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.
The density stats show how our cities are doing, and how they're improving or getting worse. It's not just ego.
No, one metric doesn't tell the whole story. But for a whole bunch of reasons denser is better in my opinion -- in my case it's stuff like a preference for denser cities from a lifestyle and transportation perspective, the importance of slowing sprawl and using less resources, etc.
Austin has > 50k students and the vast majority of them live in areas well above 10k psqm. However, there aren't many other neighborhoods above that level. So 70-80k overall feels about right.
I am surprised St. Louis wouldn't have more, but then again 10k psqm is definitely quite dense, big city living. St. Louis doesn't have many people in the city limits at this point.
Now that make sense. 301k as of most recent census.
Orlando has a higher percentage of density than Atlanta?
Austin has a higher percentage of density than St. Louis?
Las Vegas ranks higher than DC?
My Density meter is way off when visiting these cities.
On the MSA level, it's going to cover a massive amount of land and probably include massive swaths that visitors and even most local residents would not end up seeing and commuter patterns and county sizes can dramatically alter the results. I'll also add that some of theses cities and metros have rapidly changed, most notably Austin.
On the MSA level, it's going to cover a massive amount of land and probably include massive swaths that visitors and even most local residents would not end up seeing and commuter patterns and county sizes can dramatically alter the results. I'll also add that some of theses cities and metros have rapidly changed, most notably Austin.
I think part of it is also that in much of the west, the land is really not very developable outside of the narrow strips where the cities are --- sometimes not even there. So developers in e.g. Las Vegas have to build relatively compact housing developments close to where existing development is, because if they built lower-density and farther out into the desert, they'd have to pay for water and roads all the way out there.
Also because of the harshness of the land, there typically aren't a lot of small towns around the cities. In the milder climates of the east (and a few western metros, like Seattle), those outlying towns do exist, and not only are they counted in the MSA, but low-density suburbia has sprung up around them. So all this adds up to the average suburban resident in a lot of western metros living in a higher-density census tract, even though their neighborhood is still heavily car-dependent and heavily use-segregated.
I mean, it's pretty much what we've been saying for the past 10 years now. Atlanta's urban core is denser than Houston's, but falls off big time outside of the core neighborhoods. Houston(and Dallas) maintain higher densities away from the urban core and throughout the metro area(though it doesn't really matter since it's suburban in nature anyways).
I don't know if this is the case anymore but also Atlanta's core neighborhoods aren't as big in land area so it's to keep densities up. I'll have to do some digging.
There's a renewed -really, never seen before urgency at this moment- Id would imagine this has to slow development and scale back projects at the very least, if not have some scrapped in the very near future.
Unlike the past 30 years, you've got the last 30 years of climate change already under the belt It gets more pressing more quickly each year. I do not expect Miami or anywhere really to grow as fast as it once did anyway...
Exactly, BostonBorn...
I could not have said it better myself.
The reality of what is "fast"-approaching does not go away much less get delayed just because myopic eyes and institutions are still financing, building and buying property in Miami and in the adjacent coastal lowlands.
None of that property or the accompanying mortgages will be worth the paper they are printed on when the failure of infrastructure that will occur begins to be revealed.
The total fertility rate of the US as a whole is 1.7 which doesn't support as much future population growth, even with more immigration.
Domestic migration, or lack thereof, will be a larger driver of future population trends. If rural areas and micropolitan area continue to shrink, I think that key urban areas could sustain another decade of decent growth as a result.
Exactly, BostonBorn...
I could not have said it better myself.
The reality of what is "fast"-approaching does not go away much less get delayed just because myopic eyes and institutions are still financing, building and buying property in Miami and in the adjacent coastal lowlands. None of that property or the accompanying mortgages will be worth the paper they are printed on when the failure of infrastructure that will occur begins to be revealed.
And when do you expect that to happen?
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.
2020 Census results...
