The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

I ran across information about the Census Bureaus' definition of urban areas and thought it was interesting.  

The Census Bureau defines urbanized area as " a densely settled core of census tracts and/or census blocks that meet minimum population density requirements, along with adjacent territory containing non-residential urban land uses as well as territory with low population density included to link outlying densely settled territory with the densely settled core."   In brief, this eliminates the distortions caused by undeveloped areas that get included in population and density numbers by looking at areas within city limits and/or county lines as is the case for city numbers and metropolitan area numbers.

Tulsa's urban area had a 2010 population of 655,479 and a population density of 1951.3 per square mile.

Some other cities:
Houston:               4,944,332 - 2978.5/sq. mi
Albuquerque:          1,362,416 - 2958.5/sq. mi
Dallas-Fort Worth:  5,121,892    - 2878.9/sq. mi
Omaha:                   725,008 - 2,673.3/sq. mi
Austin:                 1,362,416    - 2604.8/sq. mi
Oklahoma City:         861,505 - 2,098.0/sq. mi
Atlanta:                4,515,419 - 1,706.9/sq. mi
Little Rock:              431,388 - 1,670.0/sq. mi
Birmingham:             749,495 - 1,414.4/sq. mi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_urban_areas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_urban_areas)

I always have a hard time swallowing that density number for OKC when you look at the incorporated limits of OKC.  They stretch 14 or 15 miles east of I-35 into largely rural land and there are parts east of Midwest City and Jones as well as south of the Mid-Del area and on out west.  OKC is one of the worst examples of under-utilized sprawl I think I've ever seen.

It absolutely is. Jacksonville is up there as well.

Yep, and that number taken as it is provides little context since they're considering 'urban areas'

OKC has 3 times the land area in their city limits (at just over 600 sq miles) that Tulsa does (who rings in just under 200 sq miles).  Tulsa has very little sprawl, but if you look at an OKC map which includes its city limits, the sprawl is pretty evident.  Their city limits extend out to the east nearly as far as Shawnee Reservoir.  To the west out to Page Airport and to the northeast almost out to Luther and to the northwest out to nearly Piedmont.  Much of that space is not developed.  Almost 200 sq miles if you go by the numbers in Wikipedia (which label that land area in use as urban at about 410 sq mi, leaving about 200 sq miles not developed).

Re-read the post.  The urbanized area analysis ignores the city limit and county lines and analyzes the actual developed (I.e., urbanized) areas.  This is the only way to get a realistic analysis of the density of urban areas. 

Food for thought:   Let's say that after the 2010 census numbers are fully analyzed, the census bureau adds Washington County to the Tulsa metro.  Using the method of strictly following county lines and city limits, the Tulsa metro area population density would suddenly drop significantly.  But of course nothing would have changed in the real density of the urbanized area.  Using city limit and county lines for density paints a false and largely irrelevant picture.

Got it! There I go jumping to conclusions again.  ;)

Not really sure how you "ran across" that info, OC... It's the equivalent of me saying I "ran across" info about pro soccer...  ;D
http://www.okctalk.com/general-civic-issues/29289-okc-population-density.html

The info is valuable, however... as long as we're talking about it in the context of neighborhood density and confine it to a narrow, technical definition of "sprawl."  

I'm gonna go with what I know....
Very little of Chicago's city limits contain "sprawl."
There are, however, literally dozens of suburbs in Chicagoland, occupying a much larger land mass than the city itself.
Some of them are older bedroom communities (Oak Park, Evanston) that have similar residential population "density" as older neighborhoods found inside the city limits of Tulsa and Oklahoma City.
Some of them are more modern suburbs like Schaumburg and Naperville that have a similar residential population "density" as south Tulsa and the Putnam City areas...

I see more similarities than differences when I compare the urban density of Mesta Park, Paseo, Heritage Hills and Nichols Hills in OKC to the neighborhoods of Florence Park, Kendall-Whittier, Maple Ridge and Utica Square in Tulsa.  I really like the Vietnamese markets and businesses north of NW23rd & Classen, while Tulsa's version developed in a more suburban-style area on the east side of town.  Individual areas of Tulsa and OKC have similar residential development patterns and density that fit the typical template for a car dependent sun belt city.

Tulsans like to tease our OKC counterparts that "We have hills."  I'd like to point out that when comparing the neighborhoods mentioned above, we Tulsans can also tease our OKC counterparts that "WE HAVE SIDEWALKS!"   ;D

I'd imagine the reason OKC has slightly higher urban density in its developed areas would be due to the larger size and scope of "sprawling" south Tulsa (aka "Jixby") compared to similar areas around Quail Springs Mall in Okie City... I'd also imagine that if we included lower residential density areas like Bethany and Mustang as part of OKC, the statistics would be practically  identical.

That said, what I found befuddling the years I lived there and the many times I've traveled there since, are the large swaths of undeveloped land in what appears to be the middle of town.  I'd look at a city map knowing I was right in the middle of a supposedly "urban" area and see acres and acres of nothing... another point of comparison would be driving I-44 in OKC versus I-44 in Tulsa... or the Broken Arrow Expressway in Tulsa compared to Northwest Expressway in OKC.

Apparently you need to re-read the OP too.  We are not talking about just the central cities.  Bethany and Mustang ARE included in OKC's urbanized area.  I have no idea what large swaths of undeveloped land in the middle of OKC you are talking about.  But even with those (if they do exist) OKC has higher density than Tulsa (as do Austin, Omaha, Albuquerque, DFW and Houston).

The area just east of I-35 is not dense at all as well as some parts of northern OC before you hit Edmond come to mind.

I'll re-read it after you apologize for saying you "ran across" info you CLEARLY POSTED on OKCTalk in March of 2012.
I also find it curious that you've been banned from that site.  Would you care to tell us why?

I lived in OKC for about ten years... I still travel there a few times a year... and I will again say that when I drive the BA Expressway, some kind of rail transit option makes alot of sense... but I admit I haven't driven all the way up Northwest Expressway to Council Rd in OKC in years.  Is there new development there that has improved its urban density?

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/40/4055000.html

Geography QuickFacts   Oklahoma City   
Land area in square miles, 2010    606.41   
Persons per square mile, 2010    956.4   

Geography QuickFacts   Tulsa   Oklahoma
Land area in square miles, 2010    196.75
Persons per square mile, 2010    1,991.9

I have occasionally read your previous posts, knowing I will often get an anti-Tulsa/pro-OKC perspective.
I can appreciate a skeptic, but don't appreciate disingenuous stuff posted regularly on a pro-Tulsa public forum.
I will argue that, while you make a good point, the higher urban density you seem to tout for OKC is statistically insignificant.   
 
So... why would the two largest cities in Oklahoma have urban area density closer to each other, than to any other cities in the region?
What kind of zoning/development would improve urban density to the levels we see in Austin or Omaha or Dallas?

I would argue that urban density doesn't automatically translate to "walkability."

http://www.walkscore.com/OK/Tulsa
http://www.walkscore.com/OK/Oklahoma_City

And walkability doesn't automatically translate to urban density.... discuss.

If I've been banned on any forum any where at any time, no one has told me about it.  Even if one had posted something on another forum some months earlier, how does that mean that it had not been "run across"?


Not sure, and not sure of the importance.  The Northwest Expressway corridor is certainly similar to the 71st Street corridor in urban density.  I'm not really seeing a great deal more urban density along the BA either, but, if you do, that's great.  The numbers are what they are.   Were you going to share with us where all of the undeveloped land in the middle of Oklahoma City is located?


Yawn.  Who cares?  These numbers are completely irrelevant to any analysis of the urban density of the two cities (or for that matter, any city).


I did not by any stretch of any reasonably imagination "tout" or "seem to tout" OKC's higher urban density.  I merely put together a list of regional and similar-sized cities and some I thought were interesting (mainly Atlanta).  It was you who focused solely on OKC, not me.
 

Interesting questions.  Any thoughts?

Of course no one suggested that urban density automatically translates into "walkability" or vice versa.  Do you have thoughts on the matter, or did you just want to be snarky?   (The Walk Score city average is flawed in that it covers all areas within a city limits, not just urbanized areas.  My guess is that if apples were compared to apples, urban density would come much closer to automatically translating into "walkability").   Let's do some apples-to-apples comparisons of reasonably comparable neighborhoods in OKC and Tulsa and see how their "walkability" compares.  

Downtown OKC:  89
Downtown Tulsa: 74

Zip Code 73103 (Mesta Park area) OKC: 66
Riverview Tulsa:                                   69

Zip Code 73106 (Putnam Heights area) OKC:  64
Maple Ridge area Tulsa:                                55

Zip Code 73118 (Crown Heights/Edgemere Heights area) OKChttp://www.walkscore.com/OK/Oklahoma_City/73118 (http://www.walkscore.com/OK/Oklahoma_City/73118):  59
Florence Park Tulsahttp://www.walkscore.com/OK/Tulsa/Florence_Park (http://www.walkscore.com/OK/Tulsa/Florence_Park):                                                                   60
Cherry Street Tulsa http://www.walkscore.com/OK/Tulsa/Cherry_Street (http://www.walkscore.com/OK/Tulsa/Cherry_Street):                                                                  71


                                                      

Maybe it was just me jumping to conclusions, but when TulsaRufNex has repeatedly spoken of the large swaths of undeveloped land in the middle of town I presumed he meant somewhere near the middle of town.  There are plenty of areas in Tulsa comparable to what you are describing.

Well, if it says "banned" under your moniker on OKCtalk, I'm not sure what other conclusion could be made.
And yes, posting the EXACT SAME INFO in March 2012, and then posting you happened to "run across" the very same info here sounds a bit disingenuous.
http://www.okctalk.com/general-civic-issues/29289-okc-population-density.html


I'd disagree.  The 71st Street corridor corresponds more closely to the Quail Springs Mall/Memorial Rd/Kilpatrick Turnpike corridor.  Those areas were developed around the same time span with similar mixes of shopping malls and residential.  The reason I compare the BA to NW Expressway is because both extend from older, higher density to lower, more recent density and were developed in a similar time frame.  Not a perfect comparison since NW Expressway doesn't extend all the way to downtown OKC but pretty close.


I'd speculate enough Tulsans care about the statistic that it bothers you.
Jacksonville, FL has a similar problem.  Kudos to you for finding stats that differentiate urban "sprawl" in particular from "spread-out" in general.
When I think of "spread-out," I picture the drive from OKC's W. Reno or NW10th St downtown going west to Rockwell Ave... I don't count the miles of non-urbanized areas west of that...


dis·in·gen·u·ous
/ˌdisinˈjenyo͞oəs/
Adjective
Not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.

You know, my moniker "Oil Capital" is not all that creative.  Believe it or not, someone else in Oklahoma came up with that name as well.  It is not me.  I am not even a member of the OKCTalk forum.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make regarding the BA vs. Northwest Expressway.  Is the  BA really your evidence of Tulsa's superior density and walkability?

Trust me, i know Tulsans care about the city limits statistics, not because it is at all meaningful, but because it supports their mythology that Tulsa is in all ways more urban than OKC.  Funny thing, when the actual developed urban areas are compared they are quite similar (OKC slightly more dense).  And even when we do an apples to apples comparison of your preferred Walkability scores, it turns out the two cities are quite similar.  I know it is difficult for Tulsans to accept, but those are the facts.  Continuing to live in the land of denial will get you nowhere.

There's also some areas north of roughly Hefner and west of I-35 which are still surprisingly under-developed.  I remember going to visit friends in OKC when I was going to school at OSU in the mid '80's and marveling at all these 4 lane roads in north OKC which had little, if any commercial or residential development at the time and thinking Tulsa was stupid for not having done that before the development to the south exploded.  Of course, I've had it explained many times as to the failure of the original Eastland Shopping center failure in the early 1970's was that it was expected that Tulsa's growth was most definitely east since growth to the south would be cut off by the Arkansas River, so that may well explain the  apparent lack of planning on south Tulsa arterials.

Sorry bub, but I caught this before you could edit it...
"If the BA is your evidence of density or walkability, Tulsa is more of a joke than I thought."

You're busted.   8)

Busted how, exactly?  I have never made any particular effort to hide the fact that I think Tulsa is a joke, especially when the real Tulsa is compared to the Tulsa mythology.  That doesn't change any of the facts.  Nor do your constant ad hominem attacks change the reality.  

I guess I have your answer to the question of whether you actually wanted to discuss the "walkability" factor or just wanted to be snarky.

You're busted because you have a hidden agenda.
You can pretend you're just trying to be thoughtful and helpful... but you're just an OKC booster who hates living in Tulsa (thinks this city is a "joke")...
Too bad you didn't get a job in Houston, a city you actually like.
Evidently, little has changed in the years you've been posting on TulsaNow and OKCTalk.

I remember the same thing.  Although I wonder if the Union school district had included east Tulsa things would have played out alot differently.

Did you ever hit Bricktown in the 80s?  Pretty scary.
But over the last 20 years, that was a pretty amazing turnaround.  
I kept wishing Tulsa could have something comparable in its downtown.

I remember, after moving here 6+ year ago, saying more than once that if downtown Tulsa could just have 2-3 blocks of stuff that stays open past 5pm, I'd be happy.
And McNellies seemed so... well... isolated.   ;D

I think the reason why Tulsa banked on east's explosion was the opening of the Port of Catoosa.  That's the reason I always get when I ask why 244 was 8 laned but the BA was initially only 4.

I do remember for years asking my Dad about the Eastland Mall construction as it sat dormant out there when he would take me flying his model airplanes at the Glue Dobbers field when they had it at 41st and 145th East Ave.

Now my old co-workers just moved in out there.

That sounds right.  I remember going to the Plaza 3 movie theater as a kid when there really wasn't much there. 
I'm still confused that nobody could see the writing on the wall before Eastland Mall was constructed.

Hmmm.  Interesting coincidence?  Separated at birth?

http://www.okctalk.com/food-restaurants/28277-la-madelines-coming-okc-tulsa.html#post496848

http://www.okctalk.com/general-civic-issues/21245-downtown-tulsa-development-ahead-okc-9.html#post323256
 Quote Originally Posted by Spartan
Oil Capitol, it is good to have you in OKC and I am glad that you aren't an ex-Tulsan insisting that Tulsa is better. I'm glad you're one of us, I would just encourage you as well as everyone else to be a little more critical sometimes and a little less braindead blindly optimistic in OKC. If the only reason Saks is in Tulsa is because it's rent-free for them.. yeah, I'm sure that's how the world of high-fashion works. As for small, it's still two stories and typical dept store layout and quantity.

Who cares enough to get into a pissing war between shopping malls? They're all the scourge of the world in my opinion. I would be happy if Penn Square, Woodland Hills, Tulsa Promenade, and Quail Springs just got wiped off the face of the planet. It would infuse those cities with some more variety and diversity in retail.

As for stores/chains Tulsa has that OKC doesn't, there are so many. We've ran through so many of them on this forum. A few big names Tulsa has that OKC does not include Whole Foods, Dave & Busters, Anthropologie, Wolfgang Puck Bistro, Hard Rock Casino/Hotel, Fossil, Saks Fifth Avenue, Fleming's Steakhouse.. I could go on.

1, nobody cares about Vans, 2 Apple and Cheesecake came to OKC/Tulsa at the same time. Lego store?

The silence.  It's deafening...

I think Eastland was planned in the mid to late 1960's, work started around 1971 and shut down in 1972.  I think.  Seems like they had set the boilers and chillers in the basement and the boilers had 1972 data tags.  Seems like the Port really didn't take off until '73 or '74 and not sure what financial issue may have stopped work on Eastland, but IIRC, I believe it was around '86 or so when they finally found a chump, er buyer to finish it out.

The mechanical systems all required extensive repair/overhaul from sitting in water.  Honestly, it would have been cheaper to just start over.  No idea how they happened to come up with the money at the time to purchase the property and finally move forward at roughly the same time South Land Shopping Center was converted to the Promenade unless it was the same property/investment group. Somewhat bullish considering the financial crap storm Tulsa had just been through.  You could say those were the first two large scale bullish retail investments in the Tulsa area after our S & L melt down, along with $9/bbl oil.

Of some note was the economics of the second Nixon term. It was not good around here in 72-75. Nam, oil crisis, too many grads, too few jobs. East Tulsa did not pan out for lots of reasons, one being its tendency to flood and the other was problems with settling foundations which cracked the slabs. Much of the area is shale substrata. Builders got stung by both.

Meanwhile the leapfrogging of Tulsa real estate left sellers in a bind. Broken Arrow and Wagoner county were hot because of low taxes outside of Tulsa County and new school systems in BA. New buyers jumped over existing housing in near east. The same thing was happening south of I-44 as new construction was more popular and cheaper the farther south you went. Fueled Jenks and Bixby. Apartments and subsidized housing filled in. All of this spelled disaster for an expensive, innovative Eastland shopping center whose population base was not materializing. The following S&L meltdown finished her off.

At least, that's my memory. I sold real estate in that time period and my father was working for the big name builders as it all unfolded.

Personally I still view Guthrie as the true capitol of Oklahoma. OKC is just an imposter.  ;D

Oh... see... now you're just being snarky. ;)  Of course, I should not be one to talk, as I am a connaisseur of snarkasm myself...

Ironically, about a week and a half ago, I posted anti-OKC snark halfway down page 23 of bigsoccer.com's thread, Ideas for MLS League Design [Superthread] III (clear evidence that bigsoccer posters have entirely too much time on their hands)  http://www.bigsoccer.com/community/threads/ideas-for-mls-league-design-superthread-iii.1844597/page-23

It starts thusly (and yes, I am a Monty Python fan),

Dear Oklahoma City,

Ooh, You are so big... So absolutely huge.
Gosh, we're all really impressed down here in Tulsa, I can tell You.
Forgive us, Oklahoma City, for this, our dreadful toadying, and barefaced flattery.
But You are so strong and, well, just so super. Fantastic. Amen.

...after the introductory paragraph is a snarky rant that may actually make more sense to Tulsans than it did to bigsoccer.com posters...

Not so good for the Casino, which is rumored to have just laid off three dozen staff.

How many casinos can one city in the bible belt support?

Forgot about this thread.  TulsaRufnex's logic is as laughable as ever.  Posting an OKCtalker's post stating that he's glad to have another poster named Oil Capital IN Oklahoma City is somehow supposed to prove that the OKCTalk "Oil Capital" is the same person as the TulsaNow Oil Capital (me) who is in Tulsa.  Your post actually rather proves the opposite of what you are attempting to prove.   Hilarious.  

The populated areas of OKC "feel" a lot like Tulsa when driving around there (and I drive around a LOT there and here).  The big difference is when you get to an 'edge' of town, the city limit extends another several miles - sometimes 20 or more to the east.  And a lot of that is very lightly populated....no density at all.  With Tulsa, even though there is unfilled space, there is no where near as much unfilled space as OKC. 

I remember the days before malls in Tulsa when we had movie theaters downtown and stores and restaurants. On Thursday night the stores stayed open 'til 8 PM. No one complained about walkability in those days...

ECS

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 2

  I wonder if part of our "more urban/developed" feel is because of some areas that have more business warehouse/manufacturing structures?  I have noticed that there are large areas of Tulsa that seem rather "filled in" with lots of buildings, but have very few to no residents living in those areas.  I am sure OKC has them too, but perhaps Tulsa has more. Just a thought.  Also, sometimes it's just the way a city arranges itself development wise that can create a difference.  BA compared to Tulsa for instance.  In Tulsa there seem to be a lot more narrower roads in more of the city with development much nearer to those roads.  Where as in much of even the developed areas of BA, the buildings/stores etc. are set further back away from the roads making things feel more open and empty.

Regardless of the actual numbers, the developed areas of Tulsa "feel" more urban and dense than OKC's.

I noticed that too.

If I remember them correctly, it seemed to be a bunch of snide personal comments between posters.

Good riddance if you ask me. I like that this forum is moderated.

Please keep the discussion about urbanized areas, not about what someone posted on another forum in another city several years ago.  

It is in the best interest of this forum and any other to minimize personal attacks and trolling, especially in useful topics like development as it keeps posters who might become a good contributor from posting.

Admittedly, we don't as actively patrol the political forums as much as we probably should, but the moderators are afraid of what they might catch by venturing into the political sections.

In the future, if you feel the need to call out another poster, please use the private message feature of the forum.

Thank you!
Moderator

I have had some deleted, too.  Can't understand that at all...after all, I AM the voice of moderation on this place.  I bill myself as an "Extreme Moderate"....

As opposed to the Extreme Left and the Extreme Right that are both so amply represented here.

Everyone thinks they're a moderate.

Yeah, I notice that around here.  But the reality is that I'm the only one....it's a lonely place to be.  Like the song says, clowns to the left of me (as in TTC...?), jokers to the right....

lol...I make myself laugh...

More info:

According to Demographia, there are 847 urbanized areas in the world with populations above 500,000.   When ranked by population density, the highest ranked US city is Los Angeles, at No. 724 (with 6,100/sq. mi).   Tulsa is no. 826 (tied with Richmond, Va, Sarasota FL, Albany, NY, and Grand Rapids MI), with 2,000/sq. mi.).   No. 847 is Knoxville, TN, with 1,300/sq. mi. http://www.demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf (http://www.demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf)

Cities in our region:
Denver:                2,374,203 - 3,554.4/sq. mi
New Orleans:           899,703 - 3,578.9/sq. mi
El Paso:                   803,086 - 3,205.0/sq. mi
Houston:               4,944,332 - 2978.5/sq. mi
Colorado Springs:     559,409 - 2,978.2/sq. mi
Albuquerque:          1,362,416 - 2958.5/sq. mi
San Antonio:           1,758,210 - 2,944.6/sq. mi
Dallas-Fort Worth:   5,121,892 - 2878.9/sq. mi
Wichita:                     472,870 - 2857.4/sq. mi
Omaha:                   725,008 - 2,673.3/sq. mi
Austin:                  1,362,416 - 2604.8/sq. mi
St. Louis:              2,150,706 - 2,328.5/sq. mi
Kansas City:          1,519,417 - 2,241.6/sq. mi
Memphis:              1,060,061 - 2,131.6/sq. mi
Oklahoma City:         861,505 - 2,098.0/sq. mi
Tulsa:                       655,479 - 1951.3/sq. mi
Nashville:                 969,587 - 1,720.7/sq. mi
Little Rock:               431,388 - 1,670.0/sq. mi
Baton Rouge:            594,309 - 1,620.3/sq. mi
Birmingham:             749,495 - 1,414.4/sq. mi
 

US URBANIZED AREAS OVER 500,000 RANKED BY POPULATION DENSITY:

1.  Los Angeles          6,100/sq. mi.
2.  San Francisco       5,400
3.  Las Vegas            4,800
4.  Honolulu              4,700
5.  New York             4,600
6.  Miami                  4,500
7.  San Diego            4,100
8.  Fresno                 3,900
9.  Sacramento         3,800
     Salt Lake City      3,800
     Bakersfield          3,800
12. Denver               3,700
13. Portland             3,600
      New Orleans       3,600
15. Washington DC   3,500
16. Chicago              3,400
17. Phoenix              3,200
      El Paso               3,200
19. Seattle               3,100
      Baltimore           3,100
      San Antonio       3,100
22. Houston              3,000
      Albuquerque       3,000
      Colorado Springs 3,000
25. DFW                   2,900
26. Philadelphia        2,800
      Detroit               2,800
      Virginia Beach    2,800
29. Austin                2,700
     Columbus           2,700
     Omaha               2,700
32. MSP                  2,600
      Tampa              2,600
34. Orlando             2,500
      Milwaukee         2,500
      Ogden, UT        2,500
37. St. Louis           2,400
      Buffalo             2,400
      Tucson             2,400
40. Cleveland         2,300
      Kansas City      2,300
42. Boston             2,200
      Indianapolis     2,200
      Providence RI   2,200
      Memphis          2,200
      Rochester NY    2,200
47. Cincinnati         2,100
      Jacksonville      2,100
      Louisville          2,100
      Oklahoma City  2,100
      McAllen TX       2,100
      Dayton OH       2,100
      Toldeo OH        2,100
54. Richmond, VA   2,000
      Tulsa               2,000
      Sarasota FL      2,000
      Albany NY        2,000
      Grand Rapids   2,000
59. Pittsburgh        1,900
      Allentown PA    1,900
      Charleston, SC  1,900
62. Atlanta GA        1,800
      Charlotte NC     1,800
      Nashville          1,800
      Raleigh NC       1,800
      Hartford CT      1,800
      Springfield MA  1,800
      Akron OH         1,800
70. Baton Rouge     1,600
      Cape Coral FL   1,600
72. Columbia SC     1,500
73. Birmingham      1,400
74. Knoxville TN      1,300

I don't agree with the call...

The basket should have counted.

The foul shoulda been called on the other guy.

And I should be at the free throw line to complete a three point play.

Instead, I get a technical...   8) 

You were offsides

I don't see Bugtussel on that list.  Can't be legitimate.

I wonder about a methodology that concludes Las Vegas is more densely populated than New York City.  I get that there's more to NYC than Manhattan, but that just doesn't sound right.  Perhaps that goes to Artist's point - some cities simply "feel" more urbanized than others in ways that population density cannot measure.

I think I heard that something like a quarter of NYC is park space, playgrounds, etc. for instance but only has a tiny amount of "vacant" land.