Urban Sprawl, Which Large City Defines It?

[Recchia]

First of all, Atlanta has many examples of sprawl but this IS NOT one of them.  You will find very few examples of the Detroit pic ANYWHERE in the south, not just Atlanta for the simple reason that Detroit was a major city in a much earlier time period than Atlanta and any other southern city.  Secondly that pic is of a inner city neighborhood of Atlanta which means that the residents of the area would have just as much access to transit, neigborhood shops and businesses, etc as residents of the area in the Detroit pic.  So what are the urban advantages of single family homes (or duplexes) packed so closely together other than being able to hear your neighbors' conversations?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Basically, the advantage of homes "packed so closely together" is that more people are able to have access to transit and neighborhood shops and businesses because there are more people per sq. mile. And you're right about Detroit developing at a different time and place than any other city in the south (and of all northeast cities, Detroit is a bad example since it basically has no fixed-guideway transit at all, and, ironically, Atlanta does). The point is though, that density is much healthier for a city. It fosters social interaction and creates communities, allows people to walk to basic services (and therefore be less fat...), and doesn't force people to be relying on a failed, unsustainable form of transportation (i.e. the car).

[Lady Celeste]

I think someone may have netioned this earlier but I feel that many southern cities and their metros will sprawl because the mindset is different in the south than it is from much older, much more established northern cities. That goes for northern transplants here as well.

My husband is from Pittsburgh and he is more adamant about having a yard than I am.

One only has to take a ride to St Marlo County Club about 35 miles north of downtown. It's gated and homes are on a minimum of 1 acre. This is anything but urban....yet it is populated by majority northern transplants. Many realtors will tell you that it's probably about 70% new arrivals. Forsyth County is one of the top ten fastest growing counties in the US and much of this growth is fueled by northerners.

I say all this to show that even northerners are not necessarily saying being stacked like sardines is the best way. I will say personally I think that picture of that Detroit suburb is horrendus. If urban means deviod of trees and greenspace then I suppose I will never be a true urbanist. Now don't get me wrong. I think an urban environment can be very beneficial. I would love to live in a highrise condo or penthouse in town. Northerners are coming to Atlanta and speaking with their dollars. Yes, Atlanta has a read hot condo market but just as quick as it sells out of highrise condo buildings, you have 500 plus home gated neighborhoods selling out in two years. Especially in the far suburbs.

People are speaking with their dollars. I'm not defending low density sprawl. There are many drawbacks. If more people lived closer to town, Marta would possibly be much more financially sound. People are moving here and encouraging sprawl with thier votes and dollars. Sandy Springs recently voted for incorporation....their main concern was too many high density projects in their district. It's not just an Atlanta concern. I see pre sprawl in southern cities that swear they will not make the mistakes that Atlanta made.

Orlando, Charlotte, Jacksonville and Nashville all face sprawl concerns. no matter how much we want a more urban south, southerners are least likely to ride public transportation, live in dense communities or embrace mixed use developments. Like some have said earlier, southern metros balloned after interstates were finished. Hence the birth of the love affair with autos in the south. It will take a while before you ever see densities like that Detroit picture in the suburbs of southern metros...if we even ever see them in the cities.

[Martinman]

Basically, the advantage of homes "packed so closely together" is that more people are able to have access to transit and neighborhood shops and businesses because there are more people per sq. mile.

[teshadoh]

I will be honest & state I would rather live in a streetcar suburb (as the example of the 1920's Atlanta neighborhood is) rather than a dense tract housing development as that example is - this would be the rule anywhere in the nation, not pertaining directly with Atlanta or Detroit. But due to the age of 'maturing' for these two cities - Detroit did develop in a pre-car era, as Atlanta didn't mature until after WWII. Meaning - Atlanta's 'intown' is predominately streetcar suburb era with only a few remaining early urban era neighborhoods. The majority of the 19th century urban neighborhoods were demolished in the 1950/60's, which were directly adjacent to downtown. There viability is another point of question, b/c in a city as small & segregated as Atlanta was then - most of it was extremely subpar construction.

So again, what is a more optimal living experience, density for the sake of density or some comprimise between pedestrian orientation & greenspace? I would personally vouch for early 1900's suburban styled development as superior, if you wanted density - move to Los Angeles, now one of the most densist cities in the US. You can certainly develop in a dense manner, but livability is the final determinant in the sucess of an urban or suburban environment.

[hudkina]

Is "inner-city" Atlanta supposed to feel inferior about this?  Because people are moving rapidly into this

While people are leaving this in droves

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually the population of that Detroit suburb rose by 25% between 1990 and 2000. Atlanta's population only grew by 6%.

[hood]

This is what urban sprawl does to the urban core (from detroit): Urban Prarie: Before & After

An even worse example: Urban Prarie: before & after

To view, move your mouse over and off the picture, see the difference.

[hudkina]

And I can show a thousand other neighborhoods in Detroit that are the complete opposite of that.

Central West Side:

Far West Side:

East Side:

Southwest Side:

Uptown:

West Village:

[teshadoh]

At this point - I really don't know where this conversation has led to, nonetheless, I would like to address some points:

Detroit contains a marvelous urban core that cities such as Atlanta that developed later will never be able to match to.

The density factor is irrelevant, particularly to some suburbs of Detroit - especially since some of those suburbs had developed in a different time frame from the typical Atlanta suburb. Again, I don't see density level as a neccessity to urbanity, though it does greatly appreciate it. My view of urbanity is the pedestrian environment. Nonetheless, it is very feasible that many Detroit suburbs are more pedestrian oriented than many intown Atlanta neighborhoods.

Again - two phrases are missused are 'sprawl' & 'density'. They are important factors, but alone their connotations are misunderstood. As stated before - LA is one of the most densest cities in the US, but does that make that city more urbane than lesser dense cities? Sprawl is a factor of decentralization of the city's core as opposed to a dispersed population. Meaning, sprawl doesn't have a direct correlation with density. You can have a sprawling urban area that is dense, & you can have an urban area that is predominately low density but is not sprawling.

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

[PeninsulaKiddo]

At this point - I really don't know where this conversation has led to, nonetheless, I would like to address some points:

Detroit contains a marvelous urban core that cities such as Atlanta that developed later will never be able to match to.

The density factor is irrelevant, particularly to some suburbs of Detroit - especially since some of those suburbs had developed in a different time frame from the typical Atlanta suburb.

[Recchia]

At this point - I really don't know where this conversation has led to, nonetheless, I would like to address some points:

Detroit contains a marvelous urban core that cities such as Atlanta that developed later will never be able to match to.

The density factor is irrelevant, particularly to some suburbs of Detroit - especially since some of those suburbs had developed in a different time frame from the typical Atlanta suburb.  Again, I don't see density level as a neccessity to urbanity, though it does greatly appreciate it.  My view of urbanity is the pedestrian environment.  Nonetheless, it is very feasible that many Detroit suburbs are more pedestrian oriented than many intown Atlanta neighborhoods.

Again - two phrases are missused are 'sprawl' & 'density'.  They are important factors, but alone their connotations are misunderstood.  As stated before - LA is one of the most densest cities in the US, but does that make that city more urbane than lesser dense cities?  Sprawl is a factor of decentralization of the city's core as opposed to a dispersed population.  Meaning, sprawl doesn't have a direct correlation with density.  You can have a sprawling urban area that is dense, & you can have an urban area that is predominately low density but is not sprawling.

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I think you summed it all up nicely with some good points.

[Unifour]

Actually, Jacksonville is the largest city in the United States, in terms of area.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, when i took geography in high school, we were taught that the largest city in the USA was Anchorage, Alaska, which covers about 1,700 square miles.

[Unifour]

Have none of you guys ever been to Dallas-Ft. Worth.  It takes almost 2 hours on the freeway at 65 mph to get from the eastern suburbs of Forney/Mesquite to the western suburbs west of Fort Worth.  From north to south it takes an hour and a half from Waxahachie to Denton.  Atlanta doesn't come close to this, Los Angeles is worse but has many more than Dallas' 5 1/2 million people.  Detroit is small in comparison in terms of sprawl.  Dallas and Ft. Worth have 2 million people compared to 3.5 million living in the burbs, but these two cities are huge in size, dwarfing Detroit and Atlanta proper.  Dallas and Ft.Worth, themselves are examples of sprawl with huge areas of empty space in between developments.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Driving through a city is not the way to judge how much land area it is covering... It may appear to be developed on the sides of the roads, maybe as far as you can see, but it may taper off and there may be large areas of countryside you can't see. Maps are used to determine land area. Atlanta has one of the largest land areas, almost as large as Dallas and Fort Worth combined. A good source for this information is http://www.demographia.com. It informed me a great deal of all the misconceptions I had about cities in all parts of the world. It contains population figures, density, land area, suburbanized vs urbanized, etc. etc... Take a look everyone.

[flamingomonkey]

Chicagoland does occupy a tremendous amount of land area, nearly the size of Connecticut. But, that's primarly because there are 9 million + people here. Transit is great. Most people in the suburbs can be at a train station within 15 minutes or so to get downtown, and there is night and weekend service. Most of the area is laid out on a grid, so if one route is congested, it's easy to hop over to another road. Most growth is occuring in two areas, Will and McHenry counties, to the far southwest and northwest, respectively. My sister and brother-in-law have a home in a cornfield over 40 miles from the city. However, this is simply the closest land left to build affordable homes. There is no leapfrog development. The city and inner suburbs are quite dense.

I was in North Carolina, flew into Raleigh and drove to Greensboro. It's over a hundred miles of nearly non-stop development. There is no grid, if you're stuck in traffic, you're stuck. There's no easy way to just move to a different road. The urban cores were very small, attractive, but small and there is no real transit. If you're going to the theater you can't just hop on the train and head into the city.

Chicago does sprawl, and the traffic congestion is awful. It's not unusual for the expressways to be at a crawl at midnight. However, I really think this is due more to the huge size of Chicagoland, and not as much due to bad planning. There are a LOT of new homes available in the inner suburbs and city. However, they cost at least twice as much as a similar home 40 miles out in a cornfield, and you won't really have a yard. It's just the free market economy at work. People need to weigh the pros and cons, but you can get a lot more house for your money farther out.

[huesos]

I would say Los Angeles, and the second place would be for Atlanta. To be a medium-size city I would say that Memphis is getting out of control. On the other hand I don't see how Chicago meets the criteria. No doubt it is a huge city, but for American standards its public transportion is above average.

[goodbye]

Atlanta certainly defines urban sprawl at its most wide-spread and out-of-control nature exposed. It is visible in every direction outside the city.

[Angelina]

Hmm I kind of feel like the capital-of-urban sprawl image of LA is a myth.. LA is actually much higher density than most people realize. The thing is that it used to be more spread out than it is now, but we're in a bowl so to speak, there's only so far LA can spread out really..

[Recchia]

Hmm I kind of feel like the capital-of-urban sprawl image of LA is a myth.. LA is actually much higher density than most people realize. The thing is that it used to be more spread out than it is now, but we're in a bowl so to speak, there's only so far LA can spread out really..

LA looks like Hong Kong compared to Atlanta. Okay maybe not Hong Kong but its much denser. Still sprawling, but much denser sprawl. LA is the denset metropolitan area in the country now I read.

[Chtimi]

LA sprawls in the desert and connects with San Diego. In our geography classes LA is THE example of urban sprawling.

It's curious, the more extended cities in France (Lille, Paris, Lens) are also the densiest metro areas.

[Angelina]

LA sprawls in the desert and connects with San Diego. In our geography classes LA is THE example of urban sprawling.

It's curious, the more extended cities in France (Lille, Paris, Lens) are also the densiest metro areas.

how funny, in my geography classes they kept emphasizing how we are so much higher density than a lot of other world cities.. I think a lot of proud angelinos are trying to stand up to the legendary image by pointing to LA's growth over time compared to that of other cities, and how we are now so much denser than others, but the image persists!

a friend of mine moved from NY to LA a few years ago, and one of her first observations was that NY is vertical, while LA is horizontal. In earthquake territory we just have this aversion to building up for some reason

But Chtimi you point out something here that makes a big difference.. a lot of people think of LA as the entire metropolitan area from Ventura/the Valley down to San Diego.. it's hard to think of LA in smaller terms, to remember the places in between like all the cities in Orange county, for example, and I think that's what helps the image last..

[teshadoh]

Due to the existence of a military base - LA does not 'connect' to San Diego. Now, New York City does indeed connect to Philadelphia in one direction & the majority of Connecticut in the other direction while is nearing closer to Albany NY. But that is considered a megalopolis & not sprawl, whereas LA to San Diego is regarded as sprawl.

Hmmm....

[daniel18]

Atlanta.

[Chtimi]

Yes I know for the Camp Pendleton Marine Corp Base, and the Santa Margarita Mountains would impede the "connection", but look at Rainbow Valley. Fallbrook and Temecula are not so distant...

[goodbye]

There are so many great examples of sprawl. It seems that every major city has its fair share, but instead of looking at it as a local problem, they're all pointing fingers at other sprawling cities. It really is funny, but also serious. Can so much building out be okay? I doubt it.

[teshadoh]

Chtimi - understand your point.

But nonetheless - I ask again, for anyone's input: why do we typically describe the development pattern in the Northeast as a 'Megalopolis' & any other similar growth pattern as a sign of sprawl. The Megalopolis developing there is due to sprawl, which is if it is the case - would be the largest indication of sprawl in the nation.

[csedwards72]

Driving through a city is not the way to judge how much land area it is covering... It may appear to be developed on the sides of the roads, maybe as far as you can see, but it may taper off and there may be large areas of countryside you can't see. Maps are used to determine land area. Atlanta has one of the largest land areas, almost as large as Dallas and Fort Worth combined. A good source for this information is http://www.demographia.com. It informed me a great deal of all the misconceptions I had about cities in all parts of the world. It contains population figures, density, land area, suburbanized vs urbanized, etc. etc... Take a look everyone.

With all due respect, www.demographia.com is run by Wendell Cox, on the payroll of developers and auto industry companies, whose extremist political agenda is to promote policies that encourage sprawl and oppose smart growth. I wouldn't pay much attention to it.