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.
What are the biggest cities, population wise, in the United States, that don't have a lot of sprawl?
Thinking along the lines of cities that follow the transect model but more compact w/ limited areas of suburban zone and where the urban core is less then 30 minutes away from the natural zone. Also similar to the garden city model with the urban area surrounded by rural areas.
San Francisco and Portland come to mind as larger cities where you can be in nature a half hour from the core. But not in rush hour of course!
I love both of those cities but they aren't really what I'm looking for since they are surrounded by other cities.
The population doesn't have to be as big as either of those, I care more about places without urban sprawl and some place that doesn't have any other large cities within a 2 hour distance. Whatever place that fits that description and has the biggest population is what I want to find. Not sure if it exists though
Bismark comes somewhat close, although Bismark itself isn't much of a city. There's Mandin which is a suburb but fairly compact, old refinery town, and then the newer Lincoln which pretty diminutive and more typical '60s-'70s suburb.
It would be arbitrary to not consider contiguous areas just outside city borders. With that in mind, arguably no U.S. city and accompanying region is devoid of sprawl.
Probably Jacksonville FL. An actual majority lives within the city limits. This is because the city is so vast you can find the home you want without having to leave the city. Granted, some would say it is just a big suburb. But that ignores that 1) it is the most populous city in Florida and 2) it has an NFL team.
Las Vegas, in some ways. We're prevented from becoming another Phoenix or Minneapolis-St. Paul in that 85% of Nevada is owned by the Federal Government, and even within the Las Vegas Valley you run into BLM land, forbidden to build on. Small wonder the houses are built so close together here, which helps to densify it.
BLM occasionally has auctions for particular portions of land within the Las Vegas Valley.
Compared to Phoenix this city is dense in comparison. But who can match Phoenix for sprawl, not even Los Angeles!!!
What are the biggest cities, population wise, in the United States, that don't have a lot of sprawl?
Thinking along the lines of cities that follow the transect model but more compact w/ limited areas of suburban zone and where the urban core is less then 30 minutes away from the natural zone. Also similar to the garden city model with the urban area surrounded by rural areas.
Boston and DC comes to mind. Both are small and dense like San Francisco. plus they are liberal too. But the biggest city without sprawl is NYC. NYC does have suburbanesque homes in Northwest, Northeast and Southeast Bronx, Queens also have similar tracts of suburban homes in College Point area and Jamaica Estates. Staten Island is the only place that resembles suburban sprawl. Outside of NYC is nothing but pre world war 2 suburbia.
Pittsburgh would fit the bill. This is one area where not having a lot of population growth actually wins a category haha.
Pittsburgh is the first that came to my mind.
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.
