Jump to content

Urban Sprawl, Which Large City Defines It?


monsoon

Urban Srawl, Which City Defines It?  

208 members have voted

  1. 1. Urban Srawl, Which City Defines It?

    • Atlanta
      129
    • Chicago
      14
    • Detroit
      29
    • Other (explain)
      34


Recommended Posts

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.

Unfortunately you are right. I think Megalopolis orginally referred to the fact that the northeast had so many high density cities that were pretty close to eachother that on a small scale a lot of them kind of morphed together. But now they really are morphing together, via sprawl, and its sprawl that in most cases is lower density than southwestern sprawl. I wonder which is actually denser now, the entire Megalopolis or the LA to San Diego corrdior...

In defense of the northeast, I do have to say that I'd rather be living there than anywhere else. The southwest has weak centers and weak urbanism. The northeast has some very healthy urban cores that are unique and exciting. Whereas in southwest even the actual core city is really sprawl, at least in the northeast there are true urban areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 163
  • Created
  • Last Reply

^ I think that is the most valid point in comparing urban areas regarding sprawl. Most midwestern, northeastern, & southeastern urban areas sprawl, with lower densities in the fringes as well as mid to higher densities intermittently through the urban areas. But the primary difference is that midwestern & particularly northeastern cities do have that 1900 era urban core. Though Detroit is popolous wise primarily suburban at this point, it's urban core is very significant. The fact that southeastern city's urban cores have grown consdiderablly is a good sign, but we should be aware that they aren't & won't be comparable to the classic urban cores of yesteryear.

Therefore - by fault - southeastern cities especially like Atlanta are the most sprawling, due to it's lower dense urban core.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ I think that is the most valid point in comparing urban areas regarding sprawl. Most midwestern, northeastern, & southeastern urban areas sprawl, with lower densities in the fringes as well as mid to higher densities intermittently through the urban areas. But the primary difference is that midwestern & particularly northeastern cities do have that 1900 era urban core. Though Detroit is popolous wise primarily suburban at this point, it's urban core is very significant. The fact that southeastern city's urban cores have grown consdiderablly is a good sign, but we should be aware that they aren't & won't be comparable to the classic urban cores of yesteryear.

Therefore - by fault - southeastern cities especially like Atlanta are the most sprawling, due to it's lower dense urban core.

Yup, that is a Northeast advantage. Many of our smaller and mid-sized cities (like Providence, New Haven, Manchester, Stamford, White Plains, etc) have older, long neglected cores that are awakening and having renaissances, since there's nowhere left to sprawl and costs in the sprawled areas are so much higher and less affordable than the core.

This is regrettably unlike many communities I saw in the Midwest, which are sprawling rapidly. In a sick imitation of what happened in Western and Northeastern urban areas in the 1960's to 1980's, these regions are having their cores hollowed out by neglect as the suburbs keep growing and suck up regional resources. The older cores thus become retail deprived, service deprived zones "left behind for" others to live in, often African or Hispanic immigrants, while others just commute there to work.

This was certainly the case in many older cores in small cities in Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin.

- Garris

Providence, RI

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Yes and no... It's a megapolis due to the huge number of people in a very small region, with quite considerable density.

In a roughly 4 hour drive, you will pass through Boston, Pawtucket, Providence, New London, New Haven, Stamford, White Plains, NYC, and can reach Newark, all connected by the same highway and rail line...

That's pretty impressive density and population in a small area, and where the term "megapolis" likely originated. Where Recchia is correct is that each of these areas has developed correspondingly sprawled suburbs over the past 50 years that have blurred the boundries between them (for example, between Boston and Providence).

However, the sprawl I've seen in the Northeast doesn't begin to compare to the huge extent I've seen in the Midwest and, especially, the Southwest. There is no Northeast sprawl community equivalent I can think of that is similar to the scenario in Scottsdale, AZ or Las Vegas, for example.

Similarly, in my only 4 years living in Rochester, MN, I'd have to say the residential land area of the city increased by over 30%, all though cookie-cutter suburban tracks at the exclusive expense of farmland while the old urban core languished. I've never seen anything remotely like that happen in so short a time span in a Northeastern community in recent history, since at least the post-war 1950's...

- Garris

Providence, RI

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hmmm ... personally I don't consider Temecula as part of greater LA but that's just me.. :P

As for the issue of having an older 1900s urban core, well let's remember that in the early 1900s there was quite a lot going on here in LA and we do have a proper older core, though it may be less dense than those of the Northeastern states. Having said that though, older urban LA also went through a rapid decline in the 50's and 60's and has recently been the scene of a huge development boom as the downtowns of various cities in the area (pasadena, LA, long beach are three great examples) are going through rapid gentrification and renewal (often at the expense of the urban poor of course.. but that's another story isn't it..).

here's an article from the LA times yesterday about LA city council finally deciding to take steps to control this rapid downtown gentrification:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/latimests/20051012...spoorseekrelief

it still amazes me how fast these changes are taking place. it seems whatever paper I pick up, it's always buzzing with bits and pieces about the latest project/proposed re-development of one old building or another. follow the LA times, check out downtownnews.com, the community dvlmt commission or the economic dvlmt corporation, and you'll get a good idea what i'm talking about. same thing for long beach, check out the biz journal (not online, but here are some stats they have on their website: http://www.lbbj.com/aboutlb.php) or the press-telegram, http://www.presstelegram.com

this is just so you get an idea how hot the trend is in SoCal here for redoing downtowns, new urbanism - style with mixed use projects. Mayor Villaraigossa is a big fan of new urbanism and since being elected has made it clear he wants to push this type of development forward in LA. we've sprawled a lot over the years and now we're looking up to the deep blue :)

so, how many of you haven't visited LA yet :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

It is because of sprawl. Look at New Jersey. Even if it may or may not be as bad other areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was in Atlanta a few years ago, and a friend said he knew of a really cool Italian restaurant in Buckhead. It turned out to be Maggianno's, which a chain in the Tyson's II Mall near where I live in the DC area.

If there's anything good to say about Atlanta, it's that it scared Charlotte into finally developing its downtown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was in Atlanta a few years ago, and a friend said he knew of a really cool Italian restaurant in Buckhead. It turned out to be Maggianno's, which a chain in the Tyson's II Mall near where I live in the DC area.

If there's anything good to say about Atlanta, it's that it scared Charlotte into finally developing its downtown.

Buckhead is an edge city by the way - just like Tyson's Corner.

My favorite Italian restaurant is Alfredo's on Cheshire Bridge, a 40+ year old local favorite. Of course - 40 years is indeed old for a store in Atlanta & it isn't surprising that an Atlantan would be impressed with Maggianno's, overall the metro is dominated by chain stores.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting article about LA's sprawl:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday...0,3798054.story

Very true, the true suburbs in the northeast are much lower density than those elsewhere:

The result is that today the Los Angeles urbanized area, as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau, has just over 7,000 people per square mile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting article about LA's sprawl:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday...0,3798054.story

Very true, the true suburbs in the northeast are much lower density than those elsewhere:

Thanks for posting the link Recchia! you beat me to it :)

I liked the point about LA being more planned, since it's younger. That actually explains a lot of the existing urban structure, layout, and growth here as compared to that of East coast cities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think all cities have a problem with sprawl to some degree. Here in Philly the suburban area sprawls out from southern NJ to Lancaster county, North to Lehigh County, then south to the Delaware border. But that does not make this a sprawling city. The Interior of the city is very dense including the downtown area. Yet it retains a feeling of walkabilty. This is why Chicago should not even be included on this list. It does have sprawling suburbs, but the city itself is very urban in my opinion. On my trips there I have always felt very comfortable traveling around. I always knew that if I could not walk to my destination, I could always get a nearby bus or train. This is the epitome to me of a non sprawling dense city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

This is my first post, so I'll be brief. I live in Jacksonville, FL, a city that many would argue has seen its share of revitalization in the urban core over the last 5 or 10 years. I would love to live in the urban core, ie, San Marco, Riverside, Avondale, or Springfield, but I am unable to afford even a starter home in these areas. Thus, I would be forced to rent a small one-bedroom apt. and I wouldl only see my rent skyrocket over the next few years, being forced out to the fringes of the city once again. There is a need for options for first-time home buyers and moderate income people in Jacksonville, where some reports claim that the median home price is in the mid-200K's. Also, don't concentrate all the low-income people in one area, where the area is likely to become economically depressed. There should be a mix of affluent, middle-income, and moderate-low income housing, so that problems that come with concentrating poverty can be avoided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think all cities have a problem with sprawl to some degree. Here in Philly the suburban area sprawls out from southern NJ to Lancaster county, North to Lehigh County, then south to the Delaware border. But that does not make this a sprawling city. The Interior of the city is very dense including the downtown area. Yet it retains a feeling of walkabilty. This is why Chicago should not even be included on this list. It does have sprawling suburbs, but the city itself is very urban in my opinion. On my trips there I have always felt very comfortable traveling around. I always knew that if I could not walk to my destination, I could always get a nearby bus or train. This is the epitome to me of a non sprawling dense city.

All cities have a problem with sprawl - Agree.

Chicago should not be included in the list - Agree.

Philadelphia and Chicago are not sprawling cities - Disagree. Philadelphia's urbanized area is geographically slightly bigger than Los Angeles', yet has less than half the population. The Chicago urban area is third in geographic size only after New York City and Atlanta, so it is most definitely a sprawling city.

I fail to see how having a dense urban core has anything to do with if a place is sprawling or not. The reason Philadelphia and Chicago have dense urban cores is because they are much older cities, not because they are sprawling less today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All cities have a problem with sprawl - Agree.

Chicago should not be included in the list - Agree.

Philadelphia and Chicago are not sprawling cities - Disagree. Philadelphia's urbanized area is geographically slightly bigger than Los Angeles', yet has less than half the population.

I think our difference in opinion comes from the definition of urban. As I said originally most cities have a large degree of urban sprawl, however much of the metro area can hardly be considered urban. Chester, Bucks and counties in South Jersey are considered sprawling Philadelphia suburbs. However, these could hardly be considered urban areas. They are Philly metro yes, urban no. A far as geography goes the City of Philadelphia is 135 square miles with roughly 1.5 million people; the city of Los Angeles is 465.9 square miles, three and

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the only arguement that came into play regarding urban core (not the Census definition) is that there are three types of metro areas - which constitute the vast majority of all in the US.

* high dense core & sprawling low dense suburban ring

* lower dense core & sprawling low dense suburban ring

* high dense core / suburban mass

The first type is the classic US city - Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia & the second type is the classic sunbelt city - Atlanta, Dallas, Phoenix. The second type is found mostly in the west - LA & Portland, where the core & suburban surroundings are similarly populated in terms of density.

The second type of city develops in this manner due to it's age, it did not develop a significant urban core due to it's size in the early 1900's. The third type is similar, but has since developed in a far more dense pattern since.

So - sunbelt cities can progress to the third type of metro, but can not develop like the first type. But the first type may in fact develop like the third type.

In less confusing language:

Possible:

Atlanta -> Los Angeles

Detroit -> Los Angeles

Not Possible

Atlanta -> Detroit

Historically cities developed less denser further out from the city center due to technological limitations of infrastructure. That is no longer the case - density can be increased anywhere in metro areas, as LA is an example. The future for most metros is LA, including northeastern & midwestern cities, unless they severly limit densification in suburban areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Phoenix could be on that list. There is no urban core in Phoenix...not worth mentioning. No transit. One huge suburb/strip mall.

As someone living in Arizona, I'll second that, Phoenix has not Identity as a city, It somehow has experienced explosive growth, but for why? I know it's nice here during the cold seasons of the year, but the growth has been young families. The Industries here are tantamount to new housing construction and tourism. Aside from that Metro phoenix is three and a half million people, in an area the size of New Jersey. Tell me that is not sprawl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smart Growth America released a study a while back and Atlanta was ranked the 4th most sprawling of 83 metro areas covered. Detroit was ranked 15th and Chicago was ranked 68th!

They researched 22 different areas. "Those 22 variables are based in the four different aspects of metro development that define sprawl - at least according to the researchers. Those characteristics are: diffusion or concentration of housing and population; segregation or integration of homes vis-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a five year old study that gathered information from 1990 - 1999 but, one can't totally dismiss their findings for the simple fact that they (USA Today) ended up with the similar results as other studies.

Everyone knows that a lot of cities are trying to implement smart growth, but things haven't changed much in the past five years. Sprawling office parks, strip malls, and housing developments are continuing to take up more and more land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.