Urban Sprawl, Which Large City Defines It?

[Neo]

Chicago sprawl at its best:

Naperville, IL (~33 miles WSW from DT Chicago)

[monsoon]

My!

When I was shown this photo I thought it was Atlanta. Turns out it is Toronto.

[urban addict 20324]

That is one big-@ss superhighway.

[Spartan]

My!

When I was shown this photo I thought it was Atlanta.  Turns out it is Toronto. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh my

Thats what you call a large road.

[orulz]

Oh my

Thats what you call a large road.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

On my way back to the US from an academic exchange program, I was traveling with some people who had never left Japan before. We were flying Air Canada, so we had an overnight layover in Toronto, and we had to drive on that highway, or one that looks just like it, to get to our hotel. In Japan, just about the widest expressway you'll ever see is three lanes in each direction, so they were, needless to say, astonished to the point of disbelief that a road could possibly need to be so wide.

[monsoon]

On my way back to the US from an academic exchange program, I was traveling with some people who had never left Japan before. We were flying Air Canada, so we had an overnight layover in Toronto, and we had to drive on that highway, or one that looks just like it, to get to our hotel. In Japan, just about the widest expressway you'll ever see is three lanes in each direction, so they were, needless to say, astonished to the point of disbelief that a road could possibly need to be so wide.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That must mean that Toronto has world class sprawl too.

I've been to Tokyo myself and I was happy to see that total lack of superfreeways in the metro area. They truely know how to design cities that are not dedicated to the sprawl.

[sleepy]

Chicago meets the criteria that I gave above.  It has suffered from white flight, its fixed rail system is really small for a city its size, it is losing popuation to the suburbs, and in terms of raw numbers, Chicago ha more people living in surburban development than an other city in the USA save LA.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In terms of raw numbers, perhaps, but that's invalid.

Look at percentages for a real picture. Approximately 1/3 of the metro lives in the city. Compare that to a dozen other metros--Minneapolis, Cleveland, Detroit, Seattle, Atlanta, etc., etc.

And in terms of rail, are you including Metra as well as the CTA? In any case, it may well be small for a city its size, but it's the second largest rail transit system in the US. Your argument would much better fit San Francisco, Boston, or Philadelphia.

And if by sprawl, you mean the built environment rather the number of people living within an arbitrary city limit, most of Charlotte within the city limits would be sprawl by anyone's standard.

[sleepy]

I think Raleigh, Charlotte, and Nashville three deserve a dubious distinction for being some of the most horrific, sprawled, most denseless spaghetti infested metros in the nation. However each of the three are considerably different from one another.

Raleigh is just horrifically decentralized. There IS NO CITY in Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill. There are small town centers interconnected by super-sprawl. Its saving grace is among the most educated, and generally progressive populations of southeast metros. Too bad they don't value urban lifestyles.

Charlotte has a centralized CBD, even if its only on Tryon, College, and Church St's. The entire downtown is really 3x10 blocks and is like a tiny, itty-bitty, mini Manhattan. And I emphasize tiny, its almost sacreligious to have Manhattan and Charlotte in the same sentence. Generally a super-low-density metro with sploches of development here and there. And the central business district is, well, too business'y. LOL

Nashville has a super dense 8x10 block downtown of traditional urban proportions besting even Atlanta in many respects. Poor Nashville has more traffic jams on 2nd Avenue during Friday and Saturday club nights at 10pm-1am then Atlanta's downtown has during its business rush hour. Its got a West End neighborhood of urban-esque features both old and new, and an East Nashville resurging somewhat. The dropoff outside these areas are amazingly pathetic, it goes to total CRAP. The rest is horrific pockets here and there, each crappy in their own special way. At least in Nashville you can walk down 5th, Union, or any other street downtown and pretend you are in the northeast. That is until you hear someone speak or notice the 15 story Lifeway cross and Southern Baptist Convention headquarters. *I'm gagging already* 

The south makes spaghetti bowl streets and roads have a bad rap they don't deserve. Urban cities like Boston and London create urban cities with winding roads, but the south just can't do it no matter how hard it tries. (But in all honesty, its never been tried here. New Orleans is on a grid, afterall.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Great observations.

[monsoon]

In terms of raw numbers, perhaps, but that's invalid.

Look at percentages for a real picture.  Approximately 1/3 of the metro lives in the city.  Compare that to a dozen other metros--Minneapolis, Cleveland, Detroit, Seattle, Atlanta, etc., etc.

And in terms of rail, are you including Metra as well as the CTA?  In any case, it may well be small for a city its size, but it's the second largest rail transit system in the US.  Your argument would much better fit San Francisco, Boston, or Philadelphia.

And if by sprawl, you mean the built environment rather the number of people living within an arbitrary city limit, most of Charlotte within the city limits would be sprawl by anyone's standard.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ok the real picture is this. More than 1/2 of Charlotte's metro lives in the city, and it is not losing people either. But I didn't bring Charlotte into this conversation as its population is simply too small to be considered as 700K pales to the 6 million living in suburban Chicago.

I am not sure what you are asking about Atlanta Detroit, etc. Here is the opening thread again since it is apparent that some might not have seen it. I would say that Charlotte, Nashville & Raleigh simply do not have these problems.

In hanging out on these forums over the years, it would seem to me these three cities define what is wrong in urban planning more than any other cities in the United States.  Characterists they share

• Urban core is growing very slowly or even losing population.

• Fixed Rail transit is either inadequate or non-existant and not being expanded

• Suburbs continue to sprawl unchecked away from core.

• Racial divides are a big problem and impede change

• Downtown housing is either for very poor or very well off,  middle class need not apply.

• Crime rates

Let's discuss this topic without getting into any city bashing.  It is a matter of opinion somewhat so please respect the others.

[Spades]

but two cities that are often ignored in this subject are Dallas and Houston. Both of the cities have over 1 million in the city, and most people then dismiss these cities as being major areas of sprawl, when actually they are. Both cities have and are sprawling terribly, but they often annex any suburb that starts to grow. This distorts their actual city population, and I feel they should be considered major areas of sprawl.

Acutally. That is not all true. Houston yes has annexed it's land for a while and is known for that. However it has not annexed any piece of land since 1996. It had a population of 1.6 million people than. It has 2 million now. They are basically infilling the loop right now.

Dallas on the other hand has not annexed in DECADES. The city is landlocked and will not be annexing anytime soon. They are also starting to infill the city basically uptown and downtown. I think the city is headed for a boom particularily in the uptown area.

Nevertheless, they are major areas of sprawl anyway.But both cities are building there downtowns and uptowns and out in the city.

[G W North]

That Toronto highway (401) is proof that wider highways don't mean less congestion. The entire Toronto freeway system (the entire road system for that matter) has worse congestion than any American city I've ever experienced, and I've been to many of America's largest cities. It can easily take 1hour+ to drive 20 miles during peak periods. This is also why per capita transit ridership is second in North America only to Montreal - riding the train at rush hour is far faster than driving.

[doormanpoet]

Nashville.

[bret15]

Id vote for St. Louis, The city may be going through a re-devolping period, but it wont stop losing residents.

[pwright1]

Are we talking about urban sprawl or suburban sprawl? There is a difference.

[mattnf]

I'm from Toronto and a common nickname for the GTA (Greater Toronto Area) is "Vienna surrounded by L.A." Unlike L.A., Toronto does have a thriving and heavily populated downtown/central area (ok, the city core of Toronto prior to a forced merger has a population of 1/5 of the city of L.A. but of course most of L.A. has a "suburban" feel). Cars aren't even worth it there. A lot of people, though not most, in the inner suburbs use public transit as well. The congestion/gridlock/sprawl in the suburbs is terrible. I never go them unless I absolutely must. The contrast between city and suburbs in Toronto is very sharp.

I've never been to Vienna, so I can't make the comparsion. Toronto has also been nicknamed "New York built by the Swiss". Perhaps a more accurate description is New York built by the Swiss surrounded by L.A."?

[kgourlay]

While Atlanta can be more appealing then Detroit because of Detroit's poverty issue, its still the mother of low density. Atlanta is the lowest dense major metro area in the top ten.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have only visited Atlanta a few times, but my impression was not one of a city suffering because of sprawl.

I stayed downtown for a few days, near the university, and the local area seemed vibrant and active. In the cab to and from the airport, I saw a fair amount of variety in housing, ie similar to Chicago not all of the city is middle or uppoer class. But didn't see any major blight in the way Detroit has.

I think if I have a point here, it's that low population density and/or bad urban planning is not the same as urban sprawl. The low density, in fact, can be a very good thing. Look, for example, at New York's Central Park, or, on a local scale, the city of Ann Arbor.

Chicago is an interesting one to be on this list indeed. It seems that Chicago has suffered from sprawl to some extent. Perhaps not a total population sprawl, but certainly a lot of the money left the city in favor of the suburbs. But the metro area has been able to sustain a very successful downtown district through planning and execution of a significant light rail system.

Detroit seems to take the cake as far as these three examples. Not only for the high level of sprawl, with half the population of the city leaving in the past 40 years, but also because of the problems it caused. while there is definitely a downtown district, it has nowhere near the significance that it should. Indeed, several of the suburban "downtown" districts rival Detroit's in their social and economic importance to the area.

[Rene Nunez]

Ok so like I so think Los Angeles must be NUMBER ONE IN THE WORLD for urban sprawl. How the heck is this not on the list? Anyway it is obvious this is the best contender. A "city" (if you can call it that) synonymous by merely being made up of dozens of suburbs.

[monsoon]

Ok so like I so think Los Angeles must be NUMBER ONE IN THE WORLD for urban sprawl. How the heck is this not on the list? Anyway it is obvious this is the best contender. A "city" (if you can call it that) synonymous by merely being made up of dozens of suburbs. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

LA does not meet the criteria put forth at the beginning of this thread.

[largeTexas]

In terms of sprawling areas, Southern California including Los Angeles is probably the most sprawled out area in the country. The next is probably northern New Jersey. Cities like Atlanta and Dallas are sprawled out, but not like those.

[Rene Nunez]

LA does not meet the criteria put forth at the beginning of this thread.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually it does perfectly. Go to page one to the first post. I've been to L.A. and the so called downtown and it is exactly what they describe. Have you been to Los Angeles lately?

[monsoon]

Actually it does perfectly. Go to page one to the first post. I've been to L.A. and the so called downtown and it is exactly what they describe. Have you been to Los Angeles lately?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

According to the US Census it is growing at the rate of over 100K/year. Hence it does not meet the criteria of this thread.

[Martinman]

What kind of wierd criteria is that for sprawl. Most of them have nothing to do with development patterns far outside the urban core.

All fast growing sunbelt cities with few or no physical boudaries have and will have sprawling development outside of the city core and any list of potential candidates should include all of them. If youre talking purely about sprawl, Detroit ad Chicago should not even be on the list.

A lot of your polls seem to be cleverly designed to induce the type of bashing you say you don't want.

[monsoon]

A lot of your polls seem to be cleverly designed to induce the type of bashing you say you don't want.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No that's not the case. The vast majority of forumers here at urbanplanet are mature enough to discuss any topic without resorting to those kind of tactics. I would hope that you fall into this crowd, but if not, we certainly have a remedy for it.

[Martinman]

My!

When I was shown this photo I thought it was Atlanta.  Turns out it is Toronto. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't get the wrong impression, that is one 2 major freeways in Toronto. Few American cities can compare with Torontos density.

[monsoon]

Don't get the wrong impression, that is one 2 major freeways in Toronto.  Few American cities can compare with Torontos density.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've heard this before, but I have not seen anything definitive on the matter either.