Largest US and Canadian Cities by Population Density

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by spoonman

Yes, it was easier when I was in NYC and was the uncontested winner of everything.

It still is...here is weighted data by metro area released by the Census Bureau back in 2012.

The chart was created by Austincontrarian.com and here is the article explaining the criteria:

http://www.austincontrarian.com/aust...d-density.html

Originally Posted by Austin Contrarian

In order to calculate the weighted densities at various distances from downtowns, it identified the location of the city hall in the principal city of each metropolitan area and the population centroids of tens of thousands of census tracts.

2010 data
Rank Metro Population Weighted Density Pop Change%



Western metros are more packed in, I think due to water issues.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by spoonman

Yes, it was easier when I was in NYC and was the uncontested winner of everything.

Another reason why you should've never left.

[spoonman]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Another reason why you should've never left.

[spoonman]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

It still is...here is weighted data by metro area released by the Census Bureau back in 2012.

The chart was created by Austincontrarian.com and here is the article explaining the criteria:

http://www.austincontrarian.com/aust...d-density.html



2010 data
Rank Metro Population Weighted Density Pop Change%



Western metros are more packed in, I think due to water issues.

Not every list is perfect, but YES, this is among the most accurate lists available. I have another source just like it.

If you take out the "dupes" (Inland Empire, San Jose, etc) and any metro under 1M, here is the metro list...

1. New York
2. San Francisco
3. Los Angeles
4. Chicago
5. Boston
6. Philadelphia
7. Miami
8. San Diego
9. Las Vegas
10. Washington/Baltimore (same spot with or without each other)
    
    
11. Milwaukee
12. Denver
13. Providence-New Bedford-Fall River
14. Seattle
15. Salt Lake City
16. Sacramento
17. Phoenix
18. Portland
19. New Orleans
20. Buffalo-Niagara Falls
    
    
21. Houston
22. Virginia-Norfolk
23. Dallas
24. Cleveland
25. Detroit
26. San Antonio
27. Minneapolis
28. Tampa
29. Hartford
30. Columbus
    
    
31. Austin
32. Pittsburgh

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

It still is...here is weighted data by metro area released by the Census Bureau back in 2012.

The chart was created by Austincontrarian.com and here is the article explaining the criteria:

http://www.austincontrarian.com/aust...d-density.html



2010 data
Rank Metro Population Weighted Density Pop Change%



Western metros are more packed in, I think due to water issues.

Its just the way western cities are built, they are moderately dense from center all the way to the edge, in Eastern cities the density is extreme in the very center and rappidly thins out into winding suburban towns and sattalite cities.


Fore Example

Las Vegas:



Pittsburg:

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by spoonman

Not every list is perfect, but YES, this is among the most accurate lists available. I have another source just like it.

If you take out the "dupes" (Inland Empire, San Jose, etc) and any metro under 1M, here is the metro list...

1. New York
2. San Francisco
3. Los Angeles
4. Chicago
5. Boston
6. Philadelphia
7. Miami
8. San Diego
9. Las Vegas
10. Washington/Baltimore (same spot with or without each other)
    
    
11. Milwaukee
12. Denver
13. Providence-New Bedford-Fall River
14. Seattle
15. Salt Lake City
16. Sacramento
17. Phoenix
18. Portland
19. New Orleans
20. Buffalo-Niagara Falls
    
    
21. Houston
22. Virginia-Norfolk
23. Dallas
24. Cleveland
25. Detroit
26. San Antonio
27. Minneapolis
28. Tampa
29. Hartford
30. Columbus
    
    
31. Austin
32. Pittsburgh

Personally, I'd have also left off Providence.

For context, here is the list of those cities, ranked by metropolitan area population, which would meet your criteria (bolded) that are absent from the census's 50 most dense cities by weighted population density list:

• Atlanta
• St. Louis
• Charlotte
• Orlando
• Cincinnati
• Kansas City
• Indianapolis
• Nashville
• Jacksonville
• Oklahoma City
• Memphis
• Raleigh
• Richmond
• Louisville
• Birmingham
• Rochester

Tucson and Grand Rapids are interesting cases. Both have grown over 1 million since 2010, but their situations are mirror images of each other: Grand Rapids does not appear on the 50 most dense cities list but even though it matches your criteria now it probably wouldn't appear on a 2017 revision top 50 list, whereas Tucson would appear between Hartford and Columbus on the 50 most dense cities list had it matched your criteria in 2010 (the date of the data) and would match your criteria now as it has grown.

[yaletown_fella]

I would have thought Montreal would be neck to neck with Philadelphia. Surprised to see it behind Toronto.

[GreaterMontréal]

Originally Posted by yaletown_fella

I would have thought Montreal would be neck to neck with Philadelphia. Surprised to see it behind Toronto.

He probably used old stats for Montréal. The city of Montréal is about 1.8M in 2018. 365km² or 141 mi². 12,765/mi²

[softee]

^^Going by current population estimates, Toronto and Montreal are neck and neck.

[spoonman]

Originally Posted by spoonman

Not every list is perfect, but YES, this is among the most accurate lists available. I have another source just like it.

If you take out the "dupes" (Inland Empire, San Jose, etc) and any metro under 1M, here is the metro list...

1. New York
2. San Francisco
3. Los Angeles
4. Chicago
5. Boston
6. Philadelphia
7. Miami
8. San Diego
9. Las Vegas
10. Washington/Baltimore (same spot with or without each other)
    
    
11. Milwaukee
12. Denver
13. Providence-New Bedford-Fall River
14. Seattle
15. Salt Lake City
16. Sacramento
17. Phoenix
18. Portland
19. New Orleans
20. Buffalo-Niagara Falls
    
    
21. Houston
22. Virginia-Norfolk
23. Dallas
24. Cleveland
25. Detroit
26. San Antonio
27. Minneapolis
28. Tampa
29. Hartford
30. Columbus
    
    
31. Austin
32. Pittsburgh

To further refine, here is with metros under 3M removed.

1. New York - 31,251
2. San Francisco - 12,144
3. Los Angeles - 12,113
4. Chicago - 8,613
5. Boston - 7,980
6. Philadelphia - 7,773
7. Miami - 7,395
8. San Diego - 6,920
9. Washington - 6,388
   
   
10. Seattle - 4,721
11. Phoenix - 4,394
12. Houston - 4,109
13. Dallas - 3,909
14. Detroit - 3,800
15. Minneapolis - 3,383

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by spoonman

To further refine, here is with metros under 3M removed.

1. New York - 31,251
2. San Francisco - 12,144
3. Los Angeles - 12,113
4. Chicago - 8,613
5. Boston - 7,980
6. Philadelphia - 7,773
7. Miami - 7,395
8. San Diego - 6,920
9. Washington - 6,388
   
   
10. Seattle - 4,721
11. Phoenix - 4,394
12. Houston - 4,109
13. Dallas - 3,909
14. Detroit - 3,800
15. Minneapolis - 3,383

wow that powergap. IM surprised by Seattle, but I guess its only dense around the waterfront.

[mhays]

Suburban Seattle is full of greenbelts, wetlands, etc., and was also developed in a low-density way until about 1990 or 2000 depending on county. The core city is similar in those regards, though more intense. I'm not surprised by the low average at all. However it's moving in the right direction pretty quickly...as shown on the list but especially in this decade.

[Hindentanic]

Another strategy for ranking U.S. cities by population or density without the skew of political, municipal, or metropolitan borders incorporating vast swaths of empty area is by treating them as Urban Areas as defined by the U.S Census. Urban areas are constructed from contiguous census block groups that meet a minimum density threshold (Wikipedia says 1,000 per square mile), and can further be defined as an "urban cluster" if the total population is greater than 2,500 or as an "urbanized area" is the total population is greater than 50,000. The census block groups themselves are comprised of an average of 39 census blocks, with each census block often corresponding to a street-defined city block.

A defined Urban Area map for the U.S. corresponding to the 2010 Census is below, with the actual urban areas of threshold-meeting contiguous census block groups in red:


(From Wikipedia: USA Urban Areas)

A much larger size map is here.

This is a much better match to significant, physically built-up areas, and does not involve metro areas that absurdly incorporate empty deserts, mountain ranges, or unpopulated swaths of whole states. It's imperfect, as opinions regarding where to peg the threshold between "urban" and "rural" vary, but this offers a definable and measurable governmental standard upon which we can make more rational and coherent comparisons.

A Wikipedia listing for 2010 U.S. urban areas with statistics for area, population, and density is here: List of United States urban areas

You have to start hunting through census projections to get more current estimates to construct up-to-date maps, but they can be found. I recall that similarly compiled urban area census information can be obtained for Canada and Japan, and very likely for most of world, though the defined thresholds and levels of granularity will vary.

CityLab in 2012 offered a critique of this approach along with insightful user commentary: "U.S. Urban Population is Up...But What Does 'Urban' Really Mean?"

[dave8721]

Originally Posted by jd3189

Yep, Miami is the most impressive one on this list. The usuals like NYC, SF, Boston, Chicago, and Philly are still on top, but it’s interesting to see a Sunbelt belt city among them. The next Southern city after that is Arlington, TX. And Miami’s population density is still growing, so it will be interesting to see how things change as the city continues to grow.

LA could easily have been up there as well if the mountains were not accounted for in the city limits.

If you included smaller cities, there are quite a few denser than Miami in Miami-Dade (Sunny Isles, North Bay Village...etc). I would have to look up exactly how many there were, but there are like 8 or 9 cities in Miami-Dade with densities over 10k per square mile and 0 in the entire rest of the South.

[spoonman]

Originally Posted by Hindentanic

Another strategy for ranking U.S. cities by population or density without the skew of political, municipal, or metropolitan borders incorporating vast swaths of empty area is by treating them as Urban Areas as defined by the U.S Census. Urban areas are constructed from contiguous census block groups that meet a minimum density threshold (Wikipedia says 1,000 per square mile), and can further be defined as an "urban cluster" if the total population is greater than 2,500 or as an "urbanized area" is the total population is greater than 50,000. The census block groups themselves are comprised of an average of 39 census blocks, with each census block often corresponding to a street-defined city block.

A defined Urban Area map for the U.S. corresponding to the 2010 Census is below, with the actual urban areas of threshold-meeting contiguous census block groups in red:


(From Wikipedia: USA Urban Areas)

A much larger size map is here.

This is a much better match to significant, physically built-up areas, and does not involve metro areas that absurdly incorporate empty deserts, mountain ranges, or unpopulated swaths of whole states. It's imperfect, as opinions regarding where to peg the threshold between "urban" and "rural" vary, but this offers a definable and measurable governmental standard upon which we can make more rational and coherent comparisons.

A Wikipedia listing for 2010 U.S. urban areas with statistics for area, population, and density is here: List of United States urban areas

You have to start hunting through census projections to get more current estimates to construct up-to-date maps, but they can be found. I recall that similarly compiled urban area census information can be obtained for Canada and Japan, and very likely for most of world, though the defined thresholds and levels of granularity will vary.

CityLab in 2012 offered a critique of this approach along with insightful user commentary: "U.S. Urban Population is Up...But What Does 'Urban' Really Mean?"

Here is the list from the link you posted...

This is the top 20 list of urban areas ranked by population.

Urban areas of the United States of America[1]
Rank Name[Note 1] Population Land Area Land Area Density Density Central City  Central City  Central City  Central City 
(2010 Census) (km²) (sq mi) (Population / km²) (Population / sq mi) Population  Pop % of  Land Area Land Area % of 
(2010 Census) Urban Area Urban Area


1 New York--Newark, NY—NJ—CT-PA 18,351,295
2 Los Angeles--Long Beach--Anaheim, CA 12,150,996
3 Chicago, IL—IN—WI 8,608,208
4 Miami, FL 5,502,379
5 Philadelphia, PA—NJ—DE—MD 5,441,567
6 Dallas--Fort Worth--Arlington, TX 5,121,892
7 Houston, TX 4,944,332
8 Washington, DC—VA—MD 4,586,770
9 Atlanta, GA 4,515,419
10 Boston, MA—NH—RI-CT 4,181,019
11 Detroit, MI 3,734,090
12 Phoenix--Mesa, AZ 3,629,114
13 San Francisco--Oakland, CA 3,281,212
14 Seattle, WA 3,059,393
15 San Diego, CA 2,956,746
16 Minneapolis--St. Paul, MN 2,650,890
17 Tampa--St. Petersburg, FL 2,441,770
18 Denver--Aurora--Lakewood, CO 2,374,203
19 Baltimore, MD 2,203,663
20 St. Louis, MO—IL 2,150,706



This is the list of the 20 largest urban areas sorted by density.

Urban areas of the United States of America[1]
Rank Name[Note 1] Population Land Area Land Area Density Density Central City  Central City  Central City  Central City 
(2010 Census) (km²) (sq mi) (Population / km²) (Population / sq mi) Population  Pop % of  Land Area Land Area % of 
(2010 Census) Urban Area Urban Area
Rank Name[Note 1] Density
(Population / sq mi)

Los Angeles--Long Beach--Anaheim, CA 6,999.30
San Francisco--Oakland, CA 6,266.40
New York--Newark, NY—NJ—CT-PA 5,318.90
Miami, FL 4,442.40
San Diego, CA 4,037.00
Denver--Aurora--Lakewood, CO 3,554.40
Chicago, IL—IN—WI 3,524.00
Washington, DC—VA—MD 3,470.30
Phoenix--Mesa, AZ 3,165.20
Baltimore, MD 3,073.30
Seattle, WA 3,028.20
Houston, TX 2,978.50
Dallas--Fort Worth--Arlington, TX 2,878.90
Detroit, MI 2,792.50
Philadelphia, PA—NJ—DE—MD 2,746.40
Minneapolis--St. Paul, MN 2,594.30
Tampa--St. Petersburg, FL 2,551.50
St. Louis, MO—IL 2,328.50
Boston, MA—NH—RI-CT 2,231.70
Atlanta, GA 1,706.90

[dubu]

my city is a tiny dot and its around 100,000. theres probably thousands of my towns in the us dam.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by spoonman

1 New York--Newark, NY—NJ—CT-PA 18,351,295
2 Los Angeles--Long Beach--Anaheim, CA 12,150,996
3 Chicago, IL—IN—WI 8,608,208
4 Miami, FL 5,502,379
5 Philadelphia, PA—NJ—DE—MD 5,441,567
6 Dallas--Fort Worth--Arlington, TX 5,121,892
7 Houston, TX 4,944,332
8 Washington, DC—VA—MD 4,586,770
9 Atlanta, GA 4,515,419
10 Boston, MA—NH—RI-CT 4,181,019
11 Detroit, MI 3,734,090
12 Phoenix--Mesa, AZ 3,629,114
13 San Francisco--Oakland, CA 3,281,212
14 Seattle, WA 3,059,393
15 San Diego, CA 2,956,746
16 Minneapolis--St. Paul, MN 2,650,890
17 Tampa--St. Petersburg, FL 2,441,770
18 Denver--Aurora--Lakewood, CO 2,374,203
19 Baltimore, MD 2,203,663
20 St. Louis, MO—IL 2,150,706



Los Angeles--Long Beach--Anaheim, CA 6,999.30
San Francisco--Oakland, CA 6,266.40
New York--Newark, NY—NJ—CT-PA 5,318.90
Miami, FL 4,442.40
San Diego, CA 4,037.00
Denver--Aurora--Lakewood, CO 3,554.40
Chicago, IL—IN—WI 3,524.00
Washington, DC—VA—MD 3,470.30
Phoenix--Mesa, AZ 3,165.20
Baltimore, MD 3,073.30
Seattle, WA 3,028.20
Houston, TX 2,978.50
Dallas--Fort Worth--Arlington, TX 2,878.90
Detroit, MI 2,792.50
Philadelphia, PA—NJ—DE—MD 2,746.40
Minneapolis--St. Paul, MN 2,594.30
Tampa--St. Petersburg, FL 2,551.50
St. Louis, MO—IL 2,328.50
Boston, MA—NH—RI-CT 2,231.70
Atlanta, GA 1,706.90

See we arent as bad as people think for some reason.

my city is a tiny dot and its around 100,000. theres probably thousands of my towns in the us dam.

330 million people and it increased by ~ 2 million annually. The USA increases by a St. Luis metro area EVERY YEAR

[JManc]

Phoenix is rather confined and has a clear cut off where as cities back east tend to have more settlements on the outskirts blurring the demarcation where civilization ends and the boonies begin. When I was in AZ, I saw alpaca farms, a few shacks here and there but that's about it once you leave the Phoenix/ Tucson areas.

[Steely Dan]

^ which is precisely why weighted density is a much better metric.

it give us the density of the areas where most of the people actually live.

not the 8 billion square miles of ULTRA-low density "horse country" sprawl.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by JManc

Phoenix is rather confined and has a clear cut off where as cities back east tend to have more settlements on the outskirts blurring the demarcation where civilization ends and the boonies begin. When I was in AZ, I saw alpaca farms, a few shacks here and there but that's about it once you leave the Phoenix/ Tucson areas.

The land between Phoenix and Tucson is filling in and I-10 between the two is pretty much lined with development now. A lot of the sharp demarcation is a combination of geography (mountains) and the fact a lot of the land is not privately owned--it's either owned by the federal government or it's part of native American tribal lands. South of Tucson, for example, the Tohono O'Odham reservation cuts right across I-19 blocking Tucson's southward expansion (and except for the I-10 corridor it's blocked by mountains to the north, east and west.

I purposefully bought my getaway place south of the reservation so as not to be swallowed up by Tucson's expansion. I wanted the smaller town/rural vibe as an antidote to SF (see the thread about pee and needles and homeless everywhere: It wears you down).