Why is Density Now Limited to NE Corridor and California? (metro, Baltimore)
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.
Looking at 2010 Census data, just 46 cities are > 100,000 and > 6,500 people per sq mile. Of these 46, 41 are either in the NE Corridor or California, exceptions being Chicago, Seattle, Minneapolis, Miami, and Miami suburb Hialeah.
In 1950, by contrast, 59 cities met this criteria, and they were all over the country. Seattle and Minneapolis, outliers now, trailed Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, St Louis, Detroit, and even Dayton, OH. And it wasn't just industrial Midwestern cities that were dense, Tampa had nearly 7,000 people per sq mi, Phoenix was nearly as dense as Seattle.
Why has this density consolidation happened?
Couple ideas:
1. Economic Development - the Midwestern cities lost density because they lost people and jobs. Even Chicago has lost 1/3rd of its 1950 density. Plains/Midwestern cities west of Chicago, however, were far less impacted because they didn't boom pre-WW2 like those east of Chicago, and depended more on agribusiness which is harder to outsource and remains a net exporting industry. Moreover, unlike KC, Minneapolis didn't annex any land.
2. Water Proximity - SF, NY, Boston, Seattle, even LA in recent times - all have had to build up, because they ran out of space to build out and/or annex. Of the 46 cities > 6,500, only Chicago and Minneapolis are not near the coasts. The vast majority of America, west of the 77th Meridian where DC is, to the 118th where LA is, just two cities with more than 100,000 people and 6,500 people per sq mi.
Denver is close to this level if you knock out the land annexed for the airport, Metairie, LA (New Orleans suburb) is also close but is not incorporated.
3. Exports and Immigrants - in addition to reduced land, ocean port cities have shipping hubs that have led to large service industries, and greater exposure to exporting issues. Seattle is an obvious case with a port that sends tens of billions worth of Boeing hardware out to the rest of the world each year. But financial services in this country originally grew to serve shippers, and shipping across seas brought in more international immigrants and business people.
4. Spillover - nearly 2/3rds of the 46 cities > 6,500 ppsm are suburbs of NY, Boston, DC, SF, or LA. From Jersey City to Daly City, the densest big cities have spilled over into nearby manufacturing towns, which have added yuppie condos for easy commutes. Most of these spillover cities are not particularly wealthy, but they didn't get decimated like other industrial cities because they've found new lives as commuter hubs.
LA is a little unique in that it has fairly high population density, but more modest household density due to high household sizes driven by immigrants. Its density has increased since 1950, but its still less than 1/2 San Francisco's. Moreover, its household density is less than 3,000 ppsm, which is lower than Seattle's.
Ultimately, it seems density, which typically leads to walkability, comes down to large bodies of water (not just rivers) and economic development. And rail systems in Atlanta, Charlotte, Dallas, Houston, and Phoenix have done little to make them significantly more dense.
So is density always going to be a coastal phenomenon in this country? Am I off base?
Water is definitely a plus factor for mass transit accessibility. Probably because it limits roadway access. Look at the cities with multiple rail systems: NYC, Boston, Chicago, LA, Philly, SF. They're all on the water. Well, Denver and Salt Lake are the exceptions. How did they pull that off? Mountains, I guess.
Oceans and mountains create physical conditions which impose density as a city grows in size. Prior to widespread automobile ownership being paired up with good roads, oceans, mountains, and travel distance to jobs mandated density. Rivers just didn't create that kind of barrier after the late 1800s as bridges became easier to build.
Regarding LA's low density, remember that a sizable chunk of LA is a virtually uninhabited mountain range (Santa Monica Mountains).
Same situation applies to San Diego. Within the city there is a large, low population military base (MCAS Miramar, north-center of the city), and a large wilderness park (Mission Trails Park, center-east of the city).
TheseGo - Can you publish the two lists?
Another factor is the coastal (or near coastal) major cities have been getting denser since 2010
NY, SF, Miami, Boston, Seattle, and DC have all added around 1,000 people per sq mile this decade alone.
The only city west of DC and east of LA that's adding density at anywhere near 1,000 ppsm is Denver, and that's if you knock out the land annexed for the airport.
What you're not taking into account is the difference between city limits in different parts of the country.
In the Northeast, for example, essentially everywhere is incorporated. A city just can't annex a first-ring suburb without the consent of the suburb, which practically speaking will never happen. As a result, the square mileage of essentially all northeastern cities has been fixed since 1950, if not earlier. If population increases, density increases.
In contrast, in a lot of cities in the south and west (and some in the Midwest too, like Columbus or Kansas City) cities have open boundaries with unincorporated county land. Annexing this is much easier - generally you only need to have the consent of the property owner. The way this is generally done is to reach a deal with developers before the land is even built out, which captures suburbs as they are being constructed. Sometimes this involves offering access to city water in exchange for a willing annexation. In a few states land within a certain distance of city limits can be involuntarily annexed. Regardless, a fair amount of "urban" population growth is due to urban boundaries expanding, which means a city can grow in population without growing in density.
You could do a census-tract based measure: say population living in census tracts > 10,000 per square mile. Nearly all would be in the Northeast (including DC & northern Virginia), Illinois or California. Here are two list by metro for the Midwest and Northeast. You can see the Midwestern states besides Illinois are relative low. The Northeast list is by me, Midwest from here:
The top eleven metros:
Chicago - 2,584,931
Milwaukee - 252,711
Minneapolis-St. Paul -183,441
Cleveland - 98,090
Detroit - 70,371 (not counting Windsor)
St. Louis - 64,143
Columbus - 38,613
Madison - 36,029
Cincinnati - 34,703
Ann Arbor: 23,663
Champaign-Urbana: 23,331
New York City 10,406,357 (slightly less than half — 4,544,951 are living in census tracts of 50,000 per square mile and up)
Philadelphia 1,477,906
Boston 1,229,079
Washington DC 889,989
Baltimore 411,673
Providence 206,045
Bridgeport-Stamford 147,611
New Haven 145,979
Buffalo 136,247
Pittsburgh 107,272
Hartford 81,839
Allentown 73,031
Rochester 66,850
Worcester 59,803
Springfield, MA 56,835
Albany 50,646
Lancaster 48,439
Pittsburgh topography appears to make the totals lower than I'd expect; given its population & density I'd expect to be in between Baltimore and Providence.
If you look at global density numbers, American cities hardly register. The densest cities are places like Dhaka, Manila, and Mumbai.
Worldwide, density is correlated with lower incomes. This is because it is more expensive to provision services to spread out cities. However, as wealth increases, cities spread out and become less dense. People generally prefer more space, and if they can afford automobiles, their desire for space increases even more.
I think the location of dense core cities on the east coast and in the upper midwest is due to the pre-automobile urban growth of these cities. However since the automobile appeared, these cities have spread out a lot. The entire Boston metro area, as opposed to the core, is not dense at all.
Interestingly, the LA metro, famous for being spread out, is actually one of the most dense in the country. This is because the suburbs are more dense than suburbs elsewhere. This is most likely due to the desirability of the weather there and the geographical constraints on land. I think the density in California as a whole is mostly due to this combination of weather and limited land supply.
So in other words, I think in the US a geographical distinction between dense and sparse cities makes less sense than a historical distinction. Older cities are denser than newer cities.
Cities can also be dense because the population cannot afford suburban development.
In the case of older cities, they had their boom periods before mechanized transportation became common. So they were built with relatively high density.
Last edited by Tim Randal Walker; 03-13-2017 at 12:31 PM..
Or, in the case of older cities, they had their boom periods before mechanized transportation became common.
That doesn't explain a lot of the Midwest - Northeast difference. Nor does it explain why California is so high excluding San Francisco.
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.
