U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [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 02-28-2015, 01:00 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,992 posts, read 42,037,172 times
Reputation: 14811

Advertisements

I don't know enough about Orange County to really respond. But at this point we're talking past each other due to different definitions of sprawl. It might better if people used to a word that's more specific and clearly defined. I guess there are two ideas of sprawl:

1) Large-lot sprawl. Houses scattered on 1/2+ often 1 acre lots and mixed in with woods. Common in New England the Hudson Valley among other places. While there are old, walkable town centers, often they're very small and many areas don't have them. Built onto a rural road network often lacking sidewalks and in any case, most don't live in walking distance of anything besides a few other houses.

2) Sunbelt sprawl. Lot sizes are often small, gridded network of recently-built big arterials rather than old country roads. More monotonous and few if anything downtown-like. But land-use per capita is much lower than large-lot sprawl
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-28-2015, 03:36 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 13,126,644 times
Reputation: 3985
Plus, it seems like the only real argument is whether LA is #1 least sprawly or #2 least sprawly - if you go by weighted density, LA is still one of the three least sprawling cities in the nation. I guess arguing over who is officially the least sprawling seems kinda City vs. City to me. I do think both sides make compelling cases.

About the bus vs rail thing in LA -
1. The only bus lines being axed in LA are circuitous, roundabout lines with low head ways and redundancies.
2. Measure R (which funds the rail bonanza) allocates major portions of its funds for bus improvements (Wilshire BRT lanes, for example)
3. The BRU (bus riders union) in LA has done a lot more to set back transit in the than it has done to help the poor transit dependent bus riders it claims to champion, and mostly just seems like a way to wage a strange version of class warfare.

But I'm not sure why Marv brought up transit in the first place, as this thread does not address that issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2015, 03:39 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
9,832 posts, read 7,687,118 times
Reputation: 6288
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
I used to live in Corona del Mar, which is adjacent to Irvine. Anyone who thinks that Irvine is less sprawly than NJ is seriously on drugs.

Orange County is basically 100% sprawl, and there is nothing in OC remotely comparable to the urban centers in NJ. Not one square inch of Irvine is remotely urban or walker friendly. In fact there is not one attractive, sizable downtown anywhere in OC, and we're talking a county of 3 million people.

Who cares? Most of New Jersey is super leafy quiet suburbia, lower in density than much of Orange County. Google images tell the whole story. Why won't you look at the whole picture?

I can't believe people are arguing New York is less sprawling than Los Angeles! 4495 sq miles (NY) vs 2432 sq miles (LA) doesn't leave much room for debate. Even the US definition (18.5 million, 3400 sq miles) is much larger. I could sorta see an argument if the New York Urban Area had a higher standard density (like Tokyo), but it doesn't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2015, 04:41 PM
 
4,023 posts, read 3,269,945 times
Reputation: 2924
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
I used to live in Corona del Mar, which is adjacent to Irvine. Anyone who thinks that Irvine is less sprawly than NJ is seriously on drugs.

Orange County is basically 100% sprawl, and there is nothing in OC remotely comparable to the urban centers in NJ. Not one square inch of Irvine is remotely urban or walker friendly. In fact there is not one attractive, sizable downtown anywhere in OC, and we're talking a county of 3 million people.
Probably the same could be said about Los Angeles. It's all sprawl. You can drive from OC, arrive in LA proper and you'd wonder if you ever left OC because it all looks pretty much the same. Like someone else said LA is 72 suburbs looking for a city. There's no real urban core. Where NY and Chicago are known for their unmistakable big city centers, strong urban flavor and character in their large urban cores you'd have a hard time finding anything like that in LA. LA may even be denser overall but its just denser sprawl, the worst of both worlds. There's no urban character, just the same bland monotonous SFH, big box chains and strip malls over and over again everywhere you go but on somewhat smaller lots.






10 U.S. Cities with the Worst Traffic | The Fiscal Times
June 6, 2014

High population density combined with high, suburban levels of car dependency and lack of transit
options - is a good recipe for really, really miserable traffic conditions. Guess who's (still) number one on the list?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2015, 10:02 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,080 posts, read 16,109,257 times
Reputation: 12652
Quote:
Originally Posted by cisco kid View Post
Probably the same could be said about Los Angeles. It's all sprawl. You can drive from OC, arrive in LA proper and you'd wonder if you ever left OC because it all looks pretty much the same. Like someone else said LA is 72 suburbs looking for a city. There's no real urban core. Where NY and Chicago are known for their unmistakable big city centers, strong urban flavor and character in their large urban cores you'd have a hard time finding anything like that in LA. LA may even be denser overall but its just denser sprawl, the worst of both worlds. There's no urban character, just the same bland monotonous SFH, big box chains and strip malls over and over again everywhere you go but on somewhat smaller lots.






10 U.S. Cities with the Worst Traffic | The Fiscal Times
June 6, 2014

High population density combined with high, suburban levels of car dependency and lack of transit
options - is a good recipe for really, really miserable traffic conditions. Guess who's (still) number one on the list?
"The list topper has the fourth-worst traffic."

Example eleventybillion why I don't read top 10 lists. They're all so very well written and full of useful information. Upside of LA is that since it's not centralized, commutes are relatively short.
http://www.tomtom.com/lib/doc/pdf/20...nualAme-mi.pdf
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2015, 10:20 PM
 
410 posts, read 390,121 times
Reputation: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cisco kid View Post

10 U.S. Cities with the Worst Traffic | The Fiscal Times
June 6, 2014

High population density combined with high, suburban levels of car dependency and lack of transit
options - is a good recipe for really, really miserable traffic conditions. Guess who's (still) number one on the list?
According to the most recent INRIX scorecard, here are the top 10 most congested cities in America.

1. Honolulu (35.6)
2. LA (32.3)
3. San Fran (27.9)
4. Austin (23.3)
5. Bridgeport (22.1)
6. New York (20.7)
7. San Jose (20.6)
8. Seattle (20.3)
9. Boston (18.7)
10. Washington D.C. (17.3)

Traffic Scorecard - INRIX
Methodology - INRIX
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2015, 10:41 PM
 
410 posts, read 390,121 times
Reputation: 500
INRIX also analyses specific corridors which can be more useful than a generic "top 10 worst cities" list. The top 13 worst corridors are found in NYC, LA, DC, and Seattle. No other cities crack the top 13.

Worst Corridors - INRIX
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2015, 02:51 AM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
9,832 posts, read 7,687,118 times
Reputation: 6288
[quote=cisco kid;38635934]Probably the same could be said about Los Angeles. It's all sprawl. You can drive from OC, arrive in LA proper and you'd wonder if you ever left OC because it all looks pretty much the same. Like someone else said LA is 72 suburbs looking for a city. There's no real urban core. Where NY and Chicago are known for their unmistakable big city centers, strong urban flavor and character in their large urban cores you'd have a hard time finding anything like that in LA. LA may even be denser overall but its just denser sprawl, the worst of both worlds. There's no urban character, just the same bland monotonous SFH, big box chains and strip malls over and over again everywhere you go but on somewhat smaller lots. [quote]

Excellent observation, the resemblance between Central LA and Irvine is uncanny:

http://skylinescenes.com/gallery/alb...e_071_4207.jpg

Last edited by nei; 03-01-2015 at 08:40 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2015, 07:07 AM
 
9,521 posts, read 14,857,889 times
Reputation: 9769
Quote:
Originally Posted by impala096 View Post
INRIX also analyses specific corridors which can be more useful than a generic "top 10 worst cities" list. The top 13 worst corridors are found in NYC, LA, DC, and Seattle. No other cities crack the top 13.

Worst Corridors - INRIX
Something funny about that list; the Lincoln Tunnel and Holland Tunnel in NYC don't seem to be on it (though some of the approaches are). And they're in the same class as the George Washington Bridge.

Looks like I-270 in MD isn't on it (though the Beltway where it joins is); maybe widening that sucker from 3 lanes each way to a billion helped.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2015, 08:48 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,992 posts, read 42,037,172 times
Reputation: 14811
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler View Post
Something funny about that list; the Lincoln Tunnel and Holland Tunnel in NYC don't seem to be on it (though some of the approaches are). And they're in the same class as the George Washington Bridge.
I was going to say they were only using limited access highways, the tunnels terminate to local streets on the Manhattan side. But it list London arterial streets rather than just highways. Still might have something to do with the fact the tunnel aren't really through.
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 > General Forums > Urban Planning
Similar Threads
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