Jump to content

Square Miles of Metros


TennBear

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 44
  • Created
  • Last Reply
settle down bnabreaker, there's no need for you to get upset....i heard constantly on the radio, in the tennessean, on tv, and talking to other middle tennesseans how nashville had the worst sprawl problem of any major metro in the country.

you seem to be getting awfully defensive, i'm just trying to realize why the region does not come together and realize it is a major problem. while memphis does have some sprawl, i do not believe it to be anything like nashville's.........YET.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the article linked above is comparing rates of sprawl, not volume. It would be ignorant to compare volume of sprawl since the largest cities would, of course, always have the most and not verifiably answer any questions. By looking at the rate of sprawl, you can identify which cities are the most spread out for their size. Looking at the percentage of residents who reside in urban areas is the most effective way to determine that. Clearly if over a third of Nashvillians do not live in urbanized areas, that indicates sprawl. The same applies to Memphis (also in the top 15 most sprawl-ridden metros).

Just because the results reflect something we'd rather not admit does not make them invalid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stand corrected. Thanks for the article, it was a very interesting read. However, it's really depressing to think that Nashville's the most sprawling metro in the nation. It's also interesting to me, because I was always taught that Nashville didn't have the degree of white flight that other cities experienced (like Memphis). Maybe this was incorrect, but if it isn't that means alot of our sprawl is a much more modern phenomenon. I think the saddest thing is that I try to keep up with things like this, and I had never heard that we were rated worst sprawling metro in the US. I think if it were more publicised, we might get more people to open their eyes to some of the ludicrous projects our counties are permitting!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the article linked above is comparing rates of sprawl, not volume. It would be ignorant to compare volume of sprawl since the largest cities would, of course, always have the most and not verifiably answer any questions. By looking at the rate of sprawl, you can identify which cities are the most spread out for their size. Looking at the percentage of residents who reside in urban areas is the most effective way to determine that. Clearly if over a third of Nashvillians do not live in urbanized areas, that indicates sprawl. The same applies to Memphis (also in the top 15 most sprawl-ridden metros).

Just because the results reflect something we'd rather not admit does not make them invalid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not about Nashville or any Tennessee city in particular, but in the US we have created a desire to have the large home and the scenic beauty of a rural area. The only way that people can get it is to move further and further away from the central cities. Add to that the cost of the house and the property taxes and the commute seems less and less of an issue. This is especially true if there are limited access roads that lead out. In Nashville's case there are 6 interstates leading out in all directions and it is a prescription from sprawl. That is just a fact. The only way to counter it is to have the benefits of living in or closer to the city be more important than having a larger house further out from the city. I don't have the answer. It has to be various things for the wide variety of people that need to be attracted. I would say that setting up special destricts with lower property taxes and magnet schools would go a long way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most people don't want the rural life, they just want a cheap home. I agree that most people aren't into highrise living around this region (although there is a large market for urban condo and townhouses as already clearly demonstrated), and house size is certainly important. But rural life is not what a clear majority of people are after. Even in Nashville, known for its "country culture," you won't find a majority of people who want to upkeep and maintenance of a ranch or farm, they just want their acre or two and a sizable home that is comfortable and more importantly AFFORDABLE.

That's the number one reason why housing keeps moving further out: cost of living and poverty. That's why the nation's cities need priority funding to rebuild communities and build lower cost housing. Its not the government's job to build everyone a house, but it is the government's job to set policy to promote certain types of growth. The government decides where infrastructure is needed and where its feasible. (Highway 840 is the biggest example of mismanagement in Nashville's regional planning. It should have been built much closer in, connecting Mt Juliet to LaVergne-Antioch to Brentwood and back up near Bellevue.) Its also the government's job to give tax incentives to push affordable housing and rebuilding communities within our urban communities.

Some may disagree, but essentially that's the purpose of government. Otherwise we would never have needed a government to begin with. Unfortunately in a metro like Nashville we have such an extreme conservative element that the very question of why government should even be involved in community planning gets asked over and over. That means we're a step behind some areas already in my opinion.

Another trend of suburbia is where you have upper middle class suburbanites who enjoy the amenities of family life in the suburb, but don't pay taxes for the urban toys and urban life they want to take part of.

Perfect example of this is the LP Field funding. Nashvillians are paying the taxes on a stadium that people from Williamson, Wilson, Rutherford, Sumner, and other regional counties enjoy.

That's just a small example quite frankly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree TN 840 is a mess. The original reason for it being built so far out was to combat sprawl. The thinking was locate it out much further than I-285 in Atlanta, and sprawl won't spring up on it. Also by locating it out out so far it makes a better Nashville bypass for traffic between Chattanooga and Memphis.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I just thought I would ask, since everyone is talking about, what is wrong with sprawl? People have to live somewhere if they want to work in the city, and most of the time inner parts of the cities aren't the most desirable places to live. So if city leaders don't keep up the inner areas of the cities, you wouldn't want to live there. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with it as long as it doesn't get out of hand like in some cities. Actually, once the sprawling neighborhoods mature, I think they look very nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just thought I would ask, since everyone is talking about, what is wrong with sprawl? People have to live somewhere if they want to work in the city, and most of the time inner parts of the cities aren't the most desirable places to live. So if city leaders don't keep up the inner areas of the cities, you wouldn't want to live there. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with it as long as it doesn't get out of hand like in some cities. Actually, once the sprawling neighborhoods mature, I think they look very nice.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.