U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: The ten most sprawling U.S. cities
Atlanta 194 54.96%
Dallas 142 40.23%
Houston 178 50.42%
Oklahoma City 58 16.43%
Charlotte, NC 71 20.11%
Jacksonville, FL 75 21.25%
Tampa, FL 29 8.22%
Los Angeles 166 47.03%
San Diego 43 12.18%
San Jose, CA 47 13.31%
Sacramento, CA 32 9.07%
Indianapolis 35 9.92%
Columbus, OH 26 7.37%
Nashville, TN 35 9.92%
Memphis, TN 17 4.82%
Lexington, KY 8 2.27%
Phoenix 176 49.86%
Tucson 37 10.48%
Las Vegas 108 30.59%
other (please specify) 42 11.90%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 353. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-15-2012, 10:35 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,509 posts, read 28,194,197 times
Reputation: 7599

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by west336 View Post
I think sprawl also means that notable sites and amenities aren't very close to one-another. For instance, if the Sears Tower in Chicago were downtown, Wrigley Field was in Gary, Navy Pier was near the WI border, Michigan Avenue was 5 miles north in the city's more trendy neighborhoods,
Sounds like DFW to me
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-16-2012, 12:13 AM
 
Location: Keizer, OR
1,376 posts, read 2,518,387 times
Reputation: 1148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunjee View Post
You can be in downtown L.A. in half an hour. Don't tell me you can't, I know the 60 Freeway. Have you ever been west of Montebello?
If there was no traffic and I'm driving at like 80 MPH, then yes, I probably could.
Keep in mind that first off, no freeways go through my towns city limits, so I have to drive at least 10 minutes to reach any freeway. Second, unless it's 3AM, there's going to be traffic in LA, that's just how it is. So no, it typically takes 45-60 minutes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2012, 08:27 AM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 13,126,644 times
Reputation: 3985
Quote:
Originally Posted by portlanderinOC View Post
If there was no traffic and I'm driving at like 80 MPH, then yes, I probably could.
Keep in mind that first off, no freeways go through my towns city limits, so I have to drive at least 10 minutes to reach any freeway. Second, unless it's 3AM, there's going to be traffic in LA, that's just how it is. So no, it typically takes 45-60 minutes.
Well that is very different from driving an hour to still be in suburbs. It takes you 45-60 minutes to get to one of the most densely populated areas in the nation. This should be an interesting read for you: http://www.demographia.com/db-porla.htm

I love this stat:

Quote:
Approximately 925,000 people in Los Angeles live in census tracts that are more dense than the densest in Portland. By comparison, the entire urbanized area of Portland located in Oregon (part is in Washington) had only 1,005,000 residents in 1990.
and this one:
Quote:
Los Angeles has the largest area of above 10,000 per square mile density in the new world, larger even than New York.
I know these stats are 20 years old, but in fact in the last 20 years the stats have improved in LA's favor. Many of these very high density neighborhoods were not desirable at all in 1990 - many were downright dangerous. Since then Koreatown, Echo Park, Hollywood, Downtown and many other centralized neighborhoods have seen dramatic improvement (and many have densified, while others have lowered population due to gentrification).

Last edited by munchitup; 03-16-2012 at 09:11 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2012, 08:36 AM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 13,126,644 times
Reputation: 3985
Quote:
Originally Posted by west336 View Post
I think sprawl also means that notable sites and amenities aren't very close to one-another. For instance, if the Sears Tower in Chicago were downtown, Wrigley Field was in Gary, Navy Pier was near the WI border, Michigan Avenue was 5 miles north in the city's more trendy neighborhoods, and if the city neighborhoods themselves weren't packed with restaurants, bars, retail and people, creating a block-by-block destination for urban exploring, then I think Chicago would be considered very "sprawly", when now most all people consider it quite urban. Having things to do NEAR other things to do makes cities seem compact, regardless of the urbanized area population density. This is why I think places like LA, Vegas, Phoenix, etc. seem so amazingly sprawled, when, in fact, they are 3 of the most densely populated urbanized areas in the country!
I can't speak for the other cities but this is certainly not the case in LA, though there are some isolated attractions (Santa Monica, beaches, Getty). Other than that the major attractions in the city of LA are within a much more compact area than what you described.

Quote:
Originally Posted by west336 View Post
and if the city neighborhoods themselves weren't packed with restaurants, bars, retail and people, creating a block-by-block destination for urban exploring
We could probably argue this for days, but IMO LA certainly offers this throughout its central 'historical' LA (~60 square miles). Part of the reason people think Chicago is not sprawling is because it has its international urban showcase, "The Loop" to impress visitors and give the illusion that you are in Manhattan pt. 2. Not that there aren't loads of incredible urban neighborhoods in Chicago - but, outside of the loop and northern neighborhoods, much of Chicago is just as sprawly and car-oriented as LA with a Midwestern aesthetic.

It seems like LA is just not that interested in impressing visitors (weird for such a tourism-driven city), which is why they often come away with such a skewed vision of the city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2012, 09:15 AM
 
Location: Cleveland bound with MPLS in the rear-view
5,530 posts, read 10,148,967 times
Reputation: 2384
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup View Post
I can't speak for the other cities but this is certainly not the case in LA, though there are some isolated attractions (Santa Monica, beaches, Getty). Other than that the major attractions in the city of LA are within a much more compact area than what you described.



We could probably argue this for days, but IMO LA certainly offers this throughout its central 'historical' LA (~60 square miles). Part of the reason people think Chicago is not sprawling is because it has its international urban showcase, "The Loop" to impress visitors and give the illusion that you are in Manhattan pt. 2. Not that there aren't loads of incredible urban neighborhoods in Chicago - but, outside of the loop and northern neighborhoods, much of Chicago is just as sprawly and car-oriented as LA with a Midwestern aesthetic.

It seems like LA is just not that interested in impressing visitors (weird for such a tourism-driven city), which is why they often come away with such a skewed vision of the city.
The infrastructure in the city of Chicago is probably 2X as condensed as the infrastructure in LA, and I believe the all-time population density heights of both cities is similarly rationed. To me, this makes Chicago much more urban than LA, and for that matter, NYC much more urban than Chicago. OUTSIDE of the city, LA is more dense and urban than Chicago -- no doubt. Even though Chicago has some inner-ring suburbs with high urbanized densities like Evanston and Cicero, LA has some that are much higher, and many many more that are in the 6K-10K ppsm range.

LA is multi-nodal to a "T". I do not think you can reach anything CLOSE to 50% of the city's attractions within a 2-3 mile radius! I CAN say that about Chicago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2012, 10:03 AM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 13,126,644 times
Reputation: 3985
Quote:
Originally Posted by west336 View Post
LA is multi-nodal to a "T". I do not think you can reach anything CLOSE to 50% of the city's attractions within a 2-3 mile radius! I CAN say that about Chicago.
Don't disagree with this, but only because LA has so many attractions outside of one condensed area (But that condensed area also has tons of attractions - Dodger Stadium, Chinatown/Little Tokyo/The Pueblo, LA Live, Staples Center, plus Hollywood 5.5 miles away in one direction and the Miracle Mile 6 miles away in the other). IMO with improved rail transit it will make for a much more interesting city to visit (The transit is just fine for residents but I think buses are too confusing for tourists from another city, understandably).

Quote:
Originally Posted by west336 View Post
The infrastructure in the city of Chicago is probably 2X as condensed as the infrastructure in LA, and I believe the all-time population density heights of both cities is similarly rationed. To me, this makes Chicago much more urban than LA, and for that matter, NYC much more urban than Chicago. OUTSIDE of the city, LA is more dense and urban than Chicago -- no doubt. Even though Chicago has some inner-ring suburbs with high urbanized densities like Evanston and Cicero, LA has some that are much higher, and many many more that are in the 6K-10K ppsm range.
Yet like that study says, within the central 10 percent of land area of the two cities, LA has a higher population density... Though I bet Chicago has pulled closer because though the city is losing population, the Loop and northern environs has gained population, probably at a higher rate than LA's growing Downtown. (Making the population loss in outer neighborhoods even more drastic.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2012, 05:05 PM
 
14,752 posts, read 28,646,245 times
Reputation: 8781
In terms of square mileage, it is Jacksonville FL, because the city and Duval County became one. Much of that square mileage is home to alligators instead of people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2012, 06:11 PM
 
Location: London, U.K.
886 posts, read 1,334,914 times
Reputation: 817
LA and Atlanta. But really any city where people say its downtown sucks for its size, transit sucks for its size, bus transit is seen as "good". The key words for sprawl are "...for its size".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2012, 06:15 PM
 
Location: Kentucky
2,927 posts, read 7,579,307 times
Reputation: 1326
How on earth did Lexington, KY end up on this list?? With a strict Urban Service Boundary (to protect horse farms) limiting growth outside the city it would be difficult for very much sprawl to occur. It's not in the same category as Atlanta, LA, Wash DC etc...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2012, 03:49 AM
 
Location: Keizer, OR
1,376 posts, read 2,518,387 times
Reputation: 1148
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup View Post
Well that is very different from driving an hour to still be in suburbs. It takes you 45-60 minutes to get to one of the most densely populated areas in the nation. This should be an interesting read for you: Portland: Far Less Dense than Los Angeles, Sprawling Like Phoenix

I love this stat:

and this one:


I know these stats are 20 years old, but in fact in the last 20 years the stats have improved in LA's favor. Many of these very high density neighborhoods were not desirable at all in 1990 - many were downright dangerous. Since then Koreatown, Echo Park, Hollywood, Downtown and many other centralized neighborhoods have seen dramatic improvement (and many have densified, while others have lowered population due to gentrification).
Still, if you drive an hour from my house, I could end up in San Clemente, San Bernardino, or the San Fernando Valley depending on the direction I choose. And that's what I mean.
Also, LA has more people, so of course it's going to be denser than Portland. If you drive an hour from Portland, odds are you'll be in the boonies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top