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.
Someone brought this up in another thread and I think its a good point. There really are different types of sprawl, some much denser than others (despite having sprawl-like characteristics).
As noted, much of San Jose (outside of downtown) is classic dense sprawl, while a place like Phoenix is true sprawl.
The difference is that while both are clearly sprawl and not pedestrian-friendly, dense sprawl has higher building density, shorter setbacks, and more storefronts.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,486 posts, read 15,002,372 times
Reputation: 7333
I lol at the idea that "dense sprawl" is some how different than "truesprawl" (<----new word alert)
Sprawl is sprawl. Does it really make one better than the other if the houses are slightly closer and the businesses are slightly closer to the street than in another place?
Phoenix's sprawl is just as bad as San Jose. It's people moving further away from the city proper, or transplants moving to the suburbs while the city remains the same.
Phoenix's sprawl is just as bad as San Jose. It's people moving further away from the city proper, or transplants moving to the suburbs while the city remains the same.
The point was that some sprawl is much denser than others. As an example - Both San Jose and Phoenix are sprawling cities, but San Jose has much denser sprawl.
The population density of Phoenix is 3373 people per square mile .
The population density of San Jose is 5517 people per square mile.
The population density where I used to live is 4165 people per square mile
The Population density where I live now is 324 people per square mile.
The population of the place where I live now is 7,000 more people than where I used to live. I just happen to live in a place with a lot of land so it's less crowded.
I see what the OP is talking about here. There is a big difference, especially if you are a walker or a bike rider. I don't see why everyone else is clueless. Good post OP. I'm not really much into the whole urban density thing or lack thereof, but you made a good point.
The population density of Phoenix is 3373 people per square mile .
The population density of San Jose is 5517 people per square mile.
The population density where I used to live is 4165 people per square mile
The Population density where I live now is 324 people per square mile.
The population of the place where I live now is 7,000 more people than where I used to live. I just happen to live in a place with a lot of land so it's less crowded.
How exactly does San Jose sprawl? That city is contained by mountains and water. If it hasn't hit the mountains yet, I'm pretty sure it's dang close to doing so.
Phoenix, by the way is dense sprawl. The houses are crowded together on small lots.
Atlanta, Nashville, Charlotte - all those cities whose sprawl consists of houses on large lots placed significantly further apart from each other compared to the cities out West... THAT is "true sprawl."
I've asked this before, without rendering a response:
what is with the recent issue of "sprawl"? Especially since in a not-to-distant past, folks were making a beeline to the suburban areas just to get away from people of other demographics?
Phoenix, by the way is dense sprawl. The houses are crowded together on small lots.
Atlanta, Nashville, Charlotte - all those cities whose sprawl consists of houses on large lots placed significantly further apart from each other compared to the cities out West... THAT is "true sprawl."
I lived in Phoenix 93-96, in the inner city, and I didn't realize how big those lots were until I moved to postage-stamp-yarded Las Vegas. I haven't been back there in 15 years to see the newly developed areas, but I'm hoping and assuming they're smaller than the inner city lots.
It's unfortunate that Phoenix didn't have a big mountain range to the west or SE of the city to help curb some of that mindless sprawl.
Adding to the list of large lots, true sprawl, I include Minneapolis-St. Paul. Start from Lakeville to the south and Forest Lake to the north, west of Lake Minnetonka to how many miles east of Hudson, WI, that's the ungodly spread-out Twin Cities area.
I just thank God Las Vegas is surrounded by mountains and the BLM, which they auction off bits and pieces every year.
Last edited by tijlover; 02-16-2011 at 10:01 PM..
Reason: edit
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.
