Urban Sprawl, Which Large City Defines It?

[MJLO]

i'm sure things have changed a bit since then. One cool way to measure sprawl is from the air at night. Flying into Toronto, from the west we flew over Chicago, and Detroit. Flying over Chicago it was insane lights so bright. Seemed kinda small from seven miles in the air. You could see Detroit in the distance, the lights covered about the same amount of areabut were not nearly as bright once we were over it. I think that's just a testament to how much more dense the Chicago metro area is.

[Snowguy716]

Minneapolis itself is a dense city, and the inner-ring suburbs are also relatively dense, but the newer suburbs are horribly sprawly.

The suburbs that are growing, however, are growing along major transit corridors: I-35, I-94, U.S 10.. so that's good for implementing mass transit but then again, bad for congestion on the existing roads.

[teshadoh]

^ I think that is the primary distinction, there are two very different development styles occuring - Atlanta (as well as Phoenix, Dallas & Houston) defines the low dense sprawl pattern most common in the southeast (Charlotte, Raleigh, Orlando, Tampa) with a relatively miniscule dense core. Whereas Chicago & Detroit may have a relative similar amount of sprawl, as NYC or Boston has, but they have a dense city center.

Again - the difference between maturing before WWII & after. I'm willing to give the benefit of a doubt to most Midwestern & Northeastern metros, just for the sake of having a dense urban core.

[MJLO]

^ I think that's in direct correlation to the significance of the automobile. Cities like Chicago Detroit and New York, experienced the bulk of their growth before Automobiles, hence why everything is so close together, because walking to your destination was very common.

Whereas Atlanta, Phoenix Houston ect, started booming 60's 70's ect, during the years of the gas guzzling monoliths. But not all cities in the south have a less dense core, Miami has a very dense core, and also a somewhat more dense suburban structure.

[lsgchas]

Atlanta is a city that made a deal with the devil a long time ago. It avoided the long economic depression of the Deep South, but to do so it gave itself over completely to shallow boosterism, an unchecked love of money, and middle class rootlessness. Most of the people who live there still have their hearts in whatever part of the country they moved from; Atlanta is just the place their corporations transferred them to. For a city to resist sprawl, you need people who care about the livability of their city more than they care about making a cheap buck. Atlantans grouse about sprawl, but when you have a city run by corporate executives and PR hacks, you can't expect it to resemble anything other than a giant shopping mall.

[MJLO]

^ladies and gentlemen, I give you Phoenix.

[hudkina]

Detroit and LA are actually transitional cities. They used the old method of development but incorporated the automobile. That's why you see a lot more strip development in Detroit and Los Angeles than you see in Boston or Chicago. Also, you tend to see more neighborhoods with driveways that enter from the street, but with garages in the back.

For example:

[MZT]

Fast-growing western cities on flat ground without many forests or rivers get my vote. Phoenix, Fresno, Orange County, Dallas, etc.

[teshadoh]

^ The key difference as opposed to east coast southeastern metro areas would be the cities listed can be controlled with utility management. And in most cases, those developed areas such as Dallas, Phoenix or Orange Co. are indeed massive low dense areas, but are more continious & relatively more compact. Whereas - from Birmingham to Raleigh - in my view, epitomize the worst cases of sprawl. Low dense developments that 'leapfrog' over undeveloped areas - highly sporadic & non-continious low dense growth.

Due to rural areas being populated for longer than those in the west, there has already existed some level of built infrastructure. So - with large numbers of land owners beyond the periphary of a city with little use of the land,developing it is the only option. Not to mention the wide usage of septic tanks - usually the only control county governments have is to limit the size of a developable lot to 1 acre.

It's debatable what sprawl even is - it's easy to spot a sprawling low dense mass such as in suburban Dallas. But though it's not as apparent, the typical exurban pattern that exists in locations such as around Greenville SC for example in my view is far more economically unsound & greater potential for congestion. Hence Atlanta's dilemna, there is very little manner to control sprawl when development occurs in traditional non-developed environments well beyond the nearest subdivision or shopping center.

P.S. It's Sunday morning & I'm aware I probably don't sound that clear - if I need to clarify anything let me know.

[Snowguy716]

A beautiful example of Minneapolis sprawl.

Not a very good picture, but a nice example of Woodbury, MN, a suburb of St. Paul.

Beautiful Maple Grove, MN

And here's Minneapolis proper. When your city looks like a forest from above, it doesn't matter how sprawly it iis

[USA11B]

Atlanta is a city that made a deal with the devil a long time ago. It avoided the long economic depression of the Deep South, but to do so it gave itself over completely to shallow boosterism, an unchecked love of money, and middle class rootlessness. Most of the people who live there still have their hearts in whatever part of the country they moved from; Atlanta is just the place their corporations transferred them to. For a city to resist sprawl, you need people who care about the livability of their city more than they care about making a cheap buck. Atlantans grouse about sprawl, but when you have a city run by corporate executives and PR hacks, you can't expect it to resemble anything other than a giant shopping mall.

I have to agree 100% with that!

Contrary to whatever demographers, urban specialists, etc. may say, to me the definition of sprawl is just an undefined blob of growth with no real meaning, backbone, or long-term commitment. Which is Atlanta is the epitome of. Having lived in Detroit and Atlanta, I don't see Detroit anywhere as close to being as bad as Atlanta.

Detroit has cities that surround it, you can go to these cities and they have plenty of nightlife, great hole in the wall bars, unique restaurants that have been at the same location for 50yrs, shopping, etc. etc. Many people who live in the Detroit area never step a foot in Detroit yet they are able to enjoy pro sporting events, college events, upscale shopping/dinning, lowscale dinning, family events, parades, etc. etc. Old, unique neighborhoods, low-income-to-rich.

Atlanta you don't have that outside the city. Everything that surrounds Atlanta are just suburbs they aren't cities. There are few jobs in these areas, most of the "cities" surrounding Atlanta are built around a Wal-Mart and/or Home Depot as the town center, and the local grub is Applebee's and maybe a Olive Garden if your lucky. That to me is sprawl! The subdivisions are all EXACTLY the same, for less than 300k you get McTownhomes that are literally 5ft apart from ea. other, for 300k+ you get McMansions that are 8ft apart fro ea. other. And they all have the same stupid names, Steeple Chase, Atlanta Commons, Wind Chase, Steeple Commons, Peachtree Commons, Peachtree Chase, etc. Like the above post, almost every transplant here still identifies w/where they're from, they're only here because A. They can't make the fast easy money back home like they can here, or B. Because they're stuck here because of their job.

To me that's sprawl!

[damus]

What about Los Angeles and the surrounding area?

[hudkina]

Detroit has cities that surround it, you can go to these cities and they have plenty of nightlife, great hole in the wall bars, unique restaurants that have been at the same location for 50yrs, shopping, etc. etc.

That brings me back to this quote:

My viewpoint - Detroit is easily more dense than Atlanta. But Detroit's sprawl is similarily notable to Atlanta's sprawl.

The majority of suburban Detroit is not sprawl, especially the Atlanta-style sprawl that has become so popular in recent years. Sure like all major cities there are sprawl monsters eating away at the fringe of the metro, however, much of the inner-ring was developed with both the car and pedestrian in mind. Nearly all of the inner-ring suburbs maintain the urban street grid layed out by Detroit. Nearly all have a traditional downtown or in the least street-oriented shopping districts (and by that I mean retail that fronts the street with parking either on the street, in an adjacent lot, or in the rear) as opposed to just strip-malls. Nearly all have neighborhoods with sidewalks and the majority of the housing has the garage in the rear.

As of 2000, Atlanta had 416,474 people in it's 132 sq. mi. boundary. In comparison, Detroit's inner-ring Northern Suburbs had a 2000 population of 675,712 in an area of 150 sq. mi. Detroit's inner-ring Wayne County suburbs had a population of 612,023 in 147 sq. mi. Detroit (combined with Highland Park and Hamtramck) had a population of 990,992 in 144 sq. mi. So not only is Detroit more than twice as dense as Atlanta, but even Detroit's inner-ring suburbs have more people in the same land area. Also, that's after several decades of population loss for the core of the region. In 1970, the 150 sq. mi. inner-ring Northern Suburbs had 850,000, the 147 sq. mi. inner-ring Wayne County Suburbs had a population of 730,000, and the 144 sq. mi. Detroit had a population of 1,580,000.

Also, Detroit and it's inner-ring suburbs have a population of nearly 2.3 million people in just 441 sq. mi. And that's AFTER several decades of population loss for most of these cities. In 1970 the population living in the 441 sq. mi. core of Detroit was 3.2 million. In comparison Phoenix had a 2000 population of just 1.3 million in 447 sq. mi.

And while you said there is a difference between density and urbanity, I think the simple fact that 3.2 million people once lived in such a small area speaks of a certain urbanity.

[JFER1980]

Chicago is the definition. It's not in a continuous metropolis like New York City, and also has a lake on one side of downtown. This makes the western suburbs go on for what seems like forever. I have known people with 2 hour commutes to work.