Jump to content

Most Dense South Carolina City?


Hybrid0NE

Recommended Posts

Wow, don't remember this thread. Because Greenville's city limits are so small considering the size of the REAL city, I would think that it would win this one, especially when all of the residential developments are completed.

What skews Columbia's density figures are the 80+ sq miles of Ft. Jackson which are included in the city limits.

How far do Charleston's city limits go beyond the peninsula?

yeah, 117,000+ in 40 something sq.miles

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 83
  • Created
  • Last Reply

You're saying that Fort Jackson hurts Columbia's density figures right? There's no way it makes the city's population seem more compact/dense.

Sometimes i think some of these figures are bologna! How can they included Fort Jackson in the City Limits? When Forest Acres pop is not even included in the census for Columbia?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone has a real estimate on How big Columbia really is. Because i know we have over 200,000 at ease! Hey 80,000 people can fit in USC football stadium alone. The census numbers are definitely a misrepresentation of the city. And i know Greenville is bigger than 50,000 people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that Fort Jackson is inside Columbia's city limits hurts its population density because so few people actually live in the 84 square miles of Fort Jackson. All cities in South Carolina have smallish population figures because it is so hard to annex new areas due to restrictive state laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone has a real estimate on How big Columbia really is. Because i know we have over 200,000 at ease! Hey 80,000 people can fit in USC football stadium alone. The census numbers are definitely a misrepresentation of the city. And i know Greenville is bigger than 50,000 people.

In 2000, Columbia's urbanized area population was ~420,000; Greenville's was ~300,000 and Mauldin-Simpsonville's was ~78,000. But those are five-year old figures; there's no telling how much these figures have increased now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 2000, Columbia's urbanized area population was ~420,000; Greenville's was ~300,000 and Mauldin-Simpsonville's was ~78,000. But those are five-year old figures; there's no telling how much these figures have increased now.

Does anyone know why Mauldin and Simpsonville aren't included in Greenville's? Or will it be by 2010?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think urbanized area populations use the criteria of continuous development at a density of 1000 persons per square mile (someone correct me if I'm wrong about this), so there must not have been quite enough development connecting Mauldin-Simpsonville to Greenville at that rate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think urbanized area populations use the criteria of continuous development at a density of 1000 persons per square mile (someone correct me if I'm wrong about this), so there must not have been quite enough development connecting Mauldin-Simpsonville to Greenville at that rate.

Hmmm, interesting. I would say that there is, but I guess maybe it's too much commercial stuff between them if that doesn't count? Greenville's city limits touch Mauldin's on Laurens Rd. When you go out Woodruff Rd there is no clear definition of where seperation would be. but Mauldin starts out there among the overwhelming development as does Simpsonville just down Woodruff Rd... I don't know. maybe with the increasing development it shall be sucked into Greenville's by 2010

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone has a real estimate on How big Columbia really is. Because i know we have over 200,000 at ease! Hey 80,000 people can fit in USC football stadium alone. The census numbers are definitely a misrepresentation of the city. And i know Greenville is bigger than 50,000 people.

281,551 people have a Columbia mailing address...I got that from the zip codes minus Forest Acres and Arcadia Lakes...This is how many people would claim to be from Columbia if you ask were they live...So 165,220 people who live in Columbia but aren't in the limits are kept out of the actual census of the city :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that Fort Jackson is inside Columbia's city limits hurts its population density because so few people actually live in the 84 square miles of Fort Jackson. All cities in South Carolina have smallish population figures because it is so hard to annex new areas due to restrictive state laws.

Fort Jackson is @84 sq miles with 12-15k people living on the base at any given time; Columbia is @44 sq miles with roughly 104k addtl people...this makes Cola fairly dense without the fort but not very dense at all incl the fort (<1000 people/sq mile). If Cola without the fort were more comparable to a lot of other cities in density (@3000-3500 people/sq mile), Cola with the the fort could easily be in the 150,000-165,000 range.

As Waccamatt touched on, the annexation laws are gonna HAVE to change so SC cities can have populations that are a lot more representative and "accurate." If the annexation laws were much more like other states, we wouldn't have to dig up figures for "metro areas," "urban areas," and so on. Columbia and Charleston should have pops over 200K at this point, and Greenville should be over 100k. Period. I'm getting worked up so I'm gonna shut up now.

:whistling:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fort Jackson is @84 sq miles with 12-15k people living on the base at any given time; Columbia is @44 sq miles with roughly 104k addtl people...this makes Cola fairly dense without the fort but not very dense at all incl the fort (<1000 people/sq mile). If Cola without the fort were more comparable to a lot of other cities in density (@3000-3500 people/sq mile), Cola with the the fort could easily be in the 150,000-165,000 range.

As Waccamatt touched on, the annexation laws are gonna HAVE to change so SC cities can have populations that are a lot more representative and "accurate." If the annexation laws were much more like other states, we wouldn't have to dig up figures for "metro areas," "urban areas," and so on. Columbia and Charleston should have pops over 200K at this point, and Greenville should be over 100k. Period. I'm getting worked up so I'm gonna shut up now.

:whistling:

Rob, you're absolutely correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are some maps I made of the density of the 4 largest urban areas in SC (in alphabetical order). All maps are at the exact same scale. I tried to fit as much of each urban area into each map as I could.

Charleston has an inset on Downtown because it is so small and dense. Keep in mind that the densities reflected here are relative to the size of the block group. Charleston's block groups around downtown includs parts of the Ashely and Cooper Rivers, so the edge od downtown appears less dense than it truely is. The Harleston Village and South of Broad neighborhoods are the most affected. Charleston has alot of small block groups Downtown as well as a fairly compact sprawling area, so it appears to win the debate handsdown.

CharlestonDensity.jpg

Columbia's higest densities are around its colleges with on-campus housing(USC, Allen University, Benedict College). USC in particular stands out. Of note is the Shandon area to the southeast of the center. There are a few blocks in St Andrews that I cannot explain. The hole in the center of the area is where the block groups interesect the Congaree River, thus resulting in a similar effect as Charleston's Downtown, however, in this case there are actually very few people living here (but likely more on the Cayce-West Columbia side than indicated by this map.

ColumbiaDensity.jpg

Greenville and Spartanburg.... well, they speak for themselves. Low density sprawl is king here. The hole just north of downtown in Spartanburg I believe to be the area that includes SRMC, which has no residents. The hole to the south of downtown in Greenville is probably Greenville Tech.

GreenvilleDensity.jpg

SpartanburgDensity.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd love to see these maps in.... 15 years, perhaps. Greenville will definitely have some darker blues thrown in there. In the gower area, downtown, and augusta Rd. And but of course in the subburbs :sick: .

Great job by the way. Really gives a feel of growth patterns and such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I completely forgot that you made those maps! :rolleyes: This thread has been around since April though. Anywho, yours focus on the core, mine focus on the city as a whole. Yours also has roads, which I like. I should have included those in mine. I really wanted to do a block-level analysis, but its not as easy to get statewide block level data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I like your thematic color choice, I admit I'm not too original with sticking with the green-red selection. Also of course yours are to scale.

Regarding block level, my biggest problem is dealing with the projection (from the ESRI site) & calculating an accurate area. Then - it's really only good for large scale maps, because not many 'trends' are apparent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.