Quote:
Originally Posted by LMich
Well, now it looks like I'm going to be picking, but even if you take the Urbanized Area of Atlanta, it's UA is only smaller than Chicago's (and not by much), and New York's, of course. It's also the least dense out of the top 20 or 30 so UA's. It really is in a league of its own in its sprawl:
Atlanta UA: 3,499,840 / 5,083.1 square kilometers / 1,783.3 people per square miles
Houston UA: 3,822,509 / 3354.7 square kilometers / 2,951.1 people per square miles
In fact, you have to go down to number 47 and 48 Charlotte and Nashville UA's before you find any less dense than Atlanta's, and both of there are barely less dense:
47. Charlotte UA: 1,745 ppsm
48: Nashville UA: 1,741 ppsm
Atlanta is singled out for good reason, as it is an anamoly when talking about this nation's largest metros and urban areas.
|
Good work...... Exactly as I thought, but interesting none the less.
It is quite obvious that terrain differences play a very large role in the density of what sprawl in the south.
Houston is built on flat more tightly packed areas (comparable to desert development in the west) and Atlanta has to provide ever nomadic winding roads in order to develop. One does not even need to have been to either of these cities to determine this, but rather a quick look at Google Earth unmistakably shows this.
There are certain trade offs and benefits. For example you gain density in Houston, but things look (by suburban comparative standards) less homogeneous in Atlanta.
I also think this leads to Houston being able to densify with greater ease as the market begins to demand.