isn't just about area covered, it's also about people per area:

Los Angeles UA: 6999 people / sq mi
New York City UA: 5319 people / sq mi
Chicago UA: 3524 people / sq mi
Washington UA: 3470 people / sq mi
Houston UA: 2979 people / sq mi
Dallas UA: 2879 people / sq mi
Detroit UA: 2793 people / sq mi
Philadelphia UA: 2747 people / sq mi
Boston UA: 2232 people / sq mi
Atlanta UA: 1707 people / sq mi

[Newsboy]

Why am I getting the feeling this thread was created just to **** on Atlanta?

[DevanXL]

I take urban Area. Seattles urban area population is 3.5 million with a density of almost 8000 but the Metro is 3.9 million with a density of only 1000 or less. This is because 30 miles east of the city is the Cascade mountain foothills and anything west of the puget sound is Low density towns that require a ferry to take them into the city. The Population is the Seattle area is pressed into a small area and the Metro statistics make the area seem like country sprawl. No one who lives close the the cascades considers themselves part of Seattle so I don't know why they count in the Metro.

[AZLiam]

Originally Posted by DevanXL

I take urban Area. Seattles urban area population is 3.5 million with a density of almost 8000 but the Metro is 3.9 million with a density of only 1000 or less. This is because 30 miles east of the city is the Cascade mountain foothills and anything west of the puget sound is Low density towns that require a ferry to take them into the city. The Population is the Seattle area is pressed into a small area and the Metro statistics make the area seem like country sprawl. No one who lives close the the cascades considers themselves part of Seattle so I don't know why they count in the Metro.

While I agree that urban area is a better way of representing the true size of a city, I'm wondering where you are getting your figures. I believe you accidentally typed an 8 instead of a 3. According to the 2010 Census Bureau, the Seattle urban area's population is 3,059, 393 and it's density is around 3,028 per sq mile.

List of United States urban areas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Cowboys fan in Houston]

Originally Posted by Newsboy

Why am I getting the feeling this thread was created just to **** on Atlanta?

It's called paranoia. I hear Zoloft is good for that.

[kidphilly]

Originally Posted by Maintainschaos

Urban area sprawl isn't just about area covered, it's also about people per area:

Los Angeles UA: 6999 people / sq mi
New York City UA: 5319 people / sq mi
Chicago UA: 3524 people / sq mi
Washington UA: 3470 people / sq mi
Houston UA: 2979 people / sq mi
Dallas UA: 2879 people / sq mi
Detroit UA: 2793 people / sq mi
Philadelphia UA: 2747 people / sq mi
Boston UA: 2232 people / sq mi
Atlanta UA: 1707 people / sq mi

Though to look at density I think weighted density is probably a better measure. This excludes non inhabited areas like parks, airports, mountians etc.

The 50 densest American metropolitan areas, by weighted density - Austin Contrarian

I think there is one calculated for UA as well

UA to me is probably the best barometer for size as it measures a form of continuity excluding exurban areas or detached areas.

None are pefect but UA is probably the best size metric

[kidphilly]

Here is the UA weighted density calculations

ranked from most dense to least dense:


Density calculations for U.S. urbanized areas, weighted by census tract - Austin Contrarian


And yes Atlanata is notably low on both standard and weighted density

[kidphilly]

Originally Posted by DevanXL

I take urban Area. Seattles urban area population is 3.5 million with a density of almost 8000 but the Metro is 3.9 million with a density of only 1000 or less. This is because 30 miles east of the city is the Cascade mountain foothills and anything west of the puget sound is Low density towns that require a ferry to take them into the city. The Population is the Seattle area is pressed into a small area and the Metro statistics make the area seem like country sprawl. No one who lives close the the cascades considers themselves part of Seattle so I don't know why they count in the Metro.

Based on urban area Seattle has a 2010 population of ~3.4 million and a weighted density of ~4,700 ppsm

Standard density of the UA was ~2,800 (2000 data, the calculation is not in the link for 2010)

The 50 densest American metropolitan areas, by weighted density - Austin Contrarian

[AZLiam]

Originally Posted by kidphilly

Based on urban area Seattle has a 2010 population of ~3.4 million and a weighted density of ~4,700 ppsm

Standard density of the UA was ~2,800 (2000 data, the calculation is not in the link for 2010)

The 50 densest American metropolitan areas, by weighted density - Austin Contrarian

I think your link above lists metropolitan populations, not urban area populations.

[kidphilly]

Originally Posted by AZLiam

I think your link above lists metropolitan populations, not urban area populations.

Yes- the one link is - there is another based on UA but is 2000 data

will look to see if the 2010 exists