Do you think New Orleans CAN become a larger city than it is now? (Delta: sales, houseboats)

[saint41]

Originally Posted by WestbankNOLA

That's a misconception though, a huge misconception. There is nothing safe about sprawl as some of the most sprawled out metros are the most dangerous, while NYC on the other hand is one of the safest large cities in the country. I honestly don't understand how people are naive enough to buy that.

If that's the case then why is Houston is ranked lower in the Crime Rankings?

[saint41]

Originally Posted by annie_himself

Houstons city limits have nothing to do with metro popatuon. Inner city Houston has an "urban" feel to me.

Like Blackandgold51 said before,

Atlanta and Houston both have 5 million people in their metro, and both have similar population density, neither one feels or looks bigger than the other. On the other hand, Houston has a much larger listed (keyword: listed) city population than my city, Baltimore(I've been living in baltimore before Katrina happened), but Baltimore is much more congested with a higher population density and more urban feel. In othe words, more people live within the same square mile.

The most dense city in the south is Miami by far.

The city limit population alone lots of time doesnt tell you the whole story. Houston is only the 4th largest city in america due to the fact that Houston was able to annex nearby land that some other cities were not. In other words, if you go to all cities and form 15-20 mile radius around the city, Houston wouldnt be close to first. If you want to know how urban a city feels you have to look at the population density.

[saint41]

Originally Posted by WestbankNOLA

About 2 million people live in the city limits of Houston with another 4,000,000 outside of it, while there are about 500,000 people in the city limits of Atlanta. New Orleans is only 200,000 people short of Atlanta by city pop. and was actually larger than Atlanta 10 years ago. The difference is that Atlanta has an extra 4,000,000 people in its suburbs. Just like Boston has a population of 600,000, but a another 3,400,000 living outside of it. Both Baltimore and D.C. have 600,000 people with 1,400,000 on the outskirts of Baltimore and 4,400,000 outside of Washington. It's really not that much of a difference since regardless of Houston's official size, there will still be 6,000,000 people in that general area.

Baltimore's pop density is 7,889 per sq mile. Houston's pop density is 3,828 per sq mile.

So even though Houston listed pop is 2 mill and Baltimore is 636,000, Baltimore have over 4,000 more people on the average city block (sq mile) than Houston. Lot's of cities with a smaller population than Houston
have a higher population density, meaning lots of cities HAVE A MORE CITY and URBAN feel. With populatuon of
only 146,00, Paterson, New Jersey has a population density of 17,675 per sq mile.

[annie_himself]

I know it's denser, doesn't make it more urban. But certain tracts of Houston exceed 10kppsm, it's density is skewed by the massive amounts of undeveloped land it annexed.

[WestbankNOLA]

Originally Posted by saint41

If that's the case then why is Houston is ranked lower in the Crime Rankings?

Because Houston has extremely large city limits. Crime is correlated with poverty. Middle class and up families tend to locate in suburbs or the edge of city cores. Houston's city limits are big enough that includes the middle class and wealthy areas that would be suburbs in other cities.

Originally Posted by saint41

Like Blackandgold51 said before,

Atlanta and Houston both have 5 million people in their metro, and both have similar population density, neither one feels or looks bigger than the other. On the other hand, Houston has a much larger listed (keyword: listed) city population than my city, Baltimore(I've been living in baltimore before Katrina happened), but Baltimore is much more congested with a higher population density and more urban feel. In othe words, more people live within the same square mile.

I agree, but that has nothing to do with what I was saying. We are talking growth here. When many large retailers and developers look somewhere to build, they're going to look at how many people live in that market and not how many live in a certain corner of it unless they're filling a particular niche. At the end of the day 5 million is 5 million.

The most dense city in the south is Miami by far.

Only on paper.
The New Orleans metro has the 6th densest urban area population in the United States. Miami comes in at 14th. Outside of the small section between I-95 and Biscayne Bay, most of Miami resembles Houston with red tile roofs.

Those average density numbers can be extremely flawed. Going by the average density using the (population/sq mile) formula, Atlanta and Houston are considered to be denser than New Orleans. That's like saying that Houston is denser than Baltimore.

Originally Posted by saint41

Baltimore's pop density is 7,889 per sq mile. Houston's pop density is 3,828 per sq mile.

So even though Houston listed pop is 2 mill and Baltimore is 636,000, Baltimore have over 4,000 more people on the average city block (sq mile) than Houston. Lot's of cities with a smaller population than Houston
have a higher population density, meaning lots of cities HAVE A MORE CITY and URBAN feel. With populatuon of
only 146,00, Paterson, New Jersey has a population density of 17,675 per sq mile.

Know exactly what you're saying. Annie_himself is saying, which is true, that the word URBAN does not have anything to do with population density. Another thing to note is that structural density and population density are two different things as well.

[X-NolaRes]

It would take money and planning and both of those things are in very short supply in that city. But hey, I’m sure you’ll see more bars, restaurants and T-Shirt shops as soon as the others go out of business due to crime and low incomes! That’s a plus… right?

[annie_himself]

Planning is not in short supply. You're describing pre-Katrina/1980s New Orleans.

[WestbankNOLA]

Originally Posted by annie_himself

Planning is not in short supply. You're describing pre-Katrina/1980s New Orleans.

His names say "X-NolaRes" so I'll assume he/she no longer live here. For some reason it's always the natives that up and move away that have so much negativity to send back. Granted, we have I share of problems, but the way you hear some former New Orleanians speak would make you think that it was 1993-94. What's interesting though, is that it's usually the ones who've moved to the Northshore, Jefferson, or the Baton Rouge area instead of those who've moved to truly better places.

[annie_himself]

Originally Posted by WestbankNOLA

His names say "X-NolaRes" so I'll assume he/she no longer live here. For some reason it's always the natives that up and move away that have so much negativity to send back. Granted, we have I share of problems, but the way you hear some former New Orleanians speak would make you think that it was 1993-94. What's interesting though, is that it's usually the ones who've moved to the Northshore, Jefferson, or the Baton Rouge area instead of those who've moved to truly better places.

I noticed that as well. I also noticed that many ex-New Orleanians feel the same.

[Neworleansisprettygood]

Originally Posted by annie_himself

I noticed that as well. I also noticed that many ex-New Orleanians feel the same.

It's fairly simle to explain. They want to justify their choice of moving away, so they have to ignore any signs of progress and just think that thins here are as bad now as when they left.