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.
Seattle's urban neighborhoods are quite dense and very active with pedestrian life. These sights stand in sharp contrast to Seattle's more prevalent urban makeup: detached single family houses with large front and back yards -- a lifestyle that is defended tooth and nail by vehement NIMBYs who want all the benefits of living in a city while maintaining a very suburban / semi-rural lifestyle. Many North Seattle neighborhoods don't even have sidewalks.
I would say the population density numbers that have shocked me the most are some of the prominent midwest cities: Cleveland, Cincinatti, St. Louis, Detroit, etc. I believe the cities feel more dense/urban than the density numbers reveal. Also, Richmond VA suprises me because the city feels more dense to me than the population density numbers of 3,292.6 people per square mile. New Orleans is another city with suprisingly low population density numbers in my opinion.
That's because their built environment is much denser than the population that lives within it. All of those cities when at their peak populations had quite high population densities, notably higher than many cities that are peaking in population today. Some cities have very dense cores but are too large spatially so the density statistics get diluted. A classic example may be Richmond, VA, or Columbus, OH.
Atlanta's density is lower than that of the suburban Town of Hempstead in New York
But I'm sure you realize that density levels aren't consistent throughout the entire city...there are many areas of Atlanta that are quite densely populated - just like in any other city.
Hempstead NY is also more dense than Miami, Washington DC, Chicago, and most any major US city. At over 14K/square mile it's a very dense town...and no one ever said that a "suburban town" can't be densely populated, because many of them are.
Atlanta's census tracts topped out a 21,190/sm in 2010, for Tract 1202 in Midtown. That one is presumably much denser now. But a city of Altanta's size would normally have a denser peak. Cities with peak densities at least twice that include the obvious biggies plus LA, Seattle, Baltimore, Miami... Houston too but that's the jail.
Seattle's numbers have grown substantially on those lists -- the first two since some tracts have entered new categories according to State OFM statistics. Plus a little because the tracts grew even if they've stayed in the same category. Still way beyind the really dense cities of course.
Hempstead NY is also more dense than Miami, Washington DC, Chicago, and most any major US city. At over 14K/square mile it's a very dense town...and no one ever said that a "suburban town" can't be densely populated, because many of them are.
While it is very dense, Hempstead is not a "town" in the conventional sense as the other municipalities being compared here. Hempstead is a township consisting of 22 villages and 37 hamlets. One of Hempstead's hamlets is Levittown which is regarded by some as the prototype for American cookie-cutter suburban sprawl.
If Hempstead were to incorporate as a city, it would be the second largest in New York State.
That's because their built environment is much denser than the population that lives within it. All of those cities when at their peak populations had quite high population densities, notably higher than many cities that are peaking in population today. Some cities have very dense cores but are too large spatially so the density statistics get diluted. A classic example may be Richmond, VA, or Columbus, OH.
Exactly. They feel more urban/dense because of the built environment, which was built to hold many, many more people per square mile. On top of that, SOME of those cities' neighborhoods still are genuinely dense, or at least dense with people and activity (if not residents), so if you're in those areas, it all feels very much like the densely populated city it once was across the board.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,172,934 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by ABQConvict
While it is very dense, Hempstead is not a "town" in the conventional sense as the other municipalities being compared here. Hempstead is a township consisting of 22 villages and 37 hamlets. One of Hempstead's hamlets is Levittown which is regarded by some as the prototype for American cookie-cutter suburban sprawl.
If Hempstead were to incorporate as a city, it would be the second largest in New York State.
Just curious, given its density numbers (including Levittown), do those municipalities in Hempstead run into each other seamlessly?
Yes, but then Houston wouldn't get credit for being the "4th largest city in the US and gaining quick on Chicago." Can't have it both ways, Houstonians.
I'm surprised by how low Austin's is. Didn't realize it was that sprawlish.
Austin sprawls more than Houston AND DFW. Do people actually think they getting a slice of California with that town lol.
As far as Houston losing it's "4th largest city crown". It's better in the long run if they had less to manage with.
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.
