Houston and Dallas Density Comparison (living in, residential, land)

[stoneclaw]

I always thought from what people said in the past that Dallas was denser than Houston but Houston's density level seemed to increase over the years to surpass Dallas's. I thought with Dallas being the smaller city in land area, it would be easier to become dense. Dallas's skyline is starting to appear denser and denser as the years pass with their addition of Uptown/Victory areas. Houston's skyline is starting to densify because its starting to fill up some of those surface lots existing downtown.

Can anyone confirm that this is info true?

Houston density 3701/sq mi
Dallas density 3605/sq mi

I would've put this in the smackdown thread but I want this to remain strictly about density. This is not intented for flamewars.

[Trainwreck20]

I assume that those numbers are residential density. In any case, the difference in the quoted numbers is statistically meaningless, which would be somewhat expected of two cities that have historically developed along the same time line. I am sure that there are different ways to crunch the data to make it more one way than the other.

[Guerilla]

Originally Posted by C2H (ComingtoHouston)

I always thought from what people said in the past that Dallas was denser than Houston but Houston's density level seemed to increase over the years to surpass Dallas's. I thought with Dallas being the smaller city in land area, it would be easier to become dense. Dallas's skyline is starting to appear denser and denser as the years pass with their addition of Uptown/Victory areas. Houston's skyline is starting to densify because its starting to fill up some of those surface lots existing downtown.

Can anyone confirm that this is info true?

Houston density 3701/sq mi
Dallas density 3605/sq mi

I would've put this in the smackdown thread but I want this to remain strictly about density. This is not intented for flamewars.

It is true. All you have to do is take the population and divide it by land area.

[stoneclaw]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

I assume that those numbers are residential density. In any case, the difference in the quoted numbers is statistically meaningless, which would be somewhat expected of two cities that have historically developed along the same time line. I am sure that there are different ways to crunch the data to make it more one way than the other.

I thought when population density was concerned, i thought that was the number of people living in the city limits per square mile, which would include residential.

Originally Posted by Guerilla

It is true. All you have to do is take the population and divide it by land area.

Thanks Guerilla !!!

[Guerilla]

That is a people per square mile, so yeah, residential.