Archived

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

Rwarky

Which NE cities are the most sprawling, pedestrian unfriendly, and have the least reliable public transportation networks?

10 posts in this topic

Which Northeastern cities are the most sprawling, pedestrian unfriendly, and have the least reliable public transportation systems?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Which Northeastern cities are the most sprawling, pedestrian unfriendly, and have the least reliable public transportation systems?

I would say that Hartford is a pretty good candidate, unfortunately. If you consider that only 1/10 of our metro population lives within the city you can see why sprawl is an issue here in our region. Also our public transportation is a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say that Hartford is a pretty good candidate, unfortunately. If you consider that only 1/10 of our metro population lives within the city you can see why sprawl is an issue here in our region. Also our public transportation is a joke.

Does Hartford have dense areas around it though that are technically "suburbs" but are very urban and just aren't technically part of the city? That could easily skew the percentages of people living outside the city while not saying that Hartford is really sprawling. Providence and Boston both have lots of these that contribute to much of the metro population living outside the city proper. Providence has Pawtucket, Central Falls, eastern Cranston (all very dense and urban), Boston has Cambridge, Somerville, Chelsea, Revere, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That could easily skew the percentages of people living outside the city while not saying that Hartford is really sprawling.

Yes, the percentage of people in the metro area living in the city isn't really a good indication of sprawl. I mean Jacksonville is almost the size of Rhode Island (I exagerate, a little), that boosts the percentage of people living within the city limits, but doesn't mean Jacksonville doesn't sprawl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those points are well taken. Hartfords suburbs are kind of weird. To the West is West Hartford (65,000) and East is East Hartford (50,000), both large urban towns that could easily be called part of Hartford based on appearances alone. There are also the nearby suburbs of New Britain and Manchester which are large and urban. Manchester however, is the sprawl capitol of CT thanks to the Buckland Hills Mall and adjoining retail plazas. Newington is also home to much sprawl on CT's route 15 better know as the Berlin Turnpike in these parts. Now to the north is Bloomfield (20,000) and Windsor (30,000) both small towns with classic village centers and some urban, suburban, and even rural areas. But recently they have began to build the same suburban style condos and apartments seen all across the south. Hartford is one of the most geographically diverse regions you can ever imagine, you can go from suburban strip mall, to downtown, to inner city, to country road in about 10 minutes, no kidding. So we do have a fair amount of sprawl here, and being one of the largest metros in the Northeast, I'm affraid we may actually be the most sprawling northeastern city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a tough one but id have to go with Pittsfield, Massachusetts. I believe its a city considering its in the middle of rural western Mass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which Northeastern cities are the most sprawling, pedestrian unfriendly, and have the least reliable public transportation systems?

Worcester....Springfield a close second (cities > 100K )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:P

Worcester....Springfield a close second (cities > 100K )

I think you are right Worcester actually sprawls within city limits. They are worst than Hartford due to that fact alone. However they have no significant metro area of their own so our metro probably sprawls more. I guess you could say that Boston metro sprawls into Worcester.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Boston itself has major sprawl, but it's overlooked because of it's dense core and dense surrounding cities. I think most of the northeastern cities are pretty much equal in this area. We all have dense cores but have plenty of sprawl around them at the same time.

I'd say Albany-Schenectady is pretty high on the list. There's a whole lotta sprawl there and a whole lotta vacancy in the cities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hmmmm... hartford's a tough one because the density within city limits is high (the city itself is tiny in land area, and it's deceiving like boston, also smaller in land area than one would think). hartford does have nearby urban areas... middletown and new britain for instance, but manchester is a prime example of sprawl at its worst (though not as bad as warwick, probably more on the lines of north attleboro).

worcester is a good choice. is pittsfield even big enough to really consider in this?

how about manchester, NH?

since warwick is a city, i vote for warwick... i've never seen anything like it. 2 malls less than half a mile apart, something like 3 miles of strip malls between where rt 2 crosses 95 and then 295. nevermind the post rd which is almost as bad. let's not forget that warwick has 2 walmarts!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.