Getting Too Crowded In Your Town? (Memphis, Knoxville: house, school, property taxes)

[LauraC]

First number (boldface type) is the percent these Tennessee towns/cities have grown from 2000 to 2007 or as I like to say, the indicator as to whether the locals will most likely want to throw newbies in the river (figuratively speaking) for tax increases (to pay for new infrastructure).

The second number is the current population density (how crowded it feels) or as I like to say, the indicator of you getting all snarly in your car when driving around or looking for a place to park. This number is best compared with your current town's population density, before you move here, so you can get a feel for more or less crowded.


Atoka 94.68% 946 people per square mile
Alcoa 9.43% 614 people per square mile
Arlington 43.75% 180 people per square mile
Bartlett 15.76% 2,460 people per square mile
Bell Buckle 3.84% 842 people per square mile
Brentwood 44.12% 974 people per square mile
Bristol 2.14% 863 people per square mile
Caryville 6.20% 458 people per square mile
Chattanooga -0.23% 1,145 people per square mile
Clarksville 9.40% 1,194 people per square mile
Cleveland 3.86% 1,547 people per square mile
Clifton 0.48% 419 people per square mile
Clinton 1.01% 873 people per square mile
Collierville 21.35% 1,578 people per square mile
Columbia 2.29% 1,141 people per square mile
Cookeville 18.46% 1,297 people per square mile
Crossville 20.7% 735 people per square mile
Dandridge 17.66% 456 people per square mile
Dickson 6.68% 795 people per square mile
Elizabethton 4.20% 1,523 people per square mile
Farragut 9.19% 1,203 people per square mile
Franklin 33.53% 1,862 people per square mile
Gallatin 19.34% 1,261 people per square mile
Gatlinburg 45.06% 484 people per square mile
Germantown 0.34% 2,135 people per square mile
Greeneville 2.23 % 1,107 people per square mile
Harriman -0.40% 667 people per square mile
Hendersonville 13.78% 1,690 people per square mile
Jackson 5.14% 1,270 people per square mile
Jefferson City 3.45% 1,512 people per square mile
Johnson City 7.93% 1,523 people per square mile
Kingston 5.49% 848 people per square mile
Kingsport -1.59% 1,002 people per square mile
Knoxville 4.86% 1,964 people per square mile
LaFollette 3.24% 1,673 people per square mile
La Vergne 45.85% 1,099 people per square mile
Lawrenceburg 0.21% 859 people per square mile
Lebanon 17.13% 812 people per square mile
Lenoir City 12.96% 1,239 people per square mile
Lookout Mountain -5.95% 1,496 people per square mile
Manchester 16.60% 875 people per square mile
Maryville 14.33% 1,661 people per square mile
McMinnville 4.41% 1,331 people per square mile
Memphis 3.20% 2,403 people per square mile
Millington -0.93% 665 people per square mile
Monteagle -1.86% 149 people per square mile
Morristown 8.23% 1,291 people per square mile
Mount Juliet 56.63% 1,190 people per square mile
Mountain City 0.80% 728 people per square mile
Murfreesboro 34.50% 2,376 people per square mile
Nashville 1.21% 1,168 people per square mile
Norris 1.31% 214 people per square mile
Oak Ridge 0.92% 323 people per square mile
Paris 2.23% 918 people per square mile
Pigeon Forge 16.33% 512 people per square mile
Pikeville 5.45% 775 people per square mile
Sevierville 31.74% 779 people per square mile
Seymour 14.18% 800 people per square mile
Shelbyville 18.90% 1,238 people per square mile
Signal Mountain -4.33% 1,063 people per square mile
Smyrna 34.89% 1,513 people per square mile
Spencer 1.52% 247 people per square mile
Spring Hill 169.19% 1,171 people per square mile
Springfield 15.31% 1,352 people per square mile
Sweetwater 13.03% 914 people per square mile
Tellico Plains 9.78% 603 people per square mile
Tiptonville 65.35% 2,822 people per square mile
Townsend 6.56% 284 people per square mile
Tullahoma 5.11% 849 people per square mile
Wartburg 2.13% 950 people per square mile
White House 27.20% 1,022 people per square mile
Winchester 6.99% 787 people per square mile

[Beretta]

Thank you for posting this. I am moving to Lookout Mountain now.

[bbkaren]

The numbers on their own can be misleading, keep in mind.

The "people per square mile" is purely mathematical i.e. a city could be huge in square mileage but all the people are concentrated in a small area so it could look sparsely populated on this chart, yet you could have serious traffic congestion in town (i.e. I think I recall that Oak Ridge has this situation, as does Gatlinburg...)

The "percentage of growth" can also be misleading since a small town could appear to have experienced humongous growth (i.e. Atoka - looks like it's doubled its population--from 3,200 to 6,200. I would say that at first glance it appears to be overcrowded with people pouring in! But with a small population to begin with, a 94% increase might not be so monumental. I would assume a particular company moved into the area and brought a bunch of jobs with it, maybe?)

And, I assume these figures include not just the city proper, but the surrounding areas as well? Taking Knoxville for example, it must include the entire area since it appears to be only slightly more populated (per square mile) than Lookout Mountain, kwim? There are extremely rural areas that are considered "Knoxville" but then so is the middle of the city.

On that note, I'm happy to see Kingston and Loudon with 5-10% growth which seems like progress, but still a manageable rate.

I'd be concerned with an area that's losing people because that usually doesn't bode well for the well-being of that area. I can say from visiting Harriman in particular, the area is just getting run-down. Loss of people = loss of tax base; not just residents, but loss of businesses as well (who wants to locate their business where people are leaving?), and with that, loss of their most significant tax ratables.

I think some growth is always a good thing. Far as I can see, explosive growth is not so good in most cases...

[Beretta]

Ok, I'll stay put.

[alleycat]

Originally Posted by SmokyMtnGal

Ok, I'll stay put.

Move to Monteagle. Then you could be MonteagleMtnGal.

[TN Tin Man]

Those figures look better than where I'am at. One figure is 3297 other 5347 per square mile. I would guess 2200 per square mile would be a better guess......

[jabogitlu]

Looks like Chatty and its burbs are losing people. Weird. The 'burbs around Nashville are growing tremendously. Seen it firsthand in Mt juliet.

Why in the world did Tiptonville grow so much???

[rlrm777]

Where I live now-------Clearwater, Fl 4000 ppl per sq m

Holladay Tn, where we are going to retire----17 ppl per sq m


Gotta love it.

[jkmewright]

Originally Posted by jabogitlu

Looks like Chatty and its burbs are losing people. Weird...

I noticed that too and was amazed! It seems more crowded. At least at 5 o'clock anyway. Very suprising.

[LauraC]

Originally Posted by bbkaren

The numbers on their own can be misleading, keep in mind.

The "people per square mile" is purely mathematical i.e. a city could be huge in square mileage but all the people are concentrated in a small area so it could look sparsely populated on this chart, yet you could have serious traffic congestion in town (i.e. I think I recall that Oak Ridge has this situation, as does Gatlinburg...)

The "percentage of growth" can also be misleading since a small town could appear to have experienced humongous growth (i.e. Atoka - looks like it's doubled its population--from 3,200 to 6,200. I would say that at first glance it appears to be overcrowded with people pouring in! But with a small population to begin with, a 94% increase might not be so monumental. I would assume a particular company moved into the area and brought a bunch of jobs with it, maybe?)

And, I assume these figures include not just the city proper, but the surrounding areas as well? Taking Knoxville for example, it must include the entire area since it appears to be only slightly more populated (per square mile) than Lookout Mountain, kwim? There are extremely rural areas that are considered "Knoxville" but then so is the middle of the city.

On that note, I'm happy to see Kingston and Loudon with 5-10% growth which seems like progress, but still a manageable rate.

I'd be concerned with an area that's losing people because that usually doesn't bode well for the well-being of that area. I can say from visiting Harriman in particular, the area is just getting run-down. Loss of people = loss of tax base; not just residents, but loss of businesses as well (who wants to locate their business where people are leaving?), and with that, loss of their most significant tax ratables.

I think some growth is always a good thing. Far as I can see, explosive growth is not so good in most cases...

I've never seen traffic congestion in Oak Ridge as we don't have a downtown. All of the businesses on the two main thoroughfares have parking lots, people don't park in the street, another reason why I chose to live here.

I think I will disagree about a small town that almost doubles its size. That is explosive growth for them. Now they may need another school or an extension on the old one, another police officer or two, another paved road, another firetruck, etc. To pay for these things, their property taxes go up, too, so the guy and his family who have lived there all of their lives are feeling the same burden that comes with newcomers, that a mid sized town would face.