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.
Well, between you and me, most of the voters don't know what they're talking about. Seriously. And the numbers you presented just don't sit right with me because New York is not that high up in sprawl. It doesn't even list cities such as Orlando, Cincinnati, Kansas City...you get where I'm going with this. Greater New York takes up a large area, but a lot of that area is urban, not sprawl.
I'm not disagreeing with you, b/c when I saw the numbers, I as I mentioned in previous posts, I was surprised...but then I thought a/b it some more, and I can see where the Census Bureau is coming from. Now keep in mind these are not my numbers, these are the numbers of the very people who define our cities and put up arbitrary boundaries.
But I guess it depends on what a person's definition of urban vs. suburban is. Sprawl can also be used in terms of a "slang" type of term that differs from what the Bureau defines as "sprawl" per say. That's hard to define from a lay person perspective...b/c each person has their own perception of what they call urban vs. rural...especially at the fringes of an area. Do you consider Conroe, TX urban or rural? Do you consider Sugarland urban or rural or maybe even suburban? See, to me, Suglarland is suburban, but then again, some people may consider it urban since it's so close to Houston's city limits.
I can tell you that half my family lives in the NYC area. So going there every year, I can tell you what I define as urban and not...to me, White Plains/Westchester Co. is suburban, and thus "sprawl" maybe a useful term as you get just a tad bit more farther from there. ON the other side of the GW Bridge in the NJ area, some of it is definitely urban in the sense of Newark, but other areas I consider suburban not too far by and would be factored into "sprawl". CT definitely is a sprawl extension of greater NYC. I dont consider long island outside of Queens urban anymore...to argue for Smithtown and Hapauge (probably butchered the spelling) to be urban is not accurate...it's just as suburban as a Woodlands or Sugarland.
But again, I truly believe that when UA's get redefined in 2010 again, you will see a shift in Census rankings as mass production of air conditioning has really changed the dynamics of urban landscape in America. You will see "sprawl growth" rankings change to mainly sunbelt cities with northern cities lagging behind. Keep in mind this data is between 1970 and 1990. That's a key point in all this and the urbanization of America.
As for Orlando, KC, Cincinatti, those are all sprawl prone cities, no denying it...but the question now is how much sprawl growth as of recent. Except Orlando, populations in Greater KC and Cincinatti areas are relatively stagnant...so as a percentage relative to other places in America, they maybe lower on the ranks...though I'm really too lazy to look up every major metropolitan area in this country to verify that...but off the top of my head, Cincinatti has been one of the leading laggers along with Pittsburgh, Detroit, etc.
So in Cincinatti, do you consider Morrow, OH sprawl? I've stayed in Morrow, to me, it's a far out town that I would consider and factor into "sprawl growth" in Cincinatti....though it's nice...seems family friendly when I drove around it.
Last edited by metroplex2003; 07-15-2007 at 10:30 AM..
I'm not disagreeing with you, b/c when I saw the numbers, I as I mentioned in previous posts, I was surprised...but then I thought a/b it some more, and I can see where the Census Bureau is coming from. Now keep in mind these are not my numbers, these are the numbers of the very people who define our cities and put up arbitrary boundaries.
I agree with mpope409 as well. Of course, then we'd have to come up with a definition of "sprawl". My definition would be the ratio of city dweller to suburbanites in an MSA. Someone else may have a different idea.
I don't like that one. "Sprawl" is a spatial measure, not a political one. There are many suburbs that don't sprawl such as the old commuter-railroad suburbs of Chicago, Milwaukee's East Side suburbs, Pittsburgh's older industrial suburbs, Beverly Hills, etc. The there are sprawling city neighborhoods in Sunbelt cities like Jacksonville and Phoenix.
Ok, here is a link better defining "urban sprawl" as defined by the U.S. Census bureau. This also uses data on a parameter I have advocated in the past in addition to MSA, which is urbanized area. Yes using UA DFW and Houston both decline in rank, but it does offer a unique view of metropolitan areas b/c it draws boundaries between rural and urban as defined by the census bureau rather than counties...b/c many rural counties get included into MSA's, and even more so in CMSA, which I like the least...MSA and UA's are my preference overall with the exception as I have said earlier of the Bay Area, which i think the latter two forumulas have failed to depict well.
So here are the rankings of the top sprawl cities by the US govt:
1) Atlanta 701 sq. miles of sprawl (growth in land area)
2) Houston 638 sq. miles of sprawl
3) NYC (surprising, but not so if I think a/b it) 541 sq. miles sprawl
4) Wash DC/VA/MD 450.1 sq. miles of sprawl
5) Philly 412.4 sq. miles of sprawl
6) LA (surprising this is not at the top 2) 393.8 sq. miles of sprawl
7) Dallas (DFW) 372.4 sq. miles of sprawl
Not going to list everything, but it's an interesting link. Data based on UA's.
So basically if an urbanized area was 10 sq. miles in 1990 and 12 sq. miles in 2000, it sprawled out by 2 sq. miles.
Anyway, food for thought, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with this, I'm just stating what our folks at the Bureau think of it...b/c it's interesting to compare it to what we, the public, think of sprawl and which cities are sprawled out. Looks like their definition of sprawl is the amount of sq. miles around a city that is classified as "urbanized". But please read their definitions.
As for my opinion on the matter...I'm surprised as some of the numbers of what they define as "sprawled" sq. mileage...b/c many would say DFW would have been higher in terms of growth in "sprawled land area"...NYC was surprising to me in terms of them ranking so highly in growth of "sprawled land area"...since the perception of the public would be the Northeast has no reoom to sprawl......and also surprised with LA, as the term "Los Angelized" is there in American History for a reason when talking a/b low population density spread (aka "sprawl"). Though LA has had interesting zoning laws shrinking plots of land and increasing population density such that there may have been shrinkage of growth in sprawled land over time.
I don't think that you guys are even close , that is if you are factoring Urban Core Density , check out some cities on my list.
1. Anchorage AK. 164 people sq/mile
2. El Paso TX. 337 people sq/mile
3. Oklahoma City OK. 871 people sq/mile
4.San Antonio TX. 2,800+ people sq/mile
5. Phoenix AZ. 2,900+ people sq/mile
If cities don't have Density at least for me that's what I call "Sprawl"
I don't think that you guys are even close , that is if you are factoring Urban Core Density , check out some cities on my list.
1. Anchorage AK. 164 people sq/mile
2. El Paso TX. 337 people sq/mile
3. Oklahoma City OK. 871 people sq/mile
4.San Antonio TX. 2,800+ people sq/mile
5. Phoenix AZ. 2,900+ people sq/mile
If cities don't have Density at least for me that's what I call "Sprawl"
On the surfact that sounds like a good definition of sprawl. However, you have to look at other factors.
In the case of Anchorage, for example, you have to look at how much of the land is actually developable (is that a word?).
Where I live, Knoxville, is also classified as a very sprawly city. A few years ago the headline in the local paper was that Knoxville was ranked as the city with the worst sprawl in America.
But much of the area can't be developed. There are huge swaths of land that are owned by the federal government or state government, either as parks (Great Smoky Mountains National Park, for example) or other uses (Oak Ridge National Laboratories, for example). There are also mountains and lakes included in the metropolitan area. So merely looking at the total square miles divided by the population isn't being very honest. Anyone who has ever driven through Knoxville knows that the vast majority of the population lives in a fairly confined area.
Many of those cities you list as being sprawly also have huge military bases in their city or metro limits. That's hundreds of square miles of area that can never be developed into housing and, therefore, it gives the illusion that those cities have a lot of sprawl.
Atlanta and Houston for sure. Unfortunately Charlotte is quickly catching up.
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.
I don't think that you guys are even close , that is if you are factoring Urban Core Density , check out some cities on my list.
