The US Census Bureau thread - Page 93

mhays · #**1841** Posted **May 27, 2018, 6:39 PM**

Let's list some of the top core municipalities by change in population density. Ranked by change in density. Missing some of course.

City, 2017 density
Miami 12,874
San Fran 18,860
DC 11,367
New York 28,491
Seattle 8,641
Boston 14,149
Denver 4,595
Atlanta 3,650
Portland 4,870

City, 2010 density
Miami 11,101
San Fran 17,172
DC 9,857
New York 27,012
Seattle 7,233
Boston 12,758
Denver 3,912
Atlanta 3,156
Portland 4,389

City, growth, Wikipedia square mileage
Miami 1,773 in 35.99 square miles
San Fran 1,688 in 46.89 square miles
DC 1,510 in 61.05 square miles
New York 1,479 in 302.643 square miles
Seattle 1,408 in 83.97 square miles
Boston 1,391 in 48.42 square miles
Denver 707 in 153.33 square miles (would be over 1,000 with the airport omitted)
Atlanta 494 in 133.2 square miles
Portland 481 in 133 square miles (would be around 600 minus wilderness)

jd3189 · #**1842** Posted **May 27, 2018, 9:12 PM**

Nice to Miami densifying even when it was at a high level compared to its Southern peers. I've been telling you guys South Florida isn't just low-density sprawl.

And the usut group of NYC, SF, and Boston are still adding people.

Any data on LA? I would assume it's getting denser these days.

mhays · #**1843** Posted **May 27, 2018, 10:03 PM**

Some others:

2017 density:
Minneapolis: 7,693
Tampa: 3,398
LA: 8,533
Dallas: 3,939
Columbus: 4,048
Houston: 3,857

2010 density:
Minneapolis: 6,969
Tampa: 2,961
LA: 8,091
Dallas: 3,518
Columbus: 3,633
Houston: 3,493

City density growth, with Wikipedia land square miles:
Minneapolis: 724 in 54.9 square miles
Tampa: 458 in 113.42 square miles
LA: 424 in 468.74 square miles
Dallas: 421 in 340.5 square miles
Columbus: 415 in 217.17 square miles
Houston: 364 in 599.59 square miles

jtown,man · #**1844** Posted **May 28, 2018, 8:41 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhays

Let's list some of the top core municipalities by change in population density. Ranked by change in density. Missing some of course.

City, 2017 density
Miami 12,874
San Fran 18,860
DC 11,367
New York 28,491
Seattle 8,641
Boston 14,149
Denver 4,595
Atlanta 3,650
Portland 4,870

City, 2010 density
Miami 11,101
San Fran 17,172
DC 9,857
New York 27,012
Seattle 7,233
Boston 12,758
Denver 3,912
Atlanta 3,156
Portland 4,389

City, growth, Wikipedia square mileage
Miami 1,773 in 35.99 square miles
San Fran 1,688 in 46.89 square miles
DC 1,510 in 61.05 square miles
New York 1,479 in 302.643 square miles
Seattle 1,408 in 83.97 square miles
Boston 1,391 in 48.42 square miles
Denver 707 in 153.33 square miles (would be over 1,000 with the airport omitted)
Atlanta 494 in 133.2 square miles
Portland 481 in 133 square miles (would be around 600 minus wilderness)

Thank you! *This* is the most exciting news from any census for me... Some great numbers there.

mhays · #**1845** Posted **May 28, 2018, 7:19 PM**

Me too, thanks.

subterranean · #**1846** Posted **Jun 1, 2018, 4:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bnk

City limits are a poor measure. We should all know that Houston city limits are much larger in size than most every other city in America save Anchorage or the famed skyline of Jacksonville Florida with their esteemed bridges that are lit up at night. The MSA or metro region is a better way of determine the true size and influence of our great megalopolises.

Dying.

Anyway, I'm a bit disappointed with the Portland numbers. For all the talk of explosive growth, newspaper articles about traffic, and the fear about midrise infill changing neighborhoods, you'd think we were growing much faster than we are. In reality, we're just kind of meh.

JManc · #**1847** Posted **Jun 1, 2018, 5:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bnk

Houston city limits are in Sq miles is huge.

No joke. We own two houses (one in NE Houston and the other by NASA in SE Houston) both in the City of Houston. 52 miles apart.

Obadno · #**1848** Posted **Jun 1, 2018, 7:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician

More miles and miles of worthless tract housing accessible only by car, nothing worth remembering, nothing anybody will ever care about. Damn!

I would think Phoenix city growth is mostly in the central city, the only unbuilt areas in the city limits are Mountain Preserves and large tracts of empty desert with far more restrictive land use than in previous decades.

If you are really worried about sprawl (which I've said a million times isn't going anywhere and happens in every metro area even Chicago, NY, DC etc.) it would be cities like Glendale, Gilbert, Peoria, Surprise etc.

Buckeye is fast growing that's legitimately far out on the edge of the metro but its a small town of only 65k in an area of ~5 million.

dubu · #**1849** Posted **Jun 1, 2018, 7:21 PM**

oregon isnt cheep and theres not enough housing, it probably wont grow much more

Obadno · #**1850** Posted **Jun 1, 2018, 7:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhays

Let's list some of the top core municipalities by change in population density. Ranked by change in density. Missing some of course.

City, 2017 density
Miami 12,874
San Fran 18,860
DC 11,367
New York 28,491
Seattle 8,641
Boston 14,149
Denver 4,595
Atlanta 3,650
Portland 4,870

City, 2010 density
Miami 11,101
San Fran 17,172
DC 9,857
New York 27,012
Seattle 7,233
Boston 12,758
Denver 3,912
Atlanta 3,156
Portland 4,389

City, growth, Wikipedia square mileage
Miami 1,773 in 35.99 square miles
San Fran 1,688 in 46.89 square miles
DC 1,510 in 61.05 square miles
New York 1,479 in 302.643 square miles
Seattle 1,408 in 83.97 square miles
Boston 1,391 in 48.42 square miles
Denver 707 in 153.33 square miles (would be over 1,000 with the airport omitted)
Atlanta 494 in 133.2 square miles
Portland 481 in 133 square miles (would be around 600 minus wilderness)

Where did you get his data? id like to check out my hometown for current estimates vs what I see on the ground.

mhays · #**1851** Posted **Jun 1, 2018, 7:31 PM**

https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/...es/index.xhtml to look up populations. (It's a very poorly designed site...to get "Cleveland" you have to say "cleveland city" because otherwise it'll give you a choice of three counties with that name. From there see "2017 Population Estimates Program".)

I used wikipedia for land areas.

Obadno · #**1852** Posted **Jun 1, 2018, 7:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhays

https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/...es/index.xhtml to look up populations. (It's a very poorly designed site...to get "Cleveland" you have to say "cleveland city" because otherwise it'll give you a choice of three counties with that name. From there see "2017 Population Estimates Program".)

I used wikipedia for land areas.

Yeah we always get dinged here because huge areas of the "city" are city preserves, riverbed and large empty nothing in the northern "city limits"

Our density still isn't high but its higher than the pop/square miles division would indicate.

They have the "urban area" measure but I don't know if that methodology is entirely accurate either.

Steely Dan · #**1853** Posted **Jun 1, 2018, 8:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obadno

Yeah we always get dinged here because huge areas of the "city" are city preserves, riverbed and large empty nothing in the northern "city limits"

that is one reason why straight-up population/city limits land area calcs can be poor as a comparison tool.

in chicago's case, we have two major international airports inside city limits that take up 14 sq. miles of completely uninhabited land.

additionally, on the far south side there's the lake calumet industrial area which is inside city limits and consists of 18 sq. miles of uninhabited industrial wastelands.

that's 32 sq. miles of uninhabitted land in chicago right there. that's nearly the size of the entire city of miami!

many of the smaller cities with tighter city limits don't include things like giant airports or more than a dozen sq. miles of industrial wastelands, so their average density figures look better on paper.

weighted density figures, which typically look at smaller geographies like census tracts, and then weight the tracts where more people live more heavily, work much better as a comparison tool.

JManc · #**1854** Posted **Jun 1, 2018, 8:10 PM**

Comparing city proper density/ areas is apples and oranges because some cities can eat up their surrounding suburbs and absorb outlying infrastructure (Houston) where as others, usually smaller (in footprint), cannot and are landlocked by other municipalities. My community was sucked up by Houston in 1996.

If you look at a map of Houston's city limits, you think it was something a 3 year-old on speed scribbled on a sheet of paper.

Denvergotback · #**1855** Posted **Jun 1, 2018, 8:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

that is one reason why straight-up population/land area calcs can be poor as a comparison tool.

in chicago's case, we have two major international airports inside city limits that take up 14 sq. miles of completely uninhabited land.

additionally, on the far south side there's the lake calumet industrial area which is inside city limits and consists of 18 sq. miles of uninhabited industrial wastelands.

that's 32 sq. miles of uninhabitted land in chicago right there. that's nearly the size of the entire city of miami!

many of the smaller cities with tighter city limits don't include things like giant airports or more than a dozen sq. miles of industrial wastelands, so their average density figures look better on paper.

weighted density figures, which typically look at smaller geographies like census tracts, and then weight the tracts where more people live more heavily, work much better as a comparison tool.

That is the same problem Denver has, Denver international Airport is a whopping 54.4 Square miles large! That is double the size of Manhattan!

Vlajos · #**1856** Posted **Jun 1, 2018, 8:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denvergotback

That is the same problem Denver has, Denver international Airport is a whopping 54.4 Square miles large! That is double the size of Manhattan!

Denver IA is in the city? Holy crap is that place far away.

Tuckerman · #**1857** Posted **Jun 1, 2018, 9:40 PM**

Yes density is tricky because it varies so much across any metro area, especially in those like Atlanta where the "city of Atlanta" has less than10% of the metro population. The huge ATL airport is not incorporated into the city. Parts of the city, e.g Midtown and the Buckhead business area have very high density, as does some edge areas like Perimeter. But Buckhead also has many houses (if mansions can be so-called) that each occupy many acres. Clearly it is easier to assess density in older cities that had a pattern of development before the auto. Nonetheless, the density of most US cities is very low compared to Asian or European cities.
It is always amazing to see how dense a typical European city of say 4-600.000 appears compared to the same in the US.

Steely Dan · #**1858** Posted **Jun 1, 2018, 9:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Denver IA is in the city? Holy crap is that place far away.

interestingly, DEN isn't much further from denver's CBD than ORD is from the loop, and ORD is in chicago city limits too.

DEN to denver cbd: 18.3 miles

ORD to the loop: 15.7 miles

i think DEN "feels" so way the hell out there, because it's not surrounded by metro area sprawl the way that ORD is, at least not yet.

i mean, the drive out there is like going through some kind of moonscape wasteland: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8296...7i13312!8i6656

Tuckerman · #**1859** Posted **Jun 1, 2018, 9:46 PM**

Just one more note of curiosity re my post above. The entirety of central Florence can fit inside one of Atlanta's major expressway interchanges. cf.https://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/06/...a-interchange/

Obadno · #**1860** Posted **Jun 1, 2018, 10:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuckerman

Just one more note of curiosity re my post above. The entirety of central Florence can fit inside one of Atlanta's major expressway interchanges. cf.https://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/06/...a-interchange/

LOL that is a cool factoid but that intro: "t’s incredible how much we’ve given up in the United States all so we can travel slightly faster by car"

Okay Mr. blogman, Atlanta didn't tear down FLORNCE to build that highway, that's an entirely absurd thing to say. If that highway was never built that area would be suburban housing or rural woods.