[BrooklynHeights]

What are the Densest Cities in the United States over 200K people. I could not find a list anywhere. Does anybody have an idea?

 

[hudkina]

1. New York, NY - 26,409.9
2. San Francisco, CA - 16,638.8
3. Jersey City, NJ - 16,098.0
4. Chicago, IL - 12,753.7
5. Santa Ana, CA - 12,455.2
6. Boston, MA - 12,169.0
7. Hialeah, FL - 11,770.4
8. Newark, NJ - 11,498.1
9. Philadelphia, PA - 11,236.6
10. Miami, FL - 10,163.6
11. Washington, DC - 9,318.9
12. Long Beach, CA - 9,152.2
13. Baltimore, MD - 8,060.5
14. Los Angeles, CA - 7,878.9
15. Buffalo, NY - 7,207.7
16. Oakland, CA - 7,128.4
17. Minneapolis, MN - 6,972.2
18. Detroit, MI - 6,856.9
19. Seattle, WA - 6,718.8
20. Anaheim, CA - 6,703.8
21. Milwaukee, WI - 6,216.0
22. Cleveland, OH - 6,168.2
23. Rochester, NY - 6,134.6
24. Pittsburgh, PA - 6,020.6
25. St. Louis, MO - 5,624.4
26. St. Paul, MN - 5,443.2
27. San Jose, CA - 5,119.3
28. Stockton, CA - 4,456.8
29. Norfolk, VA - 4,363.9
30. Honolulu, HI - 4,337.7
31. Cincinnati, OH - 4,250.1
32. Las Vegas, NV - 4,223.6
33. Sacramento, CA - 4,190.4
34. St. Petersburg, FL - 4,164.2
35. Louisville, KY - 4,126.0
36. Fresno, CA - 4,098.8
37. Portland, OR - 3,940.3
38. Glendale, AZ - 3,930.5
39. Toledo, OH - 3,891.0
40. Garland, TX - 3,779.1
41. San Diego, CA - 3,772.9
42. Denver, CO - 3,617.7
43. Akron, OH - 3,498.2
44. Arlington, TX - 3,475.9
45. Dallas, TX - 3,470.8
46. Columbus, OH - 3,384.5
47. Houston, TX - 3,372.6
48. Omaha, NE - 3,371.6
49. Riverside, CA - 3,268.1
50. Mesa, AZ - 3,172.2
51. Atlanta, GA - 3,162.0
52. Plano, TX - 3,103.3
53. Madison, WI - 3,030.5
54. Lincoln, NE - 3,023.0
55. Baton Rouge, LA - 2,965.5
56. San Antonio, TX - 2,809.3
57. Phoenix, AZ - 2,782.7
58. Tampa, FL - 2,708.5
59. New Orleans, LA - 2,685.0
60. Fremont, CA - 2,653.0
61. Austin, TX - 2,611.1
62. Fort Wayne, IN - 2,606.4
63. Wichita, KS - 2,536.8
64. Tucson, AZ - 2,500.7
65. Albuquerque, NM - 2,484.1
66. Raleigh, NC - 2,409.8
67. Memphis, TN - 2,328.1
68. El Paso, TX - 2,263.6
69. Charlotte, NC - 2,232.9
70. Bakersfield, CA - 2,185.0
71. Indianapolis, IN - 2,161.5
72. Tulsa, OK - 2,152.5
73. Greensboro, NC - 2,138.8
74. Colorado Springs, CO - 1,943.4
75. Shreveport, LA - 1,941.0
76. Aurora, CO - 1,940.1
77. Fort Worth, TX - 1,828.2
78. Corpus Christi, TX - 1,794.7
79. Virginia Beach, VA - 1,713.2
80. Birmingham, AL - 1,620.1
81. Kansas City, MO - 1,408.6
82. Montgomery, AL - 1,297.6
83. Nashville, TN - 1,134.9
84. Scottsdale, AZ - 1,100.7
85. Jacksonville, FL - 971.1
86. Lexington, KY - 915.9
87. Oklahoma City, OK - 834.1
88. Anchorage, AK - 153.4

 

[Hia-leah JDM]

I live in #7 Hialeah which is a Miami suburb. :hi:
Its no surprise, the density here is remarkable especially for a suburb.

 

[Xusein]

If Hartford was on that list (it's too small), it would be 17th, just above Minneapolis.

 

[Goatman]

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.

 

[urbanjim]

True, and just imagine what those cities' densities were like in, say, 1950. For Detroit and St Louis, it was probably in the 13-14k range.

 

[Mikejesmike]

New Orleans would realistically be in 18th place.

 

[Sean in New Orleans]

Not sure if they are using Katina "estimates," with New Orleans, but, either way, considering 2/3's of the City of New Orleans isn't inhabited (it's federally protected swamp)....you see where I'm going.....

 

[NovaWolverine]

Despite the height limit that will limit density, it has a lot of room to grow and I will look forward to seeing density rise.

And technically, since Arlington, VA is actually a county, it wouldn't be on this list, but people consider it to be a city and it operates like one and its density would be around 8k making it 14th on the list. It's something like the 3rd smallest county in the country at 26 square miles but it has more than 200k people.

 

[30 Floors Up]

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.

Baltimore and Washington are gaining again. The entire Pittsburgh metro area is shrinking.

 

[hudkina]

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.

 

[hudkina]

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.

 

[BrooklynHeights]

Thanks for the list, Its crazy how much more dense NYC is than any other city, SF is dense as hell too. Jersey City isn't a surprise to me, its so close to Manhattan. Chicago/Boston/Philly are all so close in density.

Hudkina, do you have a list of the Densest Neighborhoods in the US?

 

[Mikejesmike]

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.

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.

 

[hudkina]

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.

 

[hudkina]

Brooklyn Heights, there is no way that you could determine "neighborhood" densities for the simple fact that not all neighborhood "boundaries" are firmly set. You might be able to determine a list of extremely dense areas within a given city, but even then it wouldn't be without controversy. (my guess is that most of the densest neighborhoods are in New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, Miami, and Philadelphia.)

 

[Mikejesmike]

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.

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.

As for density the areas excluded are
English Turn
Pop-1,147
Density-161 ppsm

Swampland
Pop-6,325
Density-61 ppsm

 

[hudkina]

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.

 

[Mikejesmike]

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.

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.

 

[hudkina]

Okay, so if I remove the 3.2 sq. mi. that make up Belle Isle and Rouge Park in Detroit, and the density goes up to 7,004, then that moves New Orleans down a spot. I'm sure I could do the same thing for Seattle. My point is that all cities have land that isn't as dense as the rest of the city, and while New Orleans has over 100 sq. mi. of swampland within its boundaries that unfairly diminishes the overall density, it's not as if its the only city that has undeveloped land. The English Turn is basically "parkland" within the urban core of New Orleans. The swampland to the east of the city is something else altogether. Granted, I do agree that New Orleans does deserve mention among the "densest" cities in the U.S.