This question has come up before on various topics.  So what is the definition of an 'urban area'?  Many seem to only classify urban areas as cities...or densely populated areas.  Well from that we must ask...what is densely populated?

 

The Census has definitions, that many do not agree with...so what does everyone think?  Here are the designations from census:

 

 

Urban - All territory, population and housing units in urban areas, which include urbanized areas and urban clusters. An urban area generally consists of a large central place and adjacent densely settled census blocks that together have a total population of at least 2,500 for urban clusters, or at least 50,000 for urbanized areas. Urban classification cuts across other hierarchies and can be in metropolitan or non-metropolitan areas.

 

Rural - Territory, population and housing units not classified as urban. Rural classification cuts across other hierarchies and can be in metropolitan or non-metropolitan areas.

http://ask.census.gov/cgi-bin/askcensus.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=623&p_created=1092150238&p_sid=oh4wGhyi&p_accessibility=0&p_redirect=&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX3Jvd19jbnQ9MjQmcF9wcm9kcz0mcF9jYXRzPSZwX3B2PSZwX2N2PSZwX3BhZ2U9MSZwX3NlYXJjaF90ZXh0PXVyYmFuIGFyZWE*&p_li=&p_topview=1

 

Urban and Rural Classification:

For Census 2000, the Census Bureau classifies as "urban" all territory, population, and housing units located within an urbanized area (UA) or an urban cluster (UC). It delineates UA and UC boundaries to encompass densely settled territory, which consists of:

 

*  core census block groups or blocks that have a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile and

*  surrounding census blocks that have an overall density of at least 500 people per square mile

 

In addition, under certain conditions, less densely settled territory may be part of each UA or UC.

 

The Census Bureau's classification of "rural" consists of all territory, population, and housing units located outside of UAs and UCs. The rural component contains both place and nonplace territory. Geographic entities, such as census tracts, counties, metropolitan areas, and the territory outside metropolitan areas, often are "split" between urban and rural territory, and the population and housing units they contain often are partly classified as urban and partly classified as rural.

http://www.census.gov/geo/www/ua/ua_2k.html

Excellent topic, I look forward to others comments; I have never really thought about it to be honest. I certainly use it to describe cities, and only cities, although I'm aware that a broader meaning exists and usually includes what I'd call 'suburban.'

 

I think the UrbanOhio homepage states that 75% of Ohioans live in urbanized areas; it would be interesting to discover what percentage are living in areas I'd consider to be urban, but I'm not interested enough to play around on the census website for hours. :lol:

I'll go with cincinnati native potter stewart, I know it when i see it.

sooo...all of Dayton and Toledo would be considered 'urban' and only fractions of Cincy and Cbus??  I am saying this because you say that all would be about equal in population then...I would venture to say that (by your definition) that almost all of Cincy proper is 'urban' (minus the mass transit component of course).

^

 

 

From some google image searches of urban style, urban culuture, urban this and that...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I saw that you edited your first post...did you happen to change your density number from 3,000 to 5,000?  Because I swear that your original said 3,000...not that it really matters; I just want to make sure I am or am not crazy.

Census definition of "urban" can contradict the planner's definition (meaning, basic planning essentials of "close to sidewalk, walkable, dense housing structures, etc).  I believe population density does not equate with urbanity yet they are still urbanized areas.

Interesting statistic (information from Emporis):

 

Cleveland: 454,208 pop/78 sq. miles = 5797 people/sq mi

Columbus: 730,657 pop/210 sq. miles = 3479 people/sq mi

Cincinnati: 331,310 pop/78 sq. miles = 4247 people/sq mi

Another interesting note:

 

If Cleveland happened to annex a couple of their interring (bordering) suburbs, the city would actually increase in density:

 

Lakewood: 53,244 pop/6 sq miles = 8874 people/sq mi.

Cleveland Heights: 48,029 pop/8 sq miles = 6004 people/sq mi

 

"New Cleveland": 555,481 pop/92 sq miles = 6037 people/sq mi

 

-- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Parma: 81,469 pop/20 sq miles = 4073 people/sq mi ...is more "urban" than Columbus ;)

That is interesting...when I have the time I'll look up similar data for what the city's density would be like with Norwood, St Bernard, Reading, Lockland and so on.  They aren't all as populous as the two Cleveland neighborhoods, but they are just as relevant.  I'm a nerd for census/demographic data.

^I wonder what some of the NKY communities would bring as well.

Newport's density is 6,267.8/mi²

Norwood's density is 6,956.5/mi²

Elmwood place's density is 8,106.5/mi²

St. Bernard 3,196.1/mi²

Covington 3,301.3/mi²

Belvue is 6,903.6/mi²

Cincinnati combined with the above six has a population of 427,488.  A land area of 99.4 mi^2 (water not included), and a population density of 4290 sq/mi

adding in Cheviot, Golf Manor, and North College hill, Pop 450,584, area 103.2, Density 4364 sq/mi

I personally use 3 distinctions of land: urban, semi-rural, and rural. 

 

My definition of urban is pretty broad, so most suburbs and subdivisions fall into it.

 

Rural is very sparcely populated areas

 

Semi-rural is what I refer to places similar to where I currently live.  I'm outside any city, living amoung agricultural fields and large open spaces, on 2-lane roads with large, sweeping vistas.  But there are a number of houses scattered here and there, and a good number of these (llike me) are not farmers.

 

I think there are a lot of areas near cities that are not adequately addressed by labeling them 'Urban' vs 'Rural' .

 

There are many different elements to urbanism. Cities are designed to be efficient--they're the cause of economics and the more efficient a society is (higher density, transportation options, etc) the more urban it is. I don't see the point in defining exactly at what point it can be considered "urban" when all you need to do is just look at the different elements from prime examples--NYC, Tokyo, etc. to understand what constitutes urbanism (or sprawl for that matter).

My friend forwarded this event to me.  Sounded interesting/fun

What the hell does it matter if it is contiguous or not!?!?  The reason Cincinnati's high density areas are not contiguous is because of the steep hillside which sharply cut off highly populated areas from one another.

 

But nonetheless....a very interesting map!  Thanks for posting it; I've never seen it before.

I think that is it total high density that matters.  My point is that even though (as you noted) Cincinnati has more high density area, it is not contiguous....that can be attributed to many things.  I simply mentioned that in Cincy's case it is geographic constraints (hillsides and the Little Miami River are the most prominent).  In other cities it could be due to other things, but I don't think that it (how contiguous) is a true marking.

 

But really it isn't even that big of a deal....I do like the map.

Fun fact: Hamilton County, Ohio has a higher population than the entire state of Wyoming (806,631 vs. 584,153).