Which city/suburb is the most dense municipality in the Phoenix Metro?

SunDevil · #1 Posted **Jul 24, 2009, 5:01 AM**

well, which one do you think it is?

This is considering only the raw sq. miles to population count. It's more fun if you don't look it up.

HX_Guy · #2 Posted **Jul 24, 2009, 5:02 AM**

Tempe?

SunDevil · #3 Posted **Jul 24, 2009, 5:03 AM**

dang, you answered too soon, and I made a spelling mistake on the poll.

Closes in five days.

HooverDam · #4 Posted **Jul 24, 2009, 5:32 AM**

Um, Id be pretty shocked if it wasn't Tempe. Its one of the smaller cities and its fairly built out, plus it doesn't have any huge mountain or desert preserves eating up land but having 0 population.

HX_Guy · #5 Posted **Jul 24, 2009, 5:47 AM**

Wow...I looked up all the cities and the results are surprising to say the least.

Hopefully people answer before they read my reply.

Gilbert: 4,458.4/sq mi
Glendale: 4,290.9/sq mi
Chandler: 4,202.2/sq mi
Tempe: 4,067.7/sq mi
Phoenix: 2,937.8/sq mi
Scottsdale: 1,305.2/sq mi

HooverDam · #6 Posted **Jul 24, 2009, 6:24 AM**

^Welp, just more proof that density is pretty meaningless as a raw number. Its not the density that counts, but how its laid out.

combusean · #7 Posted **Jul 24, 2009, 6:30 AM**

Where'd you get your data HX?

HX_Guy · #8 Posted **Jul 24, 2009, 6:40 AM**

Wikipedia

SunDevil · #9 Posted **Jul 24, 2009, 6:49 AM**

thing is, if one could "spot count" all the people within Tempe at say 10:00AM on October 5th (assuming it's not a weekend) Tempe's numbers would go way up due to it being an employment center as well as being home to one of the largest campuses in the country.

This is why Tempe feels so dense, for most of the time/year, it has much more people than actually live there.

Leo the Dog · #10 Posted **Jul 24, 2009, 1:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HX_Guy

Wow...I looked up all the cities and the results are surprising to say the least.

Hopefully people answer before they read my reply.

Gilbert: 4,458.4/sq mi
Glendale: 4,290.9/sq mi
Chandler: 4,202.2/sq mi
Tempe: 4,067.7/sq mi
Phoenix: 2,937.8/sq mi
Scottsdale: 1,305.2/sq mi

A little surprising, I thought Tempe would be first, followed by Gilbert then Chandler. I guess Tempe does have a lot of open space in the South along I-10.

I did point out in a Gilbert photo thread that Gilbert has been developing quite dense along the 202 and predicted that it was the most dense EV city excluding Tempe.

PHX31 · #11 Posted **Jul 24, 2009, 4:21 PM**

I wonder what Phoenix would be if you could cut out everything from the salt river south, and cut out everything north of Northern.

That would be a typical size for a major U.S. city. I bet our population density numbers and demographics would be much more comparable to many U.S. cities (although we'd lose our pointless 5th largest city title).

Don B. · #12 Posted **Jul 24, 2009, 4:58 PM**

^ I did the math years ago after the 2000 census, using census tracts. I can't find my data now, but I seem to recall the following:

Based approximately (because the census tracts don't exactly coincide) on the tiny 1950 city limits of Phoenix (17 square miles), that same area today would have about 90,000 people. In 1950, it was 106,000 people. This would occupy parts of the present day villages of Central City and Encanto.

Inside the preserves (and roughly correlating with the 1970 city limits of Phoenix), meaning roughly North Mountain/Shaw Butte on the north, Camelback to the northeast, Scottsdale city border to the east, Salt River to the south, and 55th Avenue on the west (which is about the average size of the average major American city), we would have about 600,000 people living in about 150 square miles. This would be essentially unchanged from the 1970 census findings for Phoenix (580,000 people in 170 square miles).

The densest villages within the city of Phoenix are Alhambra, Maryvale and Encanto in that order. Alhambra is basically northwest of downtown to the Glendale border, and has 137,000 people living in 19 square miles, yielding a population density of over 7,000 people per square mile.

Cherry-picking the densest villages of Phoenix (Alhambra, Camelback East, Central City, Encanto, Maryvale, North Mountain and Paradise Valley), you would get a city of about 200 square miles, with a population of about 934,000. Today, this same area might have 1 million people (from the 2000-2005 boom), but I suspect it is declining in population now. The resulting city would look like this (except I mistakenly cut out Paradise Valley, so just add that to the northeast):

I know the formatting is going to get fried on this, but here's the village data for 2000:

PHOENIX VILLAGE INFORMATION
2000 Census Data

Village Area Population Density Income Poverty

Ahwatukee 35.7 75,961 2,128 33,509 3.4
Alhambra 19.2 136,829 7,127 17,304 19.6
Camelback East 36.3 140,609 3,874 25,584 15.0
Central City 21.3 65,495 3,075 8,924 44.7
Deer Valley 56.6 144,140 2,547 22,033 6.7
Desert View 67.8 23,499 347 31,440 3.5
Encanto 10.5 60,324 5,745 16,642 22.0
Estrella 41.4 43,351 1,047 9,236 32.6
Laveen 30.6 8,981 293 15,262 19.2
Maryvale 32.5 189,996 5,846 11,979 18.5
New Village 41.2 109 3 ---- ---
North Gateway 44.7 1,734 39 ---- ---
North Mountain 34.7 166,975 4,812 21,424 12.2
Paradise Valley 43.0 174,696 4,063 27,163 7.1
South Mountain 39.8 91,913 2,309 11,615 26.1

Totals: 555.3 1,324,612 2,385 19,833 11.5

Notes:

All numbers rounded and from the 2000 census.
Area in square miles.
Density in people per square mile.
Income is per capita income for 1999.
Poverty is percentage of total population below the official federal poverty level.

Village geographical map is here:

http://www.phoenix.gov/PLANNING/vplanners.pdf

--don

PHX31 · #13 Posted **Jul 24, 2009, 5:26 PM**

interesting data. To go along with that, I wonder what the demographics would be. As a whole, I think the metro area of phoenix is minimally diverse, with lower percentages of blacks and asians and higher percentages of whites and hispanics than most other metros. But using only Maryvale, Alhambra, Encanto, Central City, and Camelback East (or even just alhambra, encanto, and central city), I'd bet the demographics would see a huge shift to more diversity.

It's sad to know that the original Phoenix city limits of 17 square miles has likely lost almost 20,000 people. This is due to the downtown area and the area starting up Central becoming strictly employment centers (and what isn't employment has become a bombed out wasteland of empty lots). I guess the good thing about that would be the higher employment, but I'd rather have more of the original homes and buildings.

Leo the Dog · #14 Posted **Jul 24, 2009, 5:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by PHX31

It's sad to know that the original Phoenix city limits of 17 square miles has likely lost almost 20,000 people. This is due to the downtown area and the area starting up Central becoming strictly employment centers (and what isn't employment has become a bombed out wasteland of empty lots). I guess the good thing about that would be the higher employment, but I'd rather have more of the original homes and buildings.

Speaking of 'bombed out wasteland of empty lots,' don't forget about Sky Harbor expansion. Entire neighborhoods (barrios) with rich culture were wiped out. Just drive down 16th street to Buckeye and look eastward, all that remains is the community church...the rest was bulldozed and it remains an empty dirt lot, (or car rental/call centers).

I think it was called the Golden Gate Barrio if I remember correctly. That went from 5,000 to 6,000 people per sq. mile to 0.

PHX31 · #15 Posted **Jul 24, 2009, 5:58 PM**

/\

I was driving to Carolina's (Mexican food) last weekend with my girlfriend and we drove through that area.

I told her about how there used to be a Barrio here (I forgot the name too) but it was destroyed due to the airport.

Leo the Dog · #16 Posted **Jul 24, 2009, 6:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by PHX31

/\

I was driving to Carolina's (Mexican food) last weekend with my girlfriend and we drove through that area.

I told her about how there used to be a Barrio here (I forgot the name too) but it was destroyed due to the airport.

Carolina's is GREAT!

Mohave St. is one interesting street I must say.

That neighborhood, unfortunately, doesn't stand a chance. I-17 to the south, rail yards to the north, sky harbor to the east.

plinko · #17 Posted **Jul 24, 2009, 6:05 PM**

Not suprising numbers in terms of Phoenix, but think about this...

If Phoenix was still at its 1960 land area, there would be a suburb of 'South Phoenix' with about 100,000 people and 'Deer Valley' of about 500,000 people...

I knew Glendale was denser than Tempe, but Gilbert is a bit suprising. Nonetheless, I still have yet to find anything redeeming about Gilbert (or Chandler or Mesa for that matter). To be fair, I feel the same about most anywhere west of I-17.

Leo the Dog · #18 Posted **Jul 24, 2009, 6:07 PM**

While we're on the subject...let's not forget about I-10, literally cutting a swath of land out of Central Phoenix. Again, people wonder why once great neighborhoods (such as, Garfield) turned into what they are now.

Back in Boston, over $15 Billion was spent to correct the same mistake (I-93) made here in Phoenix to re-unite, re-connect neighborhoods. It would be nice if one day, Phoenix would extend the deck-park tunnel from I-17 to the 51 frwy. (Never happen, but just imagine.)

plinko · #19 Posted **Jul 24, 2009, 6:13 PM**

^I would argue for the demolition of I-17 from the stack to the airport, but unfortunately that will never happen because of the truck traffic in that area.

Personally I'd love to see the neighborhoods between the Salt and downtown revitalized. I would totally live in that area if it were more interesting.

TAZ4ate0 · #20 Posted **Jul 24, 2009, 7:20 PM**

If I hadn't already read the posts, I would have voted for Tempe as being the densest. If the question read which city has the highest density without going by overall square miles, I would have voted for Phoenix.

Cool thread. Interesting data.