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.
It's not even close. While Cali has San Diego and LA, which was THE most sprawled city, both have been building up quality mass transit systems for the past 3 decades. As we know, San Francisco, the 2nd largest metro area, has always been the odd-ball city in that it is compact, dense and walkable like an Eastern city and has had strong transit for nearly a century.
Florida has sprawl, but Miami and Miami Beach have remained compact, dense cities. Miami has also been building up mass transit and other cities in the state are developing commuter rail and LRT.
Texas has been slow to act on transit and places like Houston and San Antonio are still sprawling messes. Dallas has its large LRT system but still sprawls.
Miami has achieved its density by: A. Not expanding its city limits; B. Building hiiiiiggghh rise residential towers near its coastline; C. Becoming home to many immigrant families from 3rd world countries, which tend to have much larger families than industrialized countries.
I’m surprised California is ahead of Florida. The Florida cities listed in the OP’s post are overall significantly sprawling than the California ones listed.
Florida has small city limits. The suburbs are "sprawly" but most of the Florida cities have strict cut off points between the burbs and rural areas. Florida is grided as can be. You can look at the google maps areial view and see the strict cutoff points in Florida's metropolitan areas. Tampa, and Orlando don't have Miami's density, but in terms of land area they don't sprawl too far from the center city. In the Orlando area in particular most of the tiny suburbs kinda kept their character and weren't merely built as a result of Orlando growth. Miami on the other hand has large county boundaries and sprawl to the South, West, and Northwest but dade also has the density that Orlando and Tampa lack. And again, the "suburbs" to the North of Dade is hardly what I'd call sprawl. Hollywood, Hallandale etc are cities all on their own and existed independent of Miami. Florida cities sprawl, but they don't sprawl out of control and they don't annex nearby towns. They keep rather tiny citylimits and small city populations.
Most of California's vacant land near metros is mostly gone. Florida also has some barriers to sprawl, The Everglades, and other water boundaries. That leaves Texas. Still plenty of room to sprawl, though I'm not sure why this would ever be considered a positive thing.
Most of California's vacant land near metros is mostly gone. Florida also has some barriers to sprawl, The Everglades, and other water boundaries. That leaves Texas. Still plenty of room to sprawl, though I'm not sure why this would ever be considered a positive thing.
It's Texas.
Think of it this way-what's the most common example people have used for decades to illustrate "suburban sprawl" in California? The San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles county.
The San Fernando Valley is about twice as densely populated as each of the big Texas cites-Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Austin.
Think of it this way-what's the most common example people have used for decades to illustrate "suburban sprawl" in California? The San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles county.
The San Fernando Valley is about twice as densely populated as each of the big Texas cites-Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Austin.
Let that sink in.
True, but this isn't really about density as it is about sprawl. Don't get me wrong, I'm not totally against sprawl, but only if there are good transportation options to move people around. A good example is Long Island, definitely a sprawl area east of NYC, but with great public transportation. Same with Chicago, sprawling north, west, and south but again with great public transportation. If cities want to sprawl, more power to them, just make sure you have the right transportation options in place.
No jurisdiction in Texas has more than 5,000 ppsm. Moreover, suburban Garland, Arlington, Richardson and Plano have more people per sq mile than Dallas. And all are denser than Houston.
No jurisdiction in Texas has more than 5,000 ppsm. Moreover, suburban Garland, Arlington, Richardson and Plano have more people per sq mile than Dallas. And all are denser than Houston.
Their are actual several communities in the Houston area that have over 5,000 ppsm- Mission Bend, Meadows Place, Four Corners, Bellaire, West University Place, South Place, South Houston, Baytown, Jacinto City and Cloverleaf, and several more will cross that mark by 2020.
No jurisdiction in Texas has more than 5,000 ppsm. Moreover, suburban Garland, Arlington, Richardson and Plano have more people per sq mile than Dallas. And all are denser than Houston.
This is why I wish the Texas cities were more manageable sized. I look at the inner 610 loop in Houston as the “city” and inner loop 12 in Dallas as the “city” as well. As of 2010, the Dallas loop 12 density was around 4300 ppsm. For the Houston inner loop, as of 2016, the density is 5400 ppsm.
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.
