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 my post will respond to both your response to jluke and mine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeaconJ
What do you mean? The MSA isn't determined by developed land...it's determined by social and economic ties to the core city and commuting and employment patterns.
Atlanta isn't anymore "spread out" than Dallas, Houston, or Miami: Houston MSA density is 630/sq mi. Dallas MSA is 634/sq mi. Miami MSA is 890/sq mi. Atlanta MSA is 630/sq mi.
Understandable. But he and I are saying that the counties that make up the Houston area have not all been developed or they cannot be developed on. So it skews the numbers that you are posting a bit. Texas counties are a lot larger than Georgia counties so it's apples to oranges. Same thing with Miami. The majority of Dade county is unhabitable. Like Miami, parts of the metro area is swamp land that they will not touch.
Also, the MSA which I do realize is what we're talkign about. However, I got mixed up. I was thinking of the Urban Area population in which Houston and Dallas are a bit more compact than Atlanta.
Well my post will respond to both your response to jluke and mine.
Understandable. But he and I are saying that the counties that make up the Houston area have not all been developed or they cannot be developed on. So it skews the numbers that you are posting a bit. Texas counties are a lot larger than Georgia counties so it's apples to oranges. Same thing with Miami. The majority of Dade county is unhabitable. Like Miami, parts of the metro area is swamp land that they will not touch.
Also, the MSA which I do realize is what we're talkign about. However, I got mixed up. I was thinking of the Urban Area population in which Houston and Dallas are a bit more compact than Atlanta.
Every city has uninhabitable areas...Atlanta has them as well. That does not factor in the comparison of these cities. I also don't see any correlation between county size and development???
As far as urban area population...Dallas and Houston are slightly more compact than Atlanta - slightly...
Atlanta Urban Area: 1,962 sq mi; 3,500,000 pop; 1,783/sq mi.
Houston Urban Area: 1,294 sq mi; 3,823,000 pop; 2,951/sq mi.
Dallas: 1,406 sq mi; 4,200,000 pop; 2,946/sq mi.
I actually do see a correlation between county size and development to an extent. Not the be all true but if we're talking development and density for metro areas. It's best to use the UA definition because that's what the UA defines. The MSA skews the density numbers because parts of the MSA is not developed nor habitable. I believe most of Atlanta metro counties are developed. Could be wrong. However, again Georgia counties are tiny compared to Texas. Three Fulton counties can fit into Harris County. Then you have huge area counties in Montgomery, Fort Bend, and Chambers county which a good part is swamp.
Oh and I would already knew that Houston and Dallas was slightly more compact than Atlanta by the UA definition. But these numbers was as of 2000 so alot has probably changed.
Houston, at 10,062 square miles and a population density of 630/sq mi, certainly isn't anymore compact than Atlanta. It doesn't really matter how many areas are undeveloped - if they are included in the Houston Metro area then they are part of the Houston Metro area.
However, wouldn't you say it's sad how Atlanta is only 8,360 but yet it's density compares with Houston??? Same with city limits, Atl is only 131, yet Houston is 601 and they are both pretty close when it comes to density. It was just recent that ATL passed up Houston.
I'm not saying Houston is NYC or SF when it comes to density, but it's built like LA. Very compact and dense. Very small lots and tons of narrow streets. Parts of Harris County are SINKING which causes land to be taken away for development. Lets also not forget the Houston Port.
However, wouldn't you say it's sad how Atlanta is only 8,360 but yet it's density compares with Houston??? Same with city limits, Atl is only 131, yet Houston is 601 and they are both pretty close when it comes to density. It was just recent that ATL passed up Houston.
I'm not saying Houston is NYC or SF when it comes to density, but it's built like LA. Very compact and dense. Very small lots and tons of narrow streets. Parts of Harris County are SINKING which causes land to be taken away for development. Lets also not forget the Houston Port.
LA is much denser overall. Houston has much more room to grow.
I actually do see a correlation between county size and development to an extent. Not the be all true but if we're talking development and density for metro areas. It's best to use the UA definition because that's what the UA defines. The MSA skews the density numbers because parts of the MSA is not developed nor habitable. I believe most of Atlanta metro counties are developed. Could be wrong. However, again Georgia counties are tiny compared to Texas. Three Fulton counties can fit into Harris County. Then you have huge area counties in Montgomery, Fort Bend, and Chambers county which a good part is swamp.
Oh and I would already knew that Houston and Dallas was slightly more compact than Atlanta by the UA definition. But these numbers was as of 2000 so alot has probably changed.
There are large areas of the Atlanta Metro that are undeveloped and will never be developed - just like any other city. Houston isn't unique in that respect.
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.