Wikipedia

[Spartan]

I'm confused Spartan, first you said Greenville wasn't the most dense city in South Carolina but according to this it is. So, is Greenville the most dense city in South Carolina?

The point I am trying to get accross is that you have to look beyond the technicalities of things. Yes, technically Greenville is the most dense city, based on its city limits. But then, Spartanburg is #2. I am fairly confindent that none of you would equate Spartanburg with being among the upper echelons of density in this state. All you need to do is go there and check the place out.

Greenville and Spartanburg's city limits represent the core of their respective areas, where as Columbia and

Charleston represent much larger areas. If you take the core area of each of these cities, you would probably find that they are not so dissimilar. For example densities on the peninsula in Charleston reach 10,000 people per square mile. Many of America's largest cities have not even achieved that.

I find this argument over density to be rather asinine. Greenville is more than what lies within its city limits and each and everyone of you knows that. We always make great strides to point out this fact when it comes to Greenville's rather low population relative to everything else about the city. So why would you only count what lies within the city limits in this case? But hey, if you are content to believe that, then I am also content to believe that Spartanburg is running a close second in density to Greenville, while Charleston pulls up the distant third.

[goodbye]

I'm with you, Spartan! It also goes along with the Upstate being the most populated region in the State.

[btoy]

Since there has been so much talk about the square miles of Greenivlle and Columbia I thought I would share this about Greer.

Greer in 1992 was 6 square miles and in 2003 it was 27 square miles, today Greer is 29 square miles and is 16 miles from the norhtern most to southern most point.

[GvilleSC]

Wow. I like crazy random facts like that. thanks for sharing

[UrbanSoutherner]

Charleston and Columbia have lower population densities because they have actually annexed stuff in recent years. As cities annex (something most folks here like the idea of), their densities almost always go down since the newer suburban developments are lower density on average than the older urban developments. Just from my own experience in the three cities, none are particularly dense overall (they are southern cities after all). But peninsular Charleston certainly feels like the most high-density urban district in the state (not counting the seasonal beach strip in Myrtle Beach which I would question the true urban qualities of anyway).

[Greenville]

This is ridiculous. Now we're supposed to apologize for stating the FACT that, based on the way the lines are drawn, Greenville is SC's most dense city and county?!? Nobody ever said that Columbia and Charleston aren't dense in places, or even that they couldn't be the most dense if the lines were drawn differently. It's not an attack on Columbia, Charleston, or any other city. In fact, it has NOTHING to do with those cities! All anyone is saying is that Greenville is the most dense.

I could see how some would get worked up if people tried to claim that Greenville is SC's largest city, because it is not. It might feel like it in places, the airport statistics might support that notion, the business presence might suggest that, etc. But regardless, it's not SC's biggest city. Now, we could try to justify that by stating that IF the lines were drawn differently, Greenville would be SC's largest. But the lines aren't drawn that way, and it's a moot point as far as I'm concerned.

Again, what's the problem with stating what the census reports? There is nothing dishonest or misleading about that. Doesn't everyone here want to see Greenville painted in the best light?

[krazeeboi]

It only makes sense that the cities that fall WAY short of capturing anything close to half of their respective UA's would technically be the densest. Woo hoo.

Here are our cities' REAL density figures, using UA figures from 2000:

[krazeeboi]

Doesn't everyone here want to see Greenville painted in the best light?

This is true, but along with other SC cities, the conditions change according to context. We can use density figures for municipalities to make our cities look like mini-NYC's or San Francisco's, but what does it matter when the municipal population doesn't even crack 100K? So then we appeal to urbanized area figures. I'm not saying that anything is wrong with this per se, but as Robtex has stated, our cities must work hard to portray the truth of the matter to outsiders. So municipal populations and densities are legit, as well as UA and MSA figures. All of our cities have their strengths and weaknesses when it comes to this, whether it be small municipal limits or military installations covering a vast expanse of land. But what's good for the goose has to be good for the gander.

[Greenville]

Of course things look different depending on the context. As I said earlier, due to the similarities in size between Greenville, Columbia, and Charleston, all three would look different depending on how the lines are drawn. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your vantage point), the lines have been drawn for us and all we can do is work within them. In Greenville's case, it makes the city look paltry when you talk about total population, but when you talk about density or the CSA population, it looks very respectable.

Going back to my original point, Columbia should claim that it is SC's largest city, because it is. Charleston should claim that it is SC's oldest city, because it is. And Greenville should claim that it is SC's most densely populated city and county, because it is. This is as cut-and-dried as it gets, folks!

[g-man430]

I'm confused!!!!

[motonenterprises]

I'm confused!!!!

[RestedTraveler]

Don't be confused. It boils down to this (and this is also precisely why this argument is so ludicrous): you can take statistics and perform just about any amount of operations on them to make them say exactly what you want them to say.

Mr. Greenville is absolutely correct. Each city has it's own claim to any number of things that make it great. There should be no fuss over this population density mess ... unless, of course, you simply enjoy the pure sport of it.

[g-man430]

The only thing that matters is when you put Greenville, Spartanburg, Columbia, and Charleston together it is still smaller than Atlanta in population wise.

[RestedTraveler]

Ah...the undisputed king of southeastern sprawl...

[g-man430]

Can't argue with that, RT.

[gs3]

Haven't been on today until now. This thread cracks me up! Good late night read....it's been enjoyable!

[Charleston native]

Hey, I just asked the question because I had seen different statistics. I wasn't saying that G'ville sucks, or anything like that. However, if you look at Krazee's numbers, those numbers could accurately sum up the urban "character" of each city as well as the best representation of city populations. Those numbers were probably what I had seen earlier, which is why I posed the question.

[Spartan]

Hey, I just asked the question because I had seen different statistics. I wasn't saying that G'ville sucks, or anything like that. However, if you look at Krazee's numbers, those numbers could accurately sum up the urban "character" of each city as well as the best representation of city populations. Those numbers were probably what I had seen earlier, which is why I posed the question.

Certainly not! I don't think anyone here means anyhting negative towards Greenville. I say what I do because I believe in consistency. I tell people that Greenville is more than the city limits on pretty much every other issue, and I have no plans to change my views for this one issue. I am certainly not going to go around telling people from other states that Spartanburg is the second most dense city in SC. I would get laughed off of the forum by anyone who had the slightest knowledge of SC's cities and history. Krazee's numbers are probably much more representative of the true nature of things.

[Greenville]

We know that urbanity is largely centered around a city's downtown. That is, it's core. So starting at the core of the state's three dominant metro areas - Greenville, Charleston, and Columbia, we look at data for the city limits. We see that the city of Greenville has the most population density. That is not debatable. Not only that, but Greenville's population density is OVER TWICE THAT of Columbia and Charleston. You could combine Charleston and Columbia and still not have the population density of Greenville.

"Whoa, hang on there!" shout the detractors. Greenville's city limits are smaller in terms of square miles than the other two. Despite the fact that each city's boundaries more than account for the downtown core, some say it's unfair to compare the three cities because the larger areas appear less dense.

So let's take a step out from the core and compare counties. Again, Greenville is the most dense. Remember what we said above about it not being "fair" to compare SC city populations, since the other two are being judged over a larger area than Greenville? Well, can't we still use the argument that it's not fair because a larger county dilutes the population more? You could (and some undoubtedly would if it helped Charleston or Columbia "win"), except that Greenville is the largest county in the state in terms of square miles.

So now we know that Greenville is the largest county in the state in terms of square miles, and is STILL the most densely populated. If I'm at all interested in numbers, that statistic pretty much signals the end of this debate. Greenville County just said, "We'll take a larger land area, compare it to your smaller area, and still have a higher population density than you!"

So if you still want to talk about urbanized areas, that's fine. But in comparing both city and county statistics, we are STILL including Charleston's "ultra-urban and dense" downtown area, and all of Columbia's densest areas. With all of the uproar over these density comparisons, you would think that Columbia and Charleston had their most dense areas ignored. They didn't.

So basically the peeing contest over density has come down to county versus urbanized area discussion. All one gains in looking at urbanized area over county populations are some suburbs - NOT heavily dense, urban, highly-populated areas. So if someone wants to claim that Greenville isn't really the most dense area in the state, and cites urbanized area numbers, all they are really doing is stating that Greenville's suburbs aren't quite as densely populated as another area's.

And my response to that is, "That's fine." You take your slightly more-dense suburbs and have fun. I'll stick with Greenville, which has a higher population density in the core area as well as in the county (i.e., downtown and the vicinity). And you know what? Anyone truly interested in downtown development and core urbanity would agree.

[goodbye]

Wow. What a post.

Can't we all be proud of new development and our beloved cities getting larger together? I like to look at regional statisics as much as the others. It shows how much growth is happening in each part of the state because of various reasons.

[Spartan]

I don't have time for a lengthy response, so while you wait I will giv eyou some food for thought:

• The GSA metro is listed as the 5th worst sprawling metro in the nation.

• Port Royal, SC has a population density of 1,012 per square mile.

• Georgetown, SC has a population density of 1,368 per square mile.

• Aiken, SC has a population density of 1,566 per square mile.

• Rock Hill, SC has a population density of 1,603 per square mile.

• Anderson, SC has a populatio density of 1,843 per square mile.

• Technically, these places are all denser than Charleston and Columbia.

more later

[Infinite1]

o now we know that Greenville is the largest county in the state in terms of square miles, and is STILL the most densely populated. If I'm at all interested in numbers, that statistic pretty much signals the end of this debate. Greenville County just said, "We'll take a larger land area, compare it to your smaller area, and still have a higher population density than you!"

Not exactly true....some county land areas for your thoughts:

Greenville - 790 sq mil

Charleston - 919

Richland - 756

Spartanburg - 811

Horry - 1134

so I guess we don't "know that Greenville is the largest county in the state in terms of square miles"...now do we????? Its not even larger than Spartanburg and much smaller than Charleston (13%)

mis-stated facts aside, I agree with your arguement...if the numbers are there, it does no harm to present them in the manner thats most favorable to you....every other place does it.

[krazeeboi]

Just for information purposes, I think another thing that should be pointed out is that Greenville's urbanized area population is practically entirely contained within Greenville County, whereas both Columbia and Charleston are both located within two counties (the municipalities themselves) and their urbanized areas go beyond the primary counties they serve as the county seat for.

[goodbye]

That it interesting considering (from my own perspective anyway) How the counties of Greenville, Spartanburg, Pickens, and Anderson blend pretty well. Parts of Pickens, Anderson, and Spartanburg counties should be part of the UA of Greenville simply because dynamic growth has spread well into them. But that's just the way I see it, not that it's important to me anyway.

[Greenville]

Thanks for pointing out my error on the county sizes, Infinite1. I always had that statistic in my mind as "fact" when in reality it isn't. I also recalled that, when stating that Greenville County is the most populated county in the state, people often respond that Greenville is also the largest in terms of area. Regardless, I should have looked it up.

It is interesting that the largest counties in SC, in terms of square miles, are:

1. Horry County 1,133 square miles

2. Orangeburg County 1,105 square miles

3. Berkeley County 1,099 square miles

Skyliner, I agree with you about parts of Spartanburg, Pickens, and Anderson counties needing to be included as part of Greenville's UA. You can't tell me that, for example, the growth of SC 153 (Powdersville) around I-85 isn't almost exclusively due to its proximity to Greenville.