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.
Ranked by density:
2. San Francisco-Oakland, CA UA: 6,130 ppsm
3. San Jose, CA UA: 5,914 ppsm
14. Miami, FL UA: 4,407 ppsm
San Francisco and San Jose are both extremely dense urban areas due to geographical restraints of not only the mountains surrounding them, but also the Bay right in the middle. However, South Florida in the coming years will probably become more dense as well as they have reached build-out levels due to the Everglades.
It says an awful lot about the Bay Area's urban density as a whole when the San Jose UA is greater than that of Miami's by approx 1,500 more ppsm.
Also, the BA is densifying at an even faster rate than South Florida. If I recall last census estimates, Miami metro grew by about 44,000 or so from last year while the BA grew by about 95,000 or so.
Regardless I was still impressed by Miami when I visited there.
Yes, Miami also has undevelopable areas right at the edge of its periphery as well.
Ya know, there was a thread in another website a few years ago where some dude from Europe made to-scale maps of urban areas and both Miami and the Bay Area were unbelievably HUGE in size due to the natural constraints(Like way bigger than DFW, Atlanta and Houston in terms of the actual extent of development) that force these areas to build in all directions instead of in one huge 'clump' like less constrained cities.
I voted for SF because the Bay Area is more dense, but its not like we're comparing NY and Elko--Miami is quite dense as well.
I too remember those maps about the urban areas. As much as people think how far the sprawl goes in Atlanta and Dallas and Houston, the extent of the sprawl for the bay area and Miami appeared to dwarf them.
Metropolitan areas
The following ranks United States metropolitan areas by the number of incorporated places with densities over 10,000 within them. If two or more metropolitan areas have the same number of incorporated places, as is the case of the eight metros with one place, the metro areas are ranked by the densest incorporated place within the metro area.
I too remember those maps about the urban areas. As much as people think how far the sprawl goes in Atlanta and Dallas and Houston, the extent of the sprawl for the bay area and Miami appeared to dwarf them.
But the sprawl in Miami and the Bay Area is what you call DENSE sprawl, similar to that of Los Angeles.
And its that dense sprawl that makes these metros seem bigger. Miami felt larger to me than say DFW because of the density. Of course DFW is the larger metro, but my perception sure didn't feel that way.
But the sprawl in Miami and the Bay Area is what you call DENSE sprawl, similar to that of Los Angeles.
Exactly, in cities like Miami and LA they might both have a lot of single family houses but they're so crammed together to the point where you can crawl through your neighbors window.
And its that dense sprawl that makes these metros seem bigger. Miami felt larger to me than say DFW because of the density. Of course DFW is the larger metro, but my perception sure didn't feel that way.
Your right, San Francisco and Miami both feel bigger than their populations would show.
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.
