Suburbs that are denser than the city?

Dariusb · #1 Posted **Dec 14, 2019, 8:25 PM**

What are some examples of a suburb being more dense than it's parent city? Not just in US or Canada but worldwide as well.

Steely Dan · #2 Posted **Dec 14, 2019, 8:41 PM**

Berwyn, Cicero, and Elmwood Park are all a little bit denser than Chicago is overall.

in reality, they are all just bog-standard west side bungalow belt neighborhoods that simply never got annexed by the city, so today they are considered "suburbs".

Had they been annexed by the city as they probably should have, they would just be "city neighborhoods" today, and no one would bat an eyelash at that classification.

At around 13,000 - 14,000 ppsm, they don't come close to matching Chicago's urban core density, which is more in the 25,000 - 35,000 ppsm range.

kool maudit · #3 Posted **Dec 14, 2019, 8:46 PM**

Hamtramck, I suspect.

Centropolis · #4 Posted **Dec 14, 2019, 8:49 PM**

Clayton, University City, Maplewood all have a higher population density than St. Louis. They don’t have large empty areas and are just a continuation of the urban core of St. Louis really, except for downtown Clayton which is its own animal

craigs · #5 Posted **Dec 14, 2019, 8:52 PM**

None of the Bay Area suburbs are as dense as the city of San Francisco, but Daly City comes closest at 14,006 persons per square mile. The highest densities in the Bay Area outside of San Francisco are found in Berkeley and Oakland, but officially those cities' respective densities are watered down by mountains within city limits.

Several Los Angeles suburbs are technically more dense than the city itself, such as West Hollwood and Maywood, but they don't have mountain ranges within city limits like Los Angeles does.

proghousehead · #6 Posted **Dec 14, 2019, 8:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by craigs

None of the Bay Area suburbs are as dense as the city of San Francisco, but Daly City comes closest at 14,006 persons per square mile.

Several Los Angeles suburbs are technically more dense than the city itself, such as West Hollwood and Maywood.

Union City and Hoboken are denser than NYC. But they really aren’t suburbs. More like extensions of the city itself.

MonkeyRonin · #7 Posted **Dec 14, 2019, 9:03 PM**

Guttenburg, NJ (22,015/km2); Union City, NJ (20,045/km2); West New York, NJ (19,059/km2); and Hoboken, NJ (15,083/km2) are all denser than NYC (10,715/km2).

Somerville (7,680/km2) and Cambridge, Massachusetts (7,144/km2) are denser than Boston (5,538/km2).

Westmount, Quebec (4,952/km2) is denser than Montreal (4,670/km2).

L'Hospitalet de Llobregat (21,000/km2) is denser than Barcelona (16,000/km2).

Among many others I'm sure. For the most part though, these aren't really "denser" than the main city, they're just geographically small, mostly-residential land with little commercial or other uses to drag down the density numbers.

iheartthed · #8 Posted **Dec 14, 2019, 9:10 PM**

Hoboken, Union City, and West New York in New Jersey are all more densely populated the NYC.

iheartthed · #9 Posted **Dec 14, 2019, 9:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by proghousehead

Union City and Hoboken are denser than NYC. But they really aren’t suburbs. More like extensions of the city itself.

Whoops, didn't see this before I responded.

But this is even more true of Hamtramck, MI (Detroit) than those places.

kool maudit · #10 Posted **Dec 14, 2019, 9:22 PM**

It's no longer a question of suburbs, but Copenhagen is a little rare insofar as its inner neighbourhoods are denser and structurally more imposing than its core. Built out of five-six storey courtyard blocks, they resemble parts of Berlin whereas the 17th-century core is very Danish, and mainly built of narrow houses.

vs.

ThePhun1 · #11 Posted **Dec 14, 2019, 9:43 PM**

I'd bet West U is denser than Houston without looking it up.

SFBruin · #12 Posted **Dec 14, 2019, 10:07 PM**

As mentioned before, several LA suburbs are denser than the city of LA overall (including West Hollywood, Santa Monica, Long Beach, and a few others).

But I don't think that any suburb is as dense as is the core of LA.

I don't think that any suburb of San Francisco is denser than San Francisco itself, but Berkeley is technically denser than Oakland, of which it could be considered a suburb.

ThePhun1 · #13 Posted **Dec 14, 2019, 11:22 PM**

Berkeley is more like Cambridge to Boston. It's special.

Shawn · #14 Posted **Dec 15, 2019, 12:40 AM**

As was mentioned above, for Boston there’s:

Somerville: 81,562 (19,893 sq mi / 7,680.80 sq km)
Cambridge: 118,977 (18,503 sq mi / 7,144 sq km)
Boston: 694,583 (14,344 sq mi / 5,538 sq km)

For Providence, there’s also:

Central Falls: 19,398 (16,107 sq mi / 6,219 sq km)
Providence: 179,335 (9,676 sq mi / 3,736 sq km)

For Burlington VT, there’s also:

Winooski: 7,267 (5,191 sq mi / 1,964 sq km)
Burlington: 42,899 (4,122 sq mi / 1,581 sq km)

DetroitSky · #15 Posted **Dec 16, 2019, 2:21 AM**

Others mentioned it, but Hamtramck actually has the highest population density in Michigan with 10,382.82/square mile. Detroit is second in the state at 4,852.42/square mile.

Cory · #16 Posted **Dec 16, 2019, 6:08 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

I'd bet West U is denser than Houston without looking it up.

Yeah but West U is entirely within the InnerLoop and totally surrounded by the city of Houston. Southside Place, south of West U, would be the densest city in Texas with 8,600 ppsm.

Yuri · #17 Posted **Dec 16, 2019, 10:33 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DetroitSky

Others mentioned it, but Hamtramck actually has the highest population density in Michigan with 10,382.82/square mile. Detroit is second in the state at 4,852.42/square mile.

Interesting. Even with all the urban prairies not a single (real) suburb is denser than Detroit. Which one comes closer?

But now converting sqm to sqkm, Detroit is still quite dense: 1,900 inh/km2. Detroit urban area density is at 1,000 inh/km2 and I guess US typical suburb is at 500 inh./km2 or so.

dave8721 · #18 Posted **Dec 16, 2019, 1:31 PM**

If you go just by population density, Miami has quite a few suburbs that are denser.
North Bay Village: 22,359 per sm
Sunny Isles Beach: 22,074 per sm
Bay Harbor Islands: 14,910 per sm
Aventura: 14,335 per sm
Miami: 13,128 per sm

Miami Beach used to be denser but Miami has added enough population to pass it. If you go by built density then Miami Beach would be denser than Miami but much of that built area is given over to hotels and 2nd homes which don't count for population density. Sweetwater used to be denser too but annexed a large low population area (Dolphin Mall area).

iheartthed · #19 Posted **Dec 16, 2019, 2:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Interesting. Even with all the urban prairies not a single (real) suburb is denser than Detroit. Which one comes closer?

But now converting sqm to sqkm, Detroit is still quite dense: 1,900 inh/km2. Detroit urban area density is at 1,000 inh/km2 and I guess US typical suburb is at 500 inh./km2 or so.

Where did you get the 500 inh./km2 number from? That seems extremely low for a U.S. suburb. I would guess that most suburbs hover between 2000-4000 people/square mile (roughly 900-1,500 inh./km2).

SpawnOfVulcan · #20 Posted **Dec 16, 2019, 4:15 PM**

Birmingham, AL has several suburbs that are more dense than itself. This is mostly due to population loss and the city annexing in a sprawly way for purposes for drinking water, port facilities, and economic development.

Fairfield - 3,203.7/sq mi (1,237.0/km2) (most densely populated city in Alabama; master-planned company town by US Steel)
Homewood - 3,010.4/sq mi (1,162.3/km2)
Center Point - 2,764.9/sq mi (1,067.5/km2)
Brighton - 2,073.9/sq mi (800.8/km2)
Midfield - 2,024.5/sq mi (781.7/km2)
Lipscomb - 1,888.9/sq mi (729.3/km2)
Vestavia Hills - 1,753.4/sq mi (677.0/km2)
Hoover - 1,730.7/sq mi (668.2/km2) (second principal city in the metro area)
Mountain Brook - 1,596.0/sq mi (616.2/km2)
Birmingham - 1,453.0/sq mi (561.0/km2)