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 would say St. Louis, Missouri is the most spread-out metro I have seen for a population of that size especially from east to west.
I would say Kansas City, St. Louis, Cincinnati are all very sprawling metropolitan areas. They just keep going on and on, which is ironic in St. Louis case because the city itself is very dense but St. Louis for less then 3 million people in the metro from east to west just its amazing how far it just keeps going.
The twin cities sprawls alot also but its a different sort of sprawl basically goes from suburb to nature then from suburb to nature. Which I dont think is a bad way to spread out got to go all the way up to St. Cloud to continue one combined statistical area.
I dont think a spread-out city is bad (depends on the city) some cities like being very spread-out but it looks much better if they put in alot of nature preserves and greenlands like they do in the Twin Cities suburbs.
Omaha is very spread-out also but luckily they are densifying the core after many years of neglect, Denver does not sprawl out much at all compared to other metropolitan areas
Contrary to popular belief, the Los Angeles metro is one of the most dense in the nation. However, it feels sprwled because of freeways, lack of pedestrians and cohesive transit. It has basically become dense sprawl. What was the definition of irony again?
Contrary to popular belief, the Los Angeles metro is one of the most dense in the nation. However, it feels sprwled because of freeways, lack of pedestrians and cohesive transit. It has basically become dense sprawl. What was the definition of irony again?
well Greater LA has about 18 million, so yea its gonna be dense, but the sprawl is equal to none.
LA metro may be sprawled but the city is actually quite dense. Not as dense as Chicago or NY but still dense. If a city lacks density, I wouldn't live there because there would be no resources available, unless you're willing to drive twenty or so miles to buy a loaf of bread.
You seriously need to add WASHINGTON, DC to your list. Gosh, that place has swallowed up half the east coast. Its probably the most transient and most commuter city of any- rivaling L.A. Because most people who work in DC would rather live in the 'burbs. Half of Virginia belongs to the DC area and it keeps spreading southward. In 10 years, I won't be surprised if Raleigh-Durham is part of the DC metro area.
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.