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.
I recently bought a national atlas from American maps. Each state has at least one page (some have two) and developed areas are colored yellow or orange.
I was definetely suprised to see how much urban/suburban sprawl has increased in Maryland, Connecticut, and Southern New Jersey. Central NJ has also increased (N. New Jersey seems to be about the same as on my older Rand McNally map).
But what really suprised me was Boston and the Eastern Massachusetts area. Spreading out from Boston to S New Hampshire in the north, Worchester in the west and toward New Bedford and Cape Cod in the south is a vast checkerboard of yellow (built up) and white areas (rural). Unfortunately alot more yellow than white.
This being Massachusetts and New England - I am sure many of these Boston area towns are trying to develop themselves in a way so they still look like traditional small towns. Still I am greatly suprised.
Anecdotally speaking, a drive down I-10 westward into Los Angeles certainly leaves you feeling like the L.A. metro area should be high on the list for "sprawl." It doesn't seem right that it can take you two and half hours in light traffic to get from the start of "suburbia" to downtown proper.
Where was this guy driving? You can get to San Diego in 2 1/2 hours in light traffic, nevermind the L.A. Metro. San Juan Capistrano, for example, on the southern tip of O.C., is only an hour away (w/ reasonable traffic).
Where was this guy driving? You can get to San Diego in 2 1/2 hours in light traffic, nevermind the L.A. Metro. San Juan Capistrano, for example, on the southern tip of O.C., is only an hour away (w/ reasonable traffic).
I've said this before, when people talk about how "spread out" we are it's usually small towners who have never experienced a massive city like L.A., of course it might seem "endless" coming from someone that's from DC or Philly but for someone from Chicago it might seem normal.
Phoenix by a mile. For about 50 miles, its nothing but bland, low-rise architecture where EVERYTHING looks the exact same. You cant tell the difference between onoe municiplaity and the next. Phoenix is easily the most overpopulated, overbuilt, boring and bland-ish metro area in the country.
New York City Metro (NY-NJ-CT)
Chicago
LA
Bay Area (SF-OAK-San Jose)
Miami
Atlanta
Miami? Are you kidding me? Miami has to have one of the smallest urban footprints for a metro of 5.5 million people and it's the most densely populated metro in the South.
Miami's UA (Urban Area) as defined by the Census is only 1100 sq. miles compared to other cities like Atlanta, Dallas or Houston who have UA's almost 9 to 10 times that of Miami's. In addition metro Miami has had a Urban Growth boundary line since the mid 1970s which has limited any chance of sprawling into environmentally sensitive lands near the Everglades.
I recently bought a national atlas from American maps. Each state has at least one page (some have two) and developed areas are colored yellow or orange.
I was definetely suprised to see how much urban/suburban sprawl has increased in Maryland, Connecticut, and Southern New Jersey. Central NJ has also increased (N. New Jersey seems to be about the same as on my older Rand McNally map).
But what really suprised me was Boston and the Eastern Massachusetts area. Spreading out from Boston to S New Hampshire in the north, Worchester in the west and toward New Bedford and Cape Cod in the south is a vast checkerboard of yellow (built up) and white areas (rural). Unfortunately alot more yellow than white.
This being Massachusetts and New England - I am sure many of these Boston area towns are trying to develop themselves in a way so they still look like traditional small towns. Still I am greatly suprised.
That is Generally true, like Taunton, Andover, Billerica, ect all have dense centers with cafes, bar(s) town hall, supermarkets ect. and at least semi-rural outskirts all of them are ~20 miles out from Boston.
Miami? Are you kidding me? Miami has to have one of the smallest urban footprints for a metro of 5.5 million people and it's the most densely populated metro in the South.
Miami's UA (Urban Area) as defined by the Census is only 1100 sq. miles compared to other cities like Atlanta, Dallas or Houston who have UA's almost 9 to 10 times that of Miami's. In addition metro Miami has had a Urban Growth boundary line since the mid 1970s which has limited any chance of sprawling into environmentally sensitive lands near the Everglades.
San Jose is one of the most sprawled out city that has gone bad with absolutely no downtown center. It's the most boring city in the country and an example to not to follow.
The Twin Cities should be up hear. In our suburbs our houses actually have a nice amount of space between them and have nice size yards compared to alot of us cities (suburbs) where the houses are almost on top of each other. Plus the Minneapolis North-South suburbs are very sprawled out. Is about 45 miles to get to Andover (north) to Apple Valley (south)
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.
