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, 04:35 PM
 
Location: The City
22,345 posts, read 32,237,000 times
Reputation: 7749

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Easy View Post
None of that really has anything to do with sprawl imo. If an area sprawls (develops in skips and stops with relatively low density) it can't be "mitigated" by having a dense core. What that chart shows is that in places like NYC most people don't live in the sprawly areas. Those areas are still there however so what it shows is that NYC in reality sprawls quite a bit given that the core is so dense.
Agree there is sprawl nearly everywhere but you are correct as a percentage a place like NYC has less relative to its population. Also another thing in these average density calculations; they include vast swaths of preserved land (something done more frequently in the NE and West coast though a difference is that much of the West coast is already topgraphiacally challenged whereas in the NE that is not the case it is to preserve working farms and forrests from continued sprawled development.) I know there is definately sprawl in the exurbs of Philly but as a percentage of the areas population it comprises a small amount though still taking up chunks of land with low density development. In general new development on the West Coast is more dense; honestly I wish these levels would be better utilized on the East Coast as it continues to sprawl but having said the densities of the East and West coast populations are far more dense than the vast majority of recent sunbelt development; key factor is contiued acces to cheap land which drives the continued sprawl basically unchecked.

A question though; is preserving a farm like this better or worse than moderate continuity of development; not sure but two different approaches; many area of the NE actually pay for this preservation with their tax money to stop continued low density development and preserve open space.

Trappe, PA - Google Maps
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-08-2012, 05:52 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,509 posts, read 28,220,877 times
Reputation: 7599
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever View Post
There isn't a development style known as "sprawly".
Yes there is. I made it up, so it exists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Easy View Post
I'm not sure that we all agree what sprawl is. For me it's pretty close to the wikipedia definition posted on page 2. Sprawl is when a metropolitan area has development that skips over large parts of land and the development isn't continuous. There are many good examples of sprawl in the sunbelt, but the northeast and midwest aren't that much better. Somehow on citydata having a dense core has come to mean that the metro doesn't sprawl which isn't what sprawl means.

The metro that sprawls the least is probably Los Angeles. It's relatively high density that goes on forever (that's not sprawl, that's just big) which is usually only broken by natural barriers. Pretty much any other urbanized area in the US would be smaller if it had the density of Los Angeles' urbanized area.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Easy View Post
None of that really has anything to do with sprawl imo. If an area sprawls (develops in skips and stops with relatively low density) it can't be "mitigated" by having a dense core. What that chart shows is that in places like NYC most people don't live in the sprawly areas. Those areas are still there however so what it shows is that NYC in reality sprawls quite a bit given that the core is so dense.
totally agree on these two posts.

plus 1, 2 3...100...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2012, 06:02 PM
 
1,495 posts, read 1,951,964 times
Reputation: 804
This discussion was interesting until we started debating the definition of sprawl. It defies logic to say that never-ending development such as you can find in California's Inland Empire is somehow "not sprawl" if it contains no gaps. I think sprawl with gaps is referred to as "leapfrog" and it's an important issue, but it's certainly not the only kind of sprawl.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2012, 06:40 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA
2,925 posts, read 3,649,310 times
Reputation: 2144
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_cat View Post
This discussion was interesting until we started debating the definition of sprawl.
Perhaps to you, but to me understanding the topic is essential to having a debate or even an opinion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2012, 06:41 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,509 posts, read 28,220,877 times
Reputation: 7599
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Easy View Post
Perhaps to you, but to me understanding the topic is essential to having a debate or even an opinion.
she is bored cause you popped her bubble
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2012, 06:42 PM
 
1,495 posts, read 1,951,964 times
Reputation: 804
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Easy View Post
Perhaps to you, but to me misunderstanding/obfuscating the topic is essential to having a debate or even an opinion.
Fixed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2012, 06:47 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA
2,925 posts, read 3,649,310 times
Reputation: 2144
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
she is bored cause you popped her bubble
Yeah, but kidphilly made a good point earlier about whether the NE type of sprawl is good or bad. I haven't answered yet because I'm not sure. I think that having an infrastructure that supports the sprawl does tend to mitigate its downside. For example if the sprawl is based around commuter rail stations. Or if the sprawled communities are somewhat self-sufficient with at least some jobs and most of the needed businesses, then maybe it's not really comparable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2012, 06:48 PM
 
Location: a swanky suburb in my fancy pants
3,391 posts, read 7,573,384 times
Reputation: 1584
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_cat View Post
This discussion was interesting until we started debating the definition of sprawl. It defies logic to say that never-ending development such as you can find in California's Inland Empire is somehow "not sprawl" if it contains no gaps. I think sprawl with gaps is referred to as "leapfrog" and it's an important issue, but it's certainly not the only kind of sprawl.
Your still confusing the literal definition with the urban planning definition which is the one planners don’t like because it wastes resources and land.
No one wastes land in Los Angles, it's too expensive. Leapfrog is just one term used to define urban sprawl.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2012, 06:55 PM
 
400 posts, read 870,434 times
Reputation: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geography Freak View Post
Which is the least sprawly metro of a decent size in the country? By this I basically mean the place where there is less sprawly development between city and farmland/woodland.
Des Moines, Iowa. The farmland around the city is very fertile and very intensively farmed. Mostly corn. It's the best farmland in the world. That keeps the sprawl down. The downtown core is dense. The city of Des Moines itself is quite compact and does not annex rural areas extensively like other cities of its size usually do. City population is about 200,000, with about 500,000 in the metro. Compare this to cities like Omaha, Wichita, and Tulsa, which extensively annex rural and suburban areas to grow their population. There are some growing suburbs around the DSM metro, especially on the west and north sides, but like I said, suburban development is very cautiously approached because the land has so much value as farmland.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2012, 07:04 PM
 
1,495 posts, read 1,951,964 times
Reputation: 804
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryson662001 View Post
Your still confusing the literal definition with the urban planning definition which is the one planners donít like because it wastes resources and land.
No one wastes land in Los Angles, it's too expensive. Leapfrog is just one term used to define urban sprawl.
I don't necessarily believe what you say about urban planners. I think perhaps you've misunderstood something you read somewhere.

But in any case, it's simply absurd that they should be able to redefine a well-known word and it's absurd for you to expect a public forum to follow that illogical redefinition.
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