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 02-25-2008, 07:55 AM
 
Location: Live in VA, Work in MD, Play in DC
697 posts, read 2,024,700 times
Reputation: 263

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by CHIP72 View Post
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.
That's true, there is a huge difference between having a 130 foot height restriction and a 550 foot height restriction.

I do agree that DC's restriction should be eased somewhat to help with traffic congestion and housing prices, but anyone for it will have to fight an uphill battle against hordes of preservationists. Not to mention having to deal with the federal government since it was Congress who passed the height restriction bill.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-25-2008, 11:37 AM
 
Location: Katy-zuela
4,852 posts, read 8,996,558 times
Reputation: 2364
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.
L.A. developed through sprawl. New York is the birthplace of suburbia (re: Levittown).

Quote:
Originally Posted by jonjj View Post
All cities have sprawl. It is a national issue, not a local one. What amazes me is that few are mentioning smaller cities and towns that also have huge amounts of sprawl. I was in Oshkosh, Wisconsin and the sprawl was unreal. Nothing of note downtown. Everything was out on a freeway and beyond. It was amazing. I don't want to single that out but just mentioned it as an example. There is sprawl all over and the big cities are not the only culprits.
I didn't realize that it was so sprawly in Rockford. It was hard to find the entrance to my cousin's subdivision.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2008, 02:38 PM
 
Location: The Heart of Dixie
7,825 posts, read 12,333,377 times
Reputation: 4779
I was surprised, especially flying, to see how densely packed the San Francisco Bay Area is. Also, LA doesn't technically "sprawl" since while it and NY cover a huge area, the entire area is pretty densely populated.

The most sprawled-out, low density cities i've seen are Houston, Orlando, Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, Raleigh, and the Washington, D.C. area, though for DC the new development is becoming denser....actually I don't like this, I prefer suburban/exurban living. Also Boise, Idaho covers a large area for its relatively small population.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2008, 04:49 PM
 
Location: Baton Rouge
369 posts, read 1,497,643 times
Reputation: 207
I guess I would agree with New Orleans being on that list. Everything is built very densely packed together. It's not easy to squeeze 1.2 million people into an area restricted by a levee system. The only place in the metro area where you aren't on top of your neighbors is on the north shore. If you want proof just go look at a google satallite image of Kenner/Metairie
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2008, 08:09 PM
 
Location: Houston, TX
87 posts, read 265,169 times
Reputation: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by gameguy56 View Post
Tell me what you think!

1. NYC
2. LA
3. San Francisco
4. Miami
5. New Orleans
6. Portland
7. San Antonio
8. Louisville
9. Sacramento
10. Pittsburgh
LA? No
San Francisco? No
San Antonio? No
Miami? No
Portland? No
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2008, 08:28 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 21 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,013 posts, read 102,621,396 times
Reputation: 33082
Pittsburgh proper has 1/2 the residents it had at its height of population. About 1 in 7 MSA residents lives in the city, a pretty low ratio, lower than Denver's 1 in 5.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2008, 10:17 PM
 
Location: Live in VA, Work in MD, Play in DC
697 posts, read 2,024,700 times
Reputation: 263
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terrapin2212 View Post
I was surprised, especially flying, to see how densely packed the San Francisco Bay Area is. Also, LA doesn't technically "sprawl" since while it and NY cover a huge area, the entire area is pretty densely populated.

The most sprawled-out, low density cities i've seen are Houston, Orlando, Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, Raleigh, and the Washington, D.C. area, though for DC the new development is becoming denser.... actually I don't like this, I prefer suburban/exurban living. Also Boise, Idaho covers a large area for its relatively small population.
I like how you wrote this. It's like all of a sudden, you reminded yourself in mid-sentence that density is badddd.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2008, 05:34 PM
 
Location: East Tennessee and Atlanta
3,673 posts, read 8,776,314 times
Reputation: 2508
I'd say...

Portland, OR
Memphis, TN
Rochester, NY
Buffalo, NY
New Orleans, LA maybe...

That's all I can think of..most cities over 1 million (metro) are badly sprawled in the US.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2008, 10:46 PM
 
Location: Phila PA
5 posts, read 9,494 times
Reputation: 11
NYC Metro has alot of sprawl??? Wow, that's a new one.The least sprawling city or metro in the US has to be NYC. There's no question about it. I lived in Northern New Jersey for most of my childhood and the density of most of our "suburbs" are probably greater than the majority of cities in the South or West. New York metro has like 4 other metros within it so it's hard to consider the areas surrounding the city "sprawl". Matter of fact if you do a search for the densest cities of any population in the US I'm sure suburbs within the NYC metro will show up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2008, 10:55 PM
 
Location: dfw
314 posts, read 1,280,802 times
Reputation: 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by breethecowgirl View Post
San Francisco? No
why not?
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