Baltimore and Washington are gaining again. The entire Pittsburgh metro area is shrinking.Its crazy how cities like Detroit, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Baltimore, and Cleveland lost so much of their populations and are still have a higher population density then most other US cities.
People often see the pictures of the boarded up houses and empty fields and don't realize that they generally account for only a tiny portion of the city. Most neighborhoods are still relatively dense. (9,000-20,000 ppsm) And even still, those supposedly "abandoned" neighborhoods in places like Detroit still have densities above 3,000-5,000 ppsm. The problem is that 50 years ago they had densities of 15,000 ppsm.Its crazy how cities like Detroit, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Baltimore, and Cleveland lost so much of their populations and are still have a higher population density then most other US cities.
18th-477,202 in 68.7 sq miles and a density of 6,946. I know this because I went through all the built out census tracts.Which leaves out the swampland and english turn.New Orleans minus the swampland to the east would have a population of 478,818 in 76.38 sq. mi. giving it a density of 6,268.5 ppsm, which would put it at #21 behind Anaheim, CA.
67 people per sq mile low? This part of New Orleans is less densely populated than the whole of the United States. Ok I wanted to clarify earlier but the computer froze. I can't comment on Houston, simply because I'm not from there. However in New Orleans I'm counting the tracts within the built up area, so I'm not keeping one out just because the density is low. Within the parish you don't come upon lightly populated sprawl then more dense sprawl then the dense part of the city. You go right from the swamp straight into the city. No build up. That's how it is. It's also how the suburbs are surrounding it.Well you could do that for every city. I took out the three block groups that represent the swampland. The smaller less-dense areas of the city are no different than any other city that has less-dense areas. For example, Houston has probably over 100 sq. mi. of land that is extremely low-density.
I could say the same thing about the swampland. After all it has 5.5 times as many people. The fact remains these are the only 2 areas outside the urban core that are 43 times less dense and 114 times less dense than in the area 98.4% of the population resided in during 2000. There are the only places hardly even touched by human development.I understand that there isn't much on the English Turn and that its removal would produce a density for the rest of New Orleans that is more comparable with the actual "city", but just about all cities have their version of the English Turn. Besides that isn't very "swampy". It's just a wooded area of land. In fact, in the middle there is a giant golf course community.