Archived

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

ainulindale

Pittsburgh has worse sprawl than Los Angeles?

8 posts in this topic


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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.