who wouldve known????

maybe its just me but i was looking on wikipedia and found that raliegh is much more a "big city" than charlotte

sure charlotte has ~650k people while raleigh only has ~400 but look closer

charlotte is 280 sq miles

raleigh is only 130

this makes charlotes density 2515 people per sq mile while raleigh has a whopping 2674 people per square mile. THATS OVER 150 EXTRA PEOPLE PER SQUARE MILE.

now we always thought charlotte was easily more of a "big city" than raleigh and that the metro areas were close but i thought the nod went slightly to charlotte. Now that i see raleigh is close if not bigger than charlotte its easy to see that the triangle metro area IS MUCH MUCH more of a "big metro" than charlotte.

keep in mind i have thrown total land area out the window.

[Edited on July 12, 2007 at 4:24 PM. Reason : raleigh could extend its limits to 280sq miles and have 990k]

7/12/2007 4:17:50 PM

that's still pitifully low--stockholm is about 30,000 people per sq mile and hong kong is around 190,000

7/12/2007 4:23:46 PM

Quote :

"that's still pitifully low"

when did it turn into a competition?

7/12/2007 4:25:23 PM

urban sprawl is generally considered a bad thing

[Edited on July 12, 2007 at 4:27 PM. Reason : around 30,000 people/sq mile is the most efficient]

7/12/2007 4:26:29 PM

Quote :

"around 30,000 people/sq mile is the most efficient"

I would be so damn miserable.....

7/12/2007 4:38:14 PM

Quote :

"raliegh is much more a "big city" than charlotte"

i've lived in both cities

and i'd still say charlotte is more of a "big city"

i wonder what the population density is in each city from maybe a mile radius of center city

7/12/2007 4:38:39 PM

Quote :

"around 30,000 people/sq mile is the most efficient"

who gives a fuck about how efficiently you can pack people into undersized condos?

7/12/2007 4:41:53 PM

Population density has nothing to do with being a "big city."

Charlotte isn't a bonafide big city, but it's also not just a tangled collection of suburban areas like Raleigh is.

7/12/2007 4:54:09 PM

Charlotte isnt a NYC/Chicago type big city but I still think its MORE OF a big city than Raleigh

7/12/2007 4:55:06 PM

Stockholm and Hong Kong aint got nothing on Mumbai

7/12/2007 6:14:59 PM

charlotte pretty much beats the everloving shit out of raleigh "big-city" wise

just look downtown

7/12/2007 6:45:00 PM

i can see downtown from where i'm sitting at work right now

7/12/2007 7:31:25 PM

Quote :

"who gives a fuck about how efficiently you can pack people into undersized condos?"

that number is based on energy efficiency, but sometimes space matters--male in the maldives is the most densely populated city in the world b/c they simply don't have anywhere else to go...



[Edited on July 12, 2007 at 8:06 PM. Reason : .]

7/12/2007 8:01:17 PM

Quote :

"stockholm is about 30,000 people per sq mile"

Try about 10,774/square mile.
Quite a huge difference.

7/12/2007 10:48:28 PM

your thread is dumb

having ncsu right next to downtown helps.

now.... our skyline is only 10 times as big.

our bars are also 10 times as yuppie


btw.. i'm a mile away from the boa building exactly
my huge living room window frames uptown Charlotte

and for god's sake you have a penis shaped hotel... Charlotte would never approve that shit.

7/12/2007 11:12:42 PM

holy crap, Manhattan is 69,000/sq mile, eek! Though it pales in comparison with some international cities. Of course the difference is we're not living in filth, lol.

7/13/2007 12:00:30 AM

charlotte > raleigh.

7/13/2007 1:10:06 AM

Quote :

"Try about 10,774/square mile. Quite a huge difference."

according to wired it's 30,000--whether that refers to the district with the highest density (which would agree with wikipedia) or the city at large, it doesn't specify

[Edited on July 13, 2007 at 3:53 AM. Reason : but i'm glad you know how to use google]

7/13/2007 3:34:36 AM

Great thread. I'm serious, there is nothing more fulfilling than discussing the relative "city-ness" of two municipalities that are barely cities to begin with.

7/13/2007 9:23:49 AM

Quote :

"around 30,000 people/sq mile is the most efficient"

how do you figure?

7/13/2007 10:17:20 AM

^^ lol and you get pissy when treetwista trolls

[Edited on July 13, 2007 at 10:19 AM. Reason : ^^

7/13/2007 10:19:33 AM

I don't systematically troll the lounge in every thread I bother to post in. The guy admitted in threads he trolls people. He admitted it. Furthermore, this Howard guy has been rather suspect in regards to trolling in my opinion with the threads and posts I have seen him post in recent weeks (just go look at his soap box posts). Finally, this whole Raleigh/Charlotte thing has been rehashed so many times on this website in so many ways, and quite a lot recently too, that I don't come close to equating a single snarky comment about how pointless this thread is, to the rampant trolling that he does in TSB. It isn't even close to comparable.

7/13/2007 10:28:04 AM

Blind Hate really hates the people on TWW and TWW in general

Yet he just can't leave because he is that much of a loser

7/13/2007 10:58:29 AM

^^^^there was an article in wired about a planned city in china that discussed, among other things, population density. what it said, specifically, is that:

Quote :

"The [McKinsey] team found research on energy consumption in cities around the world, plotted on a curve according to population density. Up to about 50 residents per acre, roughly equivalent to Stockholm or Copenhagen, per capita energy use falls fast. People walk and bike more, public transit makes economic sense, and there are ways to make heating and cooling more efficient. But then the curve flattens out. Pack in 120 people per acre, like Singapore, or 300 people, like Hong Kong, and the energy savings are negligible."

7/13/2007 11:10:15 AM

you motherfuckers will argue about ANY goddamn thing wont you?

7/13/2007 11:13:01 AM

^oh look here comes Mr. Jealousy to tell us why Apex is bigger than both

7/13/2007 12:14:44 PM

THIS HAS NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE

7/13/2007 12:24:41 PM

THAT is a city

7/13/2007 12:50:57 PM

^NYC has more skyscrapers

7/13/2007 1:13:48 PM

You people trolling about real cities give me a break. There are approx 30000 cities in the United States. Raleigh and Charlotte are both in the top 40 at least so I'd consider them "big" us cities. Of course they aren't huge megacities like new york la chicago but that doesn't mean they aren't cities. This nation is continuously decentralizing unlike the world on a whole which is continuously moving into the same areas so a city in the us a much different than other international cities.

Basically you guys are just trolls.

Charlotte is more of an important city than raleigh because of its banking industry. Its actually the 2nd most important banking city in the country. Raleigh may be more dense but I wouldn't say that makes it more of a "big city". Also about the downtowns, The triangle has always been decentralized by having 3 central areas and at least 5 subcentral areas. The current trend looks to have more movement towards the 2 main downtown areas especially downtown raleigh with the addition of a civic center, rbc national headquarters and glenwood housing boom.

Raleigh as a microcosm to downtown la has central areas at crabtree, north hills and downtown. All three of those areas are further developing business and skylines. Also throughout the entire triangle are spread medium commmercial areas like the green pickle, highwoods, north raleigh and cary.

That said, both areas are two of the fastest growing areas in the country but the triangle being host to rtp and 2 large cities is definately a more influential area and very important in this country. I think both metro areas rank in the top 30 and wouldn't be surprised to see them move into the top 20 in the next 10 years.

7/13/2007 3:32:11 PM

Quote :

"both areas are two of the fastest growing areas in the country but the triangle being host to rtp and 2 large cities is definately a more influential area"

but money makes the world go round and Charlotte has the banks on lock...Charlotte is the most influential city in the Carolinas

7/13/2007 4:02:15 PM

^ Fuck that. My money is on Gastonia.

7/13/2007 4:04:47 PM

on second thought I would nominate Grissettown, NC

7/13/2007 4:05:29 PM

^^^^I don't think you're using French properly in that thread.

7/13/2007 7:01:58 PM

Quote :

"Charlotte is the most influential city in the Carolinas "

my money's on New Bern - birth place of Pepsi Cola.

7/13/2007 9:04:14 PM

Quote :

"but money makes the world go round and Charlotte has the banks on lock...Charlotte is the most influential city in the Carolinas "

I'm pretty sure thats what I said.

reader

7/17/2007 4:08:10 PM

This is a funny argument. When you speak in terms of cities you speak of the "Metropolitan area" of the city. A city can have whatever city limit size they want, but that doesn't determine if it's a "big city" or not.

For example:
Metropolitan area of Raleigh, NC: 994,551

Metropolitan area of Charlotte, NC: 1,583,016

That means Charlotte is a whole lot bigger.

You could put 1 million people in 100 sq miles, and 150 million people in a 300 sq mile area for example. The first would obviously have a larger "population density" but the later would obviously be the bigger city.

For you guys who want to argue the "triangle" vs Charlotte. here ya go:

"The Triangle is a regional population, equivalent to the U.S. Census Bureau's Combined Statistical Area of Raleigh-Durham-Cary. Its estimated total population as of 2006 was 1,565,223."

"The Combined Statistical Area of Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC had a population of 2,191,604 in 2006.[4]"

I'm from Charlotte, and i still think of Raleigh as the "small town" i go to school in.

[Edited on July 17, 2007 at 4:33 PM. Reason : .]

7/17/2007 4:25:55 PM

^ in addition to this..

Quote :

"now we always thought charlotte was easily more of a "big city" than raleigh and that the metro areas were close but i thought the nod went slightly to charlotte. Now that i see raleigh is close if not bigger than charlotte its easy to see that the triangle metro area IS MUCH MUCH more of a "big metro" than charlotte."

How is Raleigh/metro area "close if not bigger than Charlotte"? Look at my numbers above and that is hardly the case. You can clearly look at the "metro" statistics or the "Combined Statistical Area" and see how Charlotte is far larger than Raleigh.

[Edited on July 17, 2007 at 4:58 PM. Reason : .]

7/17/2007 4:57:49 PM

I do not really think Population Density is a bad thing. I'm from Charlotte and i think the urban sprawl is utterly ridiculous. The city is too spread out and the transportation infrastructure is largely inferior when compared to the raleigh durham area. I live in matthews which is a suburb butted up against the outskirts of Charlotte and it takes what seems like an eternity to make it downtown. To go from matthews to the university area is almost a 40 min drive. I can make it from downtown Raleigh all the way to Durham in that same time.

Charlotte really needs to step up the effort to finish 485 and turn all of Independence BLVD (US 74) into a restricted access freeway. Charlotte badly needs a freeway running from downtown to the matthews/minthill area

^^ do they really consider gastonia a suburb of charlotte?? Gastonia is a bit of a drive down I85.

7/17/2007 5:40:03 PM

^all the finishing of 485, light rail, etc should hopefully help sprawl but its obviously something that takes time

and yeah apparently in a couple decades the gashouse will be a suburb of the QC like pineville and matthews are right now...i think even rock hill or tega cay at least will be in that 'charlotte suburb' class too even though they're in another state

7/17/2007 5:42:54 PM

Quote :

"You could put 1 million people in 100 sq miles, and 150 million people in a 300 sq mile area for example. The first would obviously have a larger "population density" but the later would obviously be the bigger city."

The first has a population density of 1,000,000/100 = 10,000 people/sq mi. The second is 150,000,000/300 = 500,000 people/sq. mi. So go fuck yourself, idiot.

7/17/2007 6:12:54 PM

^ nice i totally looked over that. Meant 1 million compared to 1.5 million. Sorry. Result of a week of vacation and a lack of sleep from getting back into the work routine.

^^^You're right, Charlotte really does need to work on thier transportation infrastructure. Hopefully the light rail and completion of 485 will help. I live in Plaza Midwood so i guess it's easier to get anywhere in the city. Charlotte greenways are lacking too. They need to finish up the rest of the sugar creek greenway.

7/17/2007 11:11:33 PM

charlotte is a fuckin horrible place

7/18/2007 12:08:07 AM

Quote :

"I'm from Charlotte, and i still think of Raleigh as the "small town" i go to school in. "

Well I'm from the NYC metro and I think of both as po-dunk... not really but it's pretty freaking stupid to think of Raleigh as a "small town" compared to Charlotte. They are both metropolitan areas. It's not like we're comparing a real city like Chicago or Philly to Raleigh or Charlotte here...

[Edited on July 18, 2007 at 12:25 AM. Reason : x]

7/18/2007 12:25:37 AM

but it's my fuckin horrible place dammit

7/18/2007 12:26:04 AM

I'm not talking about size when i say "big city" or else boston sf and dc are small cities. I know charlotte has alot more size. Actually, that is what I'm talking about. I'm talking mainly about population. Just because charlotte claims more city area in a less densely populated area doesn't make it a "bigger" city. If you measured the same radius around raleigh to draw limits as big as charlotte Raleigh would have more people. for example, a good majority of north raleigh isn't "raleigh". The charlotte metro area also includes some areas almost an hour away from charlotte. Now I'm not saying Raleigh is more of a "big city" than charlotte but htey are very close and the triangle is a "bigger" metro area.

Anchorage is the biggest city in the country and has about 300k people but they are spread around at a rate of 150 pple per sq mile

virginia beach is another great example as it claims almost 500 sq miles ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE NC BORDER which inflates the population numbers to almost 500 k but theres only 1700 people per sq mile.

basically the numbers can be misleading it all comes down to how the governments do things for tax purposes where they put the borders. for instance triangle town center to strickland to wakefiled is a huge gap in raleigh city limits but wakefield is "raleigh"

[Edited on July 18, 2007 at 4:37 AM. Reason : jk]

[Edited on July 18, 2007 at 4:39 AM. Reason : alot of shenaningans in this thread]

7/18/2007 4:36:57 AM

This thread is quite literally pointless.

There is no point.

You had no point in your first post, and you have no point in your latest post.

The fact that I'm reiterating this is also pointless.

It's an homage.

7/18/2007 5:16:41 AM

charlotte is a paved glass turd surrounded by strip malls.

when speaking of "cities", Raleigh's downtown area is far better than Charlottes. Isnt that what makes a city? Charlotte is a bank of american brank in a parkinglot and Raleigh is the sweet store next to it that sells abunch of cool shit.

I live in Brooklyn and still occationally I miss Raleigh's low rents, lack of drug dealers killing each other, and Mitch's.

7/18/2007 7:44:50 AM

you think raleigh's downtown is better? You must be joking. I've lived in raleigh for 16 years and just moved to downtown charlotte and it is so much better.

7/18/2007 7:54:18 AM

maybe if you like shitty bars and bankers.

7/18/2007 7:59:04 AM