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.
Miami's urban area is the 4th largest in the USA.
People on C-D dismiss Miami all the time but, whatever.
I have never heard that before, do you have a link that shows it is the 4th largest urban area because I am not sure if you mean the city density or the density of a specific part of Miami?
I have never heard that before, do you have a link that shows it is the 4th largest urban area because I am not sure if you mean the city density or the density of a specific part of Miami?
This includes the entire contiguous urbanized area and the overall density.
For comparison, Miami proper's density per 2012 Census estimates is 11,539 ppl/sm based on its 35.87 square miles of land. To put Miami's latest numbers in perspective, Miami proper's density was 10,105 ppl/sm in 2000. Miami has increased its density by over 1400 ppl/sm in the 12 years since 2000. That's essentially a density increase of more than 100 ppl/sm per year. Are there any other cities in the US that can claim that sort of density increase? I am not sure.
Location: NYC based - Used to Live in Philly - Transplant from Miami
2,307 posts, read 2,766,054 times
Reputation: 2610
I personally agree with rnc2mbfl. Miami is always dismissed when people compared DT to DT.
I live in Philly now, and I always feel that if they mention Philly, they should also mention Miami.
I personally feel that DT Miami is denser than Center City Philly.
And yes, I lived in Midtown Miami and now live in Center City Philly. So I know what I am talking about
This includes the entire contiguous urbanized area and the overall density.
For comparison, Miami proper's density per 2012 Census estimates is 11,539 ppl/sm based on its 35.87 square miles of land. To put Miami's latest numbers in perspective, Miami proper's density was 10,105 ppl/sm in 2000. Miami has increased its density by over 1400 ppl/sm in the 12 years since 2000. That's essentially a density increase of more than 100 ppl/sm per year. Are there any other cities in the US that can claim that sort of density increase? I am not sure.
Well, looking at what cities added how many people in the inner 35 square miles, I suspect Miami is definitely up there, but I'm not sure if it would be first or not. DC, Boston, Seattle, New York... even LA, maybe Portland, SF and Denver could come close (maybe?)...
Ex.
For a core area of 35.5 square miles in Seattle, the population went from
2000: 276,968
2010: 305,507
I guess that's less than Miami but still relatively close.
A similar sized area in LA might have around 650,000-700,000 people. Not growing much from 2000 to 2010, since while Downtown grew, other adjacent neighbourhoods lost population (gentrification?). South and West LA have been growing though, and are still pretty dense by Miami standards.
A gap of 250,000-300,000 in the 35 square miles will take a while to close. At 500 per month, even if LA's 35 square miles were not growing, it would take 40-50 years.
Los Angeles isn't exactly standing pat either, there are close to 8000 housing units/uc in DTLA alone, plus a few thousand more within its core 35 sq miles. We'll be pushing daisies if and when Miami catches up.
Los Angeles isn't exactly standing pat either, there are close to 8000 housing units/uc in DTLA alone, plus a few thousand more within its core 35 sq miles. We'll be pushing daisies if and when Miami catches up.
If one took the most dense 35 square miles of Miami, it would trade some of the developed suburban areas for Miami Beach and other waterside locations. Miami Beach, even with tons of its housing counted as residentless due to them being second or third homes, is still more densely populated than Miami itself.
If one took the most dense 35 square miles of Miami, it would trade some of the developed suburban areas for Miami Beach and other waterside locations. Miami Beach, even with tons of its housing counted as residentless due to them being second or third homes, is still more densely populated than Miami itself.
Even then I don't think it is denser than Los Angeles' core, or will be any time soon. Miami is booming no doubt, but Los Angeles is now approaching boom status as well (if it isn't already in it). Ray would know the exact number but there are almost two dozen "high rises" under construction in Los Angeles, most of them downtown.
I personally agree with rnc2mbfl. Miami is always dismissed when people compared DT to DT.
I live in Philly now, and I always feel that if they mention Philly, they should also mention Miami.
I personally feel that DT Miami is denser than Center City Philly.
And yes, I lived in Midtown Miami and now live in Center City Philly. So I know what I am talking about
Miami isn't denser than Philly. Miami has one small census tract that's more dense than any tract in Philly but that density in Miami drops off very quickly.
A lot of urbanists have this strong skyscraper fetish that I just don't get. The densest census tract in Philadelphia is around 63,000 ppsm and that's here (note that the tallest buildings in the image are hotels. https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9487...jufkt0GwWw!2e0
The 2nd densest is right next door in Center City and as with most of CC it's a mix of high, low, and mid-rise buildings. The 3rd densest in Philly is around 53,000 ppsm and doesn't have any residential building over 4 stories and really not that many over 2 stories. It's all about a low vacancy rate and a large average household size. https://www.google.com/maps/place/18...033cb6!6m1!1e1
Those dense tracts of 25-30k just keep going in Philly and only dip below 15k when you find a tract with a large warehouse/industrial presence or one that's especially bombed out.
The densest tracts in Miami are along Brickell Ave. with the densest topping out at 77,000 but it's tiny and actually only houses around 2,800 people. There are a few other adjacent tracts that are above 20k but even when you add up all of those dense tracts it's still struggling to pass 15,000 total people and the density quickly drops to the north and south to 6-10,000 ppsm. Meanwhile, just to the west in Little Havana at ~32,000 https://www.google.com/maps/place/Mi...96f271ddad4f65
In Miami Beach you get a few tiny census tracts along the Bay with densities in the 40-50k range but it's not sustained and most of Miami Beach falls into the 12-22k range.
San Francisco's densest census tract comes in at ~160,000 ppsm and the next two densest are right next to it (both over 125k) and nary a high rise to be found. If you pan around in this streetview image you'll see a tower but not only is it not in this census tract - it's not even in the top 10 densest tracts (and the tower is a hotel anyway). https://www.google.com/maps/place/Jo...bdf037!6m1!1e1
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.
