Population density a factor in finding a good city to live in

While planning a travel route, I'm trying to strike a balance in the size of cities I stop at. I want nice restaurants, businesses, libraries, and parks. And I also want quiet, open spaces without a lot of people around to park my car at night. More populated areas have more services, better quality restaurants, more options than towns out in the sticks. But big cities have prohibitive rules and a host of problems for car living. Traffic congestion, lack of seclusion, no place to park and plug in at night.

So before I plan to pass through a city I want to know how big its population is. I hate big cities, was my working opinion. So I asked Google to sort a list of U.S. cities by population to consider avoiding. I saw places I disliked on the list that supported my opinion and reinforced my criteria for what makes a good city.

Then I was surprised to see Colorado Springs, CO, what I consider a medium city and a place I love, to be more populated than St. Louis, MI, what I had thought was a big city and a hellhole of shitty attitudes. How could I feel Colorado Springs is sparsely populated when it is actually 465,101 people and St. Louis so cramped and uncomfortable when it is 311,404? Well, of course, I hadn't been thinking carefully about what determines how 'big' a city feels. I had been only considering population size when what I actually was experiencing was population density.

I looked back through all the places on the list I traveled and enjoyed enough to consider living in. Was population density a common factor? At what population density did I get all the services I needed but not feel strangled by the hot reeking breath of anyone besides my bear, Ulix?

a list of U.S. cities by population

2016 rank	City	State[5]	2016 estimate	2010 Census	Change	2014 land area	2010 population density	Location

33

Tucson

Arizona

530,706

520,116

+2.04%

226.7 sq mi 587.2 km2

2,294 per sq mi 886 km−2

32.1543°N 110.8711°W

40

Colorado Springs

Colorado

465,101

416,427

+11.69%

194.5 sq mi 503.9 km2

2,141 per sq mi 826 km−2

38.8673°N 104.7607°W

54 Aurora Colorado 361,710 325,078 +11.27% 154.1 sq mi 369.1 km2 2,110 per sq mi 881 km−2 39.7082°N 104.8235°W 67 Henderson Nevada 292,969 257,729 +13.67% 107.7 sq mi 279.0 km2 2,392 per sq mi 924 km−2 36.0122°N 115.0375°W 99 Boise[22] Idaho 223,154 205,671 +8.50% 79.4 sq mi 205.56 km2 2,592 per sq mi 1,001 km−2 43.5985°N 116.2311°W 155 Fort Collins Colorado 164,207 143,986 +14.04% 54.3 sq mi 140.6 km2 2,653 per sq mi 1,024 km−2 40.5482°N 105.0648°W

Yes! I believe so! They all have very similar population densities! Despite differences in total population or total land area, the cities that I like to live in are in a range of about 2,100 to 2,600 per sq mi with an average of 2,364 per sq mi.

What about a city that I liked, with population less than 100,000 so it wasn't included in the list?

City, State. Population. Area. Population density.
Idaho Falls, Idaho  56,813. 22.80 sq mi. 2,542/sq m

Falls within the range. This seems to be a good predictor! Note the population density of cities I like tends to be higher for cities with smaller total population. This is likely because for smaller populations, there needs to be a higher concentration of people for decent restaurants and stores to make enough business.

What about the big city feel? How dense do these places get before I say too much?

1	New York[6]	New York	8,537,673	8,175,133	+4.43%	302.6 sq mi 783.8 km2	27,012 per sq mi 10,430 km−2	40.6643°N 73.9385°W
2	Los Angeles	California	3,976,322	3,792,621	+4.84%	468.7 sq mi 1,213.9 km2	8,092 per sq mi 3,124 km−2	34.0194°N 118.4108°W

262

Cambridge

Massachusetts

110,651

105,162

+5.22%

6.4 sq mi 16.5 km2

16,469 per sq mi 6,359 km−2

42.3760°N 71.1183°W

276

Boulder

Colorado

108,090

97,385

+10.99%

25.7 sq mi 66.5 km2

3,947 per sq mi 1,524 km−2

40.0175°N 105.2797°W

22 Boston Massachusetts 673,184 617,594 +9.00% 48.3 sq mi 125.0 km2 12,793 per sq mi 4,939 km−2 42.3320°N 71.0202°W

26

Portland

Oregon

639,863

583,776

+9.61%

133.4 sq mi 345.6 km2

4,375 per sq mi 1,689 km−2

45.5370°N 122.6500°W

28

Las Vegas

Nevada

632,912

583,756

+8.42%

135.8 sq mi 351.8 km2

4,298 per sq mi 1,660 km−2

36.2277°N 115.2640°W

61

St. Louis[16]

Missouri

311,404

319,294

−2.47%

61.9 sq mi 160.3 km2

5,157 per sq mi 1,991 km−2

38.6357°N 90.2446°W

214

Elizabeth

New Jersey

128,640

124,969

+2.94%

12.3 sq mi 31.9 km2

10,144 per sq mi 3,917 km−2

40.6663°N 74.1935°W

Anything pushing past 4,000 per sq mi starts to get on my nerves.

What about big cities that are too sparsely populated?

24

Nashville[14]

Tennessee

660,388

601,222

+9.84%

475.1 sq mi 1,230.8 km2

1,265 per sq mi 489 km−2

36.1718°N 86.7850°W

123

Salt Lake City

Utah

193,744

186,440

+3.92%

111.1 sq mi 287.8 km2

1,678 per sq mi 648 km−2

40.7785°N 111.9314°W

129

Knoxville

Tennessee

186,239

178,874

+4.12%

98.5 sq mi 255.2 km2

1,816 per sq mi 701 km−2

35.9709°N 83.9465°W

179

Savannah

Georgia

146,763

136,286

+7.69%

103.2 sq mi 267.2 km2

1,321 per sq mi 510 km−2

32.0025°N 81.1536°W

It's less clear to me where to draw the line when a population density is too low. The main concern is if there's limited services available. Which I kinda know anyway just by searching 'buffet' in Google maps. I'd say I should watch out is the density is 1,800 per sq mi or lower.

Of course, this is all totally subjective according to one person (me) using an insignificantly small set of cities. It won't prove anything, but it I still think it's useful to consider for me when I look for a new city to settle in.

Consider the underlying reasons that make sense. To get places to park and plug in at night I need the population spread out enough that all the people will leave one area of business after work. To get quality buffets, I need enough people in the area to support the restaurant but not too many that the restaurant has no need to improve their food for people to eat there. To have nice parks and libraries, there needs to be enough taxpayers but not too many homeless. And so on.

So I should not judge that I won't like a big city just by looking at its population size. The population density may be a better indication of the relative ease and options I'll have in a city.

Yeah this map doesn't help. Everything above 530 per sq mi is the same color, so I can't tell the difference between an ideal 2,300 per sq mi and an unpleasant 4,000 per sq mi density. I tried.