Ranking von US-Städten basierend auf der UN-Definition von Stadtgebieten
Von urmummygae42069
Ranking von US-Städten basierend auf der UN-Definition von Stadtgebieten
Von urmummygae42069
15 Kommentare
The UN defines an urban area, or urban center, as a contiguous built-up area with population densities >= 1,500 pp/km^2, while the US Census Bureau defined a contiguous urban area with a population density threshold of just 193-386 pp/km^2 (or 500-1000 pp/sq. mi.). Alot of American low-density suburban or exurban development would in other countries count as verging on semi-rural/countryside, and definitively would not be considered urban in most countries (e.g. US Census Bureau’s urban density threshold would merge much of Southern and Central England, Central Europe, or the entire Tokyo-Nagoya-Osaka corridor of Japan, as one single urban area, which is silly).
Instead, I have ranked and mapped 6 of the largest US urban areas with populations > 4 million based on the UN threshold, with data and maps collected from the EU GHSL Database website: [https://human-settlement.emergency.c…2024visual.php](https://human-settlement.emergency.copernicus.eu/ucdb2024visual.php). All cities are shown at the same 50 km scale.
The next 4 largest cities after are:
7. Washington DC – 3.471 million people (2,669 pp/km^2)
8. Phoenix – 2.608 million people (2,001 pp/km^2)
9. Dallas – 2.577 million people (2,084 pp/km^2)
10. Denver – 2.425 million people (2,031 pp/km^2)
Ultimately the density standard seems to work very well for the most part, but there are strange distortions due to how strict the definition is with small gaps in development (which is why Dallas is chopped up into 4-5 different pieces, or Phoenix split into two by a wide river, making them seem smaller than they otherwise are).
Additionally, the UN definition of urban areas favors western sunbelt cities and South Florida where medium-density development patterns are more consistent deep into suburbs, and disfavors southern and eastern cities where urban development peters out into very low density suburbs, which is why you get unexpected results like Miami having more people than Chicago, or NYC and LA coming in neck and neck in population.
San Francisco bothers me more than it should.
Chicago’s holes don’t even affect me as much.
I expect Toronto would be in fourth place in North America, Mexico City in first maybe??
Went back to South Florida to visit family recently, I could not believe how much it’s changed in the last 10 years. It feels like it’s at least doubled in population density.
It’s always funny to me how lists like these just straight up forget Boston exists.
Miami is not considered that populated. The UN definition is generally not used because it ignores county borders as well as clear divisions with surrounding cities at least in the case of the U.S. Miami in this picture is part of three different counties while also including around 20 different town halls.
Aren’t 2 out of 3 of the holes in Chicago airports?
I’ve just realized how small the Bay Area is compared to Miami or New York
If San Jose is in the same urban conglomeration and has a higher population than San Francisco, shouldn’t we be using it as the reference city and not San Francisco?
No Philly?
Just wanted to say this is really cool and I am proud to have lived in 3 of these cities!
Very very based, I love this definition for cities
NJ residents: see that large red area on the shore south of NYC? That’s Lakewood!
Slightly unrelated but I always find it astonishing that despite the vast population difference of our countries, that Sydney and Melbourne would be 4th and 5th most populated cities in the US.
Funny how NYC can use other cities like Newark and Jersey City as part of their urban areas but those cities cannot do the same with NYC