Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here's "A Comprehensive Look at Sprawl in America", a USA Today article from 2001 that includes a complete rated list of cities and analysis of "sprawl" per several criteria. It should answer a lot of the questions posed here.
What I found most interesting about the article is Portland's relatively low rating as opposed to its image. The cause is that regions beyond Portland's urban management have been developed, jumping their jurisdiction and spreading out. That's the fluidity of market forces at work that can't be easily contained.
Great article. A lot of people complain about how sprawling western cities are when their eastern counterparts sprawl even more. LA is always used as an example of sprawl even though the NYC metro area is even more sprawling. LA fits a lot of people into an area its size.
"The Los Angeles metropolitan area has a population of 16 million and seems sprawling to many. But if the Atlanta metro area (pop. 3.8 million) had as many people as Los Angeles and the same population density Atlanta has now, it would occupy many more square miles than Los Angeles does.
The Los Angeles metropolitan area has a population of 16 million and seems sprawling to many. But if the Atlanta metro area (pop. 3.8 million) had as many people as Los Angeles and the same population density Atlanta has now, it would occupy many more square miles than Los Angeles does.
That point is reflected in the sprawl index scores for the two metros. Los Angeles has a score of 78, which is even lower than metropolitan New York’s (82), which is known for its skyscraper-studded downtown. Atlanta has a sprawl index score of 392."
Also LA's sprawl is much more noticeable than eastern cities b/c its not hidden under a canopy of trees:
"If you look out on Charlotte from a downtown high-rise, trees dominate the land outside the tight downtown skyline. But the forest is just an illusion because development is hidden beneath the foliage.
That’s true of many places on the East Coast, where flat land and dense trees mask sprawl. Lang points to metropolitan Boston (205), which ranks with Minneapolis (203) and Detroit (208) as average among big metros on the sprawl index.
“People say, ‘Boston is the densest place I know,’ but you don’t see the two-acre and three-acre lots out in the suburbs because of the trees,” he says. “In Los Angeles, they see everything because there are no trees.”
Of course there are trees, but in a semiarid climate like Southern California’s, vegetation is not as naturally lush. In the West, any development on treeless hillsides is in plain view. "
But population density is the key determinant of sprawl. Those single-family homes in Los Angeles are on very small lots. In the East, older metropolitans appear to sprawl less because their packed, 19th-century cores and tall buildings form an image of density. But sprawl still exists. It’s just occurring miles from downtown.
WOW! I bet your calculations were really scientific and followed some great criteria.
Why don't you guys use sierra clubs website. They are one of the best at rating sprawl around metro areas.
I'm not sure that first comment was necessary. You want to know my methodology? I took the population of the metro area, and divided it by the population of the city. Example: Denver: 500,000 people; Denver metro: 2.5 million = 5 suburban residents for every city resident.
Okay...an article that's 8 years old is a little better than one 20 years old, but I hope we all realize how much can change in 8 years. A more current reference would be more relevant to the discussion.
Certainly. But the article is useful for definitions and analysis of terms, and addressing assumptions, which is where this thread was floundering. Call it a starting point?
Certainly. But the article is useful for definitions and analysis of terms, and addressing assumptions, which is where this thread was floundering. Call it a starting point?
I'm not sure that first comment was necessary. You want to know my methodology? I took the population of the metro area, and divided it by the population of the city. Example: Denver: 500,000 people; Denver metro: 2.5 million = 5 suburban residents for every city resident.
Pay no attention to that person...he just joined the site today and has a total of 5 posts - all confrontational.
Ok, now I understand this a little better. These articles aren't talking about actual cities. They are talking about metro areas to include suburbs.
Are there any articles that use data from cities?
Tampa, Florida for sure. That is mostly all it has.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
