Suburbs that are denser than the city?

[Obadno]

Tempe is denser than Phoenix, but Phoenix also has the Airport, hundreds of square miles of desert preserve parks and a huge area of undeveloped annexed land on the north end which artificially tanks its density.

But no matter how you cut it the area of North Tempe around Arizona State/Mill Ave is denser than the densest parts of Phoenix.

[PhilliesPhan]

Millbourne is actually the densest municipality in PA, with a population density of over 17,000 ppsm. In contrast, the City of Philadelphia has a population density of about 11,700+ ppsm.

Since Millbourne on the other side of Cobbs Creek, it functions as an extension of West Philly.

[DetroitSky]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Interesting. Even with all the urban prairies not a single (real) suburb is denser than Detroit. Which one comes closer?

But now converting sqm to sqkm, Detroit is still quite dense: 1,900 inh/km2. Detroit urban area density is at 1,000 inh/km2 and I guess US typical suburb is at 500 inh./km2 or so.

Actually I was mistaken. I looked more into it and Ferndale, Royal Oak and Oak Park are all denser than Detroit at over 5000 people per square mile each.

[FtGreeneNY]

For Philly:

Millbourne, PA: 17,417.5/sq mi
East Lansdowne, PA: 12,940.7/sq mi
Darby, PA: 12,691.3/sq mi
Philadelphia, PA: 11,797 sq mi

They're all streetcar towns and/or have subway (el) stops and abut the city and essentially abut each other.

[Minato Ku]

For Paris, France

Levallois-Perret: 26,827.4/km² - 69 520.4/sq mi
Vincennes: 26,089.5/km² - 67,613.3/sq mi
Le Pré-Saint-Gervais: 25,750.0/km² - 66,759.3/sq mi
Saint-Mandé: 23,745.6/km² - 61,538.0/sq mi
Montrouge: 23,627.5/km² - 61,212.8/sq mi
City of Paris: 21,258.3/km² - 55,058.8/sq mi

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Berwyn, Cicero, and Elmwood Park are all a little bit denser than Chicago is overall.

in reality, they are all just bog-standard west side bungalow belt neighborhoods that simply never got annexed by the city, so today they are considered "suburbs".

Had they been annexed by the city as they probably should have, they would just be "city neighborhoods" today, and no one would bat an eyelash at that classification.

At around 13,000 - 14,000 ppsm, they don't come close to matching Chicago's urban core density, which is more in the 25,000 - 35,000 ppsm range.

How much of an impact does ORD have on Chicago's density? It's a pretty big appendage.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by JManc

How much of an impact does ORD have on Chicago's density? It's a pretty big appendage.

ORD is quite large in land area. Its so big it has its own community area with 13 sq. miles of land and zero population.

There is also an even bigger contiguous chunk of uninhabbitted land on the far southeast side: the Lake Calumet industrial zone. This 18 sq. mile chunk of land was once the beating blue collar heart of industrial Chicago, but today is apex rustbelt with vast tracts of now vacant industrial sites, slag fields, land fills, and other throw away land with nary a soul living there. There are places down there that you simply cannot accept as being within the city limits of a major US city.

If you take those two giant hunks of land out of the population density calculation, then Chicago's average density would be bumped up to around 13,800 ppsm.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Tempe is denser than Phoenix, but Phoenix also has the Airport, hundreds of square miles of desert preserve parks and a huge area of undeveloped annexed land on the north end which artificially tanks its density.

But no matter how you cut it the area of North Tempe around Arizona State/Mill Ave is denser than the densest parts of Phoenix.

Tempe is probably the only example so far of a large suburb that is comprehensively denser & more urban than the main city.

All the of the rest we've seen are just small, residential municipalities that are on par with fairly average neighbourhoods within their respective metros (just without all the non-residential land uses); and which otherwise lack the peak density of the main city.

Eg. Guttuenburg, NJ - the densest municipality in North America. Nowhere near as dense as the residential parts of NYC or even some of the neighbouring NJ cities, but it's like 4 blocks wide and has a single park, one school, a few shops, no highways or rail corridors, no industry or commercial districts. Not hard to get to a seemingly high density of 22,052/km² in a moderately-dense residential track of 0.5 sqkm: https://goo.gl/maps/nQ6a8tFJbpw1SSgh7

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Tempe is probably the only example so far of a large suburb that is comprehensively denser & more urban than than the main city.

And Tempe is a huge college town. Census tracts with student population will generally have higher density than the Sunbelt norm.

[mrnyc]

western lakewood, the density champ of ohio, is around twice as dense as cleveland proper these days --- and eastern cle hts is a bit more dense as well.

these healthy inner suburban bookends are the intact examples of what cle used to be density-wise --- and somewhat looks-wise as well.


clev
5,107.0/sq mi (1,971.8/km2)

lakewood
9,426.9/sq mi (3,639.7/km2)

cle hts
5,700/sq mi (2,200/km2)

[jpdivola]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

.. For the most part though, these aren't really "denser" than the main city, they're just geographically small, mostly-residential land with little commercial or other uses to drag down the density numbers.

Yeah, these density comparisons really highlight the shortcomings of using municipal density figures as a proxy from urbanism/vibrancy.

I tend to think of 3 categories when it comes to urban suburbs:
1) Places that are genuinely more urban than the core city:. Tempe AZ or maybe Miami Beach.
2) Places that are functionally part of the urban core, but are technically separate municipalities: Cambridge Ma is probably the prime example.
3) Inner Ring Suburbs that are technically denser on average than the city, but in practice are on par with an putter city neighborhood. Cicero Il, Langley Park Md, maybe Everett Ma.

The only two examples I can think of where the suburb is

[Cory]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

lakewood
9,426.9/sq mi (3,639.7/km2)

densest city in between nyc and chicago?

edit: i guess philly is in between also.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Cory

densest city in between nyc and chicago?

edit: i guess philly is in between also.

As are DC, Miami, and a few other suburbs.

[Austin55]

Fort Worth's city limit are a sprawled mess full of farmland, industry, floodplains, lakes, suburban style development and highways so the city is not that dense at all, 2,181.0/sq mi . This means that several suburbs in Tarrant County are more dense than Fort Worth. Arlington ( 3,810/sq mi) is perhaps the most notable. Bedford (4,700/sq mi) might be the densest large city in the county, but it's basically just a fully built out suburb, no real urbanity to it. Tarrant County is not very dense anywhere but some tiny pockets.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Cory

densest city in between nyc and chicago?

edit: i guess philly is in between also.

Hamtramck, MI has a density of around 10,400. It's a "suburb" of Detroit but basically a Detroit neighborhood that never got annexed, and stayed reasonably intact.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Hamtramck, MI has a density of around 10,400. It's a "suburb" of Detroit but basically a Detroit neighborhood that never got annexed, and stayed reasonably intact.

its also half the area of lakewood at 2.1 sq mi vs 5.5 of lakewood. the eastern half of lakewood has at least that density, likely more.

the guttenberg's of michigan and ohio.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Cory

densest city in between nyc and chicago?

edit: i guess philly is in between also.

So is Toronto.

[mrnyc]

^ lol, how about dhaka?

remember we are talking five and half square miles for lakewood. and less than half that for hamtramck. very nice places, and perhaps lessons to be learned, although i doubt it because they are just old direct extensions of peak development eras in their cities, but anyway its not enough area or total population to get too excited about.

interesting thread topic though.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

^ lol, how about dhaka?

remember we are talking five and half square miles for lakewood. and less than half that for hamtramck. very nice places, and perhaps lessons to be learned, although i doubt it because they are just old direct extensions of peak development eras in their cities, but anyway its not enough area or total population to get too excited about.

interesting thread topic though.

Hamtramck's population decline is similar to Detroit's. Hamtramck is at about 38% of peak population and Detroit is at about 36% of peak. Hamtramck's peak density was about 27,000 ppsm.

[mousquet]

Originally Posted by Minato Ku

For Paris, France

Levallois-Perret: 26,827.4/km² - 69 520.4/sq mi
Vincennes: 26,089.5/km² - 67,613.3/sq mi
Le Pré-Saint-Gervais: 25,750.0/km² - 66,759.3/sq mi
Saint-Mandé: 23,745.6/km² - 61,538.0/sq mi
Montrouge: 23,627.5/km² - 61,212.8/sq mi
City of Paris: 21,258.3/km² - 55,058.8/sq mi

Lol at Levallois. Their mayor is a damn Conservative thug currently stuck in jail. That's how the town has been so populated and desirable.
He and his wife are quite better off, easy millionaires, and those 2 bastards don't pay their taxes. That's unfair.
Their management of Levallois has also been quite questionable. It is the most indebted municipality of the entire country. Every single dweller in Levallois is in an almost €10k debt because of their mayor, that's just irresponsible. But they don't care about their debt and still fancy their mayor. As if they would never have to pay for it.
Dumb Fr people believe public money grows like leaves on trees. They are completely irresponsible in that respect.

That said, I find it shocking that local judges would jail the poor old thug only for tax evasion. I mean what the hell? It's not like he'd be any dangerous murderer. He's only an old frivolous Frenchman that doesn't care at all.
They should've sentenced him to pay the state back for what he owes it, in addition to a huge fine to punish him. He would've had it coming.
But seriously, locking up an old sick man in prison for tax evasion is backward justice from the Middle Ages. It is disturbing and downright shameful.