Pittsburgh has worse sprawl than Los Angeles?

[ainulindale]

An OLD article from the PG but I found it interesting. Apparently Pittsburgh has problems utilizing land. Our MSA is scattered accross 5,343 sq. mi. at an average density of 447 people per sq. mi. Any thoughts? How should we combat this sub-urban sprawl?

http://www.post-gazette.com/businessnews/2...awl0608bnp3.asp

[urbanophile]

An OLD article from the PG but I found it interesting. Apparently Pittsburgh has problems utilizing land. Our MSA is scattered accross 5,343 sq. mi. at an average density of 447 people per sq. mi. Any thoughts? How should we combat this sub-urban sprawl?

http://www.post-gazette.com/businessnews/2...awl0608bnp3.asp

[mjcatl2]

The towns along the rivers are not sprawl. they are towns. as is Butler and Washington and Beaver Falls and on and on.

Therefore the basis is totally irrelevant and useless.

[Evergrey]

Pittsburgh has been the worst sprawling metro over the past few decades if you go by acres consumed for every net household gained. Metro Pittsburgh has developed over 8 acres for every net household while the national average is something like 1.6 acres for every net household (despite losing total population, we have SLOWLY gained households due to shrinking average household size)

On the other hand... while Metro LA ranks as one of the densest major Urban Areas in the country... population density does no necessarily equate to "urbanity".

[TheGerbil]

I think there are two factors at work here. 1) Our hilly landscape means we have a lot of land that's not really buildable. This is not unique to us but I am sure it factors in. 2) Our fragmented government causes poor use of land in the suburbs. Rather than development going in where it makes the most sense, it goes to whichever town offers the greatest incentives.

We can't do anything about the first issue, and I wouldn't want to change that anyway. The second issue requires greater cooperation amongst local governments. If we could all work together instead of competing with each other.....

[mjcatl2]

All good points but additionally, a measurement of metro areas will in Pittsburgh's case include many communities that predate suburbs and grew from their own industries. These communities don't equate into the typical core city-suburb scheme well.

[TheGerbil]

All good points but additionally, a measurement of metro areas will in Pittsburgh's case include many communities that predate suburbs and grew from their own industries. These communities don't equate into the typical core city-suburb scheme well.

[blueblackcat]

Pick your poison... one factory corporate-owned town or usuburban sprawl. I'll take the Hemlock

Everyone's good points aside, what Evergrey mentioned is the most crucial point. The marginal amount of land that needs to be developed for each additional household. I think the hilly topography around here really makes sprawl a more impractical and inefficient undertaking. If you need an entire road, sewage, gas, electricity, water, all going going through a narrow valley or up to the top of a large hill just to provide access to a couple houses in a small clearing, it becomes ridiculous.