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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-08-2012, 01:03 PM
 
1,495 posts, read 1,948,546 times
Reputation: 804

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by blkgiraffe View Post
Phoenix is a great example of what the OP is talking about.
But surely not the best example. That would just be sad if Phoenix were the best we could do in terms of growth management.

Fortunately it's not. For instance, San Diego's metro has 3/4 the population of the Phoenix metro, but only a tiny fraction of the land area.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-08-2012, 01:07 PM
 
Location: Underneath the Pecan Tree
15,989 posts, read 30,691,036 times
Reputation: 7281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago60614 View Post
LEAST sprawly, not most.....

Phoenix is not known for a place where you can walk everywhere and has a high/compact density.
What's your answer??? Chicago, NYC, SF, Boston, Philadelphia,DC etc ;certainly don't fit the bill. Until someone can come up with a better answer; I'm sticking with Phoenix.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2012, 01:17 PM
 
1,495 posts, read 1,948,546 times
Reputation: 804
Quote:
Originally Posted by blkgiraffe View Post
What's your answer??? Chicago, NYC, SF, Boston, Philadelphia,DC etc ;certainly don't fit the bill. Until someone can come up with a better answer; I'm sticking with Phoenix.
Here are some of the better answers that have already been given:

Quote:
Originally Posted by bryson662001 View Post
I believe the Portland OR metro is governed by some kind of legislation that prevents sprawl by limiting development to a certain area. I don't know the details except that Vancouver WA is not included.

Otherwise I would say that Las Vegas should be high on your list. Development there goes to the edge of the city and then stops quite abruptly. Probably the water supply has something to do with it. Another city is New Orleans, simply because dry land is so scarce in the area. Sprawl there is minimal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_cat View Post
Seems like it's not that bad in Seattle. Lots of natural barriers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_cat View Post
But surely not the best example. That would just be sad if Phoenix were the best we could do in terms of growth management.

Fortunately it's not. For instance, San Diego's metro has 3/4 the population of the Phoenix metro, but only a tiny fraction of the land area.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2012, 01:19 PM
 
Location: Underneath the Pecan Tree
15,989 posts, read 30,691,036 times
Reputation: 7281
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_cat View Post
Here are some of the better answers that have already been given:
Seattle and Portland are horrible choices. Phoenix maintains dense sprawl throughout the metropolitan area.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2012, 01:20 PM
 
1,495 posts, read 1,948,546 times
Reputation: 804
Quote:
Originally Posted by blkgiraffe View Post
What's your answer??? Chicago, NYC, SF, Boston, Philadelphia,DC etc ;certainly don't fit the bill. Until someone can come up with a better answer; I'm sticking with Phoenix.
And don't be so quick to write off the larger areas, given that they are larger, population-wise, so the ratios are not necessarily any worse.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2012, 01:21 PM
 
Location: Underneath the Pecan Tree
15,989 posts, read 30,691,036 times
Reputation: 7281
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_cat View Post
And don't be so quick to write off the larger areas, given that they are larger, population-wise, so the ratios are not necessarily any worse.
Not exactly. Those cities have a urban core, but surrounded by some of the worst sprawl in this country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2012, 01:22 PM
 
Location: Underneath the Pecan Tree
15,989 posts, read 30,691,036 times
Reputation: 7281
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_cat View Post
Thanks for that unexplained assertion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blkgiraffe View Post
Seattle and Portland are horrible choices. Phoenix maintains dense sprawl throughout the metropolitan area.

Take it or leave it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2012, 01:25 PM
 
1,495 posts, read 1,948,546 times
Reputation: 804
Quote:
Originally Posted by blkgiraffe View Post
Take it or leave it.
Your argument is that Phoenix has more "dense sprawl". I agree. Portland and Seattle have less "dense sprawl", because they have less sprawl.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2012, 01:25 PM
 
3,510 posts, read 4,964,318 times
Reputation: 3499
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_cat View Post
Nevermind, I was wrong.

"The Census Bureau defines a metropolitan area as the core city plus its county and any nearby counties that are economically dependent on the core city. However, Arizona has relatively large counties and a harsh, rugged desert landscape. For these reasons, much of the land that is part of the Metropolitan Statistical Area is rural or completely uninhabited. The core part of the Phoenix Metropolitan Area is the Phoenix-Mesa, Arizona Urban Area, which is far smaller than the Metropolitan Statistical Area."
That's also the situation with metropolitan San Bernardino - Riverside, CA. Those 2 enormous counties extend east for a couple of hundred miles out into the desert. In fact, the remote town of Needles, CA is debating whether to secede from CA and join AZ, partly because their designated county seat of San Bernardino, CA is 220 miles away and seems to ignore them in every way, and partly because gasoline and other merchandise are much cheaper across the river in NV and AZ, which has a thriving tourist and casino economy.

Last edited by slowlane3; 01-08-2012 at 01:36 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2012, 01:28 PM
 
Location: a swanky suburb in my fancy pants
3,391 posts, read 7,563,009 times
Reputation: 1584
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_cat View Post
I don't know, I can see the plus side. I live in Chicago and it would be nice if we had a few more patches of "nature" in town.
A lot of people would agree, which is why sprawl isn't as bad as some people think it is. The problem is that it wastes natural resources and is therefore politically (and fashionably) incorrect.
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