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 02-24-2008, 02:35 PM
 
Location: Silver Spring, MD/Washington DC
3,451 posts, read 8,152,521 times
Reputation: 2346

Advertisements

Tenken627 - yeah, I'm familiar with the informal Philadelphia building height restriction that existed until the Liberty Place towers were built in the mid-1980's. (I'm also familiar with the Billy Penn Curse; I'm a Philly sports fan. )

I think the difference with Philadelphia and Washington is in Philadelphia, the height restriction was 500-something feet, while in DC I think it is 160 feet or something like that, even though the Washington Monument is I believe 535 feet tall. There were a number of buildings in Philadelphia pre-Liberty Place Towers that were just under City Hall's height, but in DC there are no buildings that approach the Washington Monument's height.

The real benefit of increased building heights in DC would be indirect. Most of the tall buildings would probably be commercial office buildings. By being able to locate those buildings in the District instead of outside the District, that would free up the land used for offices that would be inside the District otherwise to be any type of use, including residential. The residential uses located in those office areas would likely be lower density in most cases, so you'd still have sprawl, but the sprawl wouldn't need to extend as far outward from DC. As noted previously, lifting the building height restrictions in DC would likely reduce the price of condos and apartments as well by increasing the available supply.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-24-2008, 03:31 PM
 
Location: San Diego
939 posts, read 2,829,451 times
Reputation: 438
major metro areas with the least sprawl are: ANYTHING NORTH of the MASON-DIXON line, anyone else agree?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2008, 04:19 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 17 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,995 posts, read 102,568,112 times
Reputation: 33059
Salt Lake City has a population of <200,000 people. Its metro is >1,000,000. That's pretty sprawly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2008, 04:55 PM
 
24 posts, read 38,013 times
Reputation: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by goozer View Post
Are you kidding me??? NYC and LA the top two LEAST sprawling cities with populations of under one million?!?!? LA is one of the most massively sprawling cities in the country. And NYC??? The reason it doesn't appear sprawling compared to, say, Phoenix is because it is not flat and treeless where you can see the sprawl before your eyes. NYC has a massive suburban area and you don't see cookie cutter tract homes in the "inner suburban" areas such as Westchester county because those areas are way too wealthy and old. But go out forty miles from NYC and you can see the same tract homes you find anywhere else. Same goes for No. 3 on your list. SF has a fantastic downtown. Fantastic. But go outside the city into the larger Bay Area and you have plenty of sprawl, with $1 million dollar tract homes spaced 6 feet from one another.
Yes, NY does have an extensive suburban area around it... but no bigger than Sprawl Capital USA aka Atlanta. The NY metro suburbs are denser than most even though they spill into NJ and CT. Besides, up here, most people tear down houses on tiny lots for their mcmansions, they don't use acres and acres of countryside as is the case with Phoenix and Atlanta and even LA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2008, 05:01 PM
 
24 posts, read 38,013 times
Reputation: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nafster View Post
How about this ----

The sprawl epidemic has reached epic proportions - every metropolitan area has it! It can't be stopped!

Do something, somebody!!!!!
Well, too late for us in the east, Boston to Washington is bumper to bumper suburbs... very fun to watch from a plane. Maybe we need to start building new island states for low density residential areas off the coast (the folks in Dubai could help us with that one)?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2008, 05:03 PM
 
Location: Mission Viejo, CA
2,498 posts, read 10,288,042 times
Reputation: 1598
Suburbs in Southern California around LA do not have big lots with acres and acres of countryside. The lots are pretty small like in this photo:


This is a suburb in Atlanta:


Lots and homes spread out like this do not exist in California. It is a very different version of sprawl. LA sprawls, but there is not green left in between, it is basically solid concrete. Atlanta sprawls with acres of green left and much larger lots for homes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2008, 05:12 PM
 
Location: Blackwater Park
1,715 posts, read 6,393,880 times
Reputation: 567
^^^^

Those are some pretty big lots for a decently sized subdivision!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2008, 06:01 PM
 
Location: Cleveland Suburbs
2,554 posts, read 5,996,200 times
Reputation: 619
California and Florida come to mind when I think of sprawl.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2008, 12:24 AM
 
Location: yeah
5,716 posts, read 14,569,873 times
Reputation: 2829
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthCali4LifeSD View Post
major metro areas with the least sprawl are: ANYTHING NORTH of the MASON-DIXON line, anyone else agree?
Um, no. Why do you think BosWash exists? A bunch of cities have grown into each other. The central cities may be denser than most, but the surroundings are just as bad.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2008, 03:45 AM
 
Location: Camberville
12,020 posts, read 16,761,808 times
Reputation: 19731
Quote:
Originally Posted by krudmonk View Post
Um, no. Why do you think BosWash exists? A bunch of cities have grown into each other. The central cities may be denser than most, but the surroundings are just as bad.
The difference is that the suburbs are made up of actual cities. Like in the Boston metro, one could consider it "sprawl"- but most of the sprawl is still based around established cities that have been there for centuries. That's why I wouldn't really consider a lot of the sprawl in Connecticut to be true sprawl either- the towns were there and not necessarily built just to feed commuters into NYC. Long Island is a different story. :P These towns have all built up into suburbs, but first and foremost they are still towns with identities.

When I think of sprawl, I think more of the areas where towns don't matter and you're more readily identified by your subdivsion or county. That's why Atlanta and LA are always the prime targets for sprawl- it's all white washed, homogeneous suburbs.
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