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.
Actually - not really. SF, Oakland and Berkeley all incorporated at about the same time. Oakland was the main HQ / distribution for the agriculture and the terminus for intercontinental railroad. There was a mini boom after the 1906 earthquake where some people moved to Oakland after SF was destroyed in the quake.
Oakland was a distinct economic area with limited ties to SF / SF development patterns as it started out. Over time it became linked more to SF - after WW2. But before that there was no kahuna. SF incorporated as a city in 1850, Oakland in 1852. Berkeley grew up with the university and incorporated in 1878.
That may well be. But that's not how it appears to people outside of California. And WW II was over 71 years ago. In the memory of most people alive today, it's SF-O.
That may well be. But that's not how it appears to people outside of California. And WW II was over 71 years ago. In the memory of most people alive today, it's SF-O.
You said original city; I thought you were talking about 100+ years ago:
I thought sprawl refers to how compact a place's development is? So basically just density. I don't get why you never referred to density.
Even if just going by area, it'd be a more interesting to compare metros of somewhat similar size. Cheyenne going by urban area isn't particularly dense for its size. Ithaca is slightly denser; Pittsfield, MA only a bit lower. But Cheyenne is almost uninhabited outside the urban area, a common western pattern while the other two have "rural sprawl".
Going through only large metros, the Bay Area is the least sprawly. Quick, dramatic contrast to undeveloped land.
I would say the opposite. Sprawl is not about how close to non-developed land there is, especially when that land is not developable anyway. Pretend like the mountainous areas, are actually ocean or lake water. Would you then call San Francisco the "least sprawly?" Mountains are barriers, especially the ones near the San Francisco Bay. They can't build on it, so the fact that they continued to build the suburbs of San Francisco all the way from San Francisco to San Jose (which is a huge distance) of nothing but suburbs, shows one of the best cases of sprawl.
The Greater Miami area is a great comparison with San Francisco. Downtown Miami is about 20 miles from Everglades National Park. The entire Greater Miami area is skirted by the Everglades. You could argue that the suburbs along that edge are in close proximity to nature. One of the most untouched pieces of land, arguably more purer than anything in the entire San Francisco Bay Area. Let's be honest, all of those trails in San Francisco are not pristine. They're filled with tourists and they're highly-trafficked places. At least no one goes into the Everglades. Oh and let's not forget that Miami has more skyscrapers than San Francisco, and could soon become the second largest skyscraper city in the United States, beating out Chicago, because Miami continues to have a skyscraper boom and Miami Beach is already Manhattanized. Would you honestly say that Miami has little or no sprawl, despite the miles and miles of suburbia, because there's a huge Everglades next to it?
The point is both Greater Miami and Greater San Francisco have 100-mile-long cities and suburbs that stretch from Jupiter to Homestead in Miami and Napa to South San Jose in San Francisco Bay. To me they both represent the most egregious example of sprawl. In that they've both been able to create giant long cityscape along skinny stretches of land that are centered around a city and it's because of the car and suburban sprawl that has allowed this to happen. It's irrelevant that there is the Everglades or ocean in the case of Miami or mountains and the bay in the case of San Francisco. When it comes to sprawl, we're talking about how suburbs have grown. If I were to think of a city with little sprawl I would think of a place like Venice, Italy (minus the suburb and close cities that it has nearby) where it would all be self-contained in an island and not have the regular transition of city to suburb. Usually a city would have to be surrounded by mountain or water to make it happen.
Last edited by clearlevel; 04-17-2017 at 12:29 PM..
I thought sprawl refers to how compact a place's development is? So basically just density. I don't get why you never referred to density.
Perhaps you are using a first order derivative when a second order would better capture your idea of "sprawl"? Instead of "density" perhaps "change in density" is the metric that better describes your idea of "sprawl". Thus second order metrics that can be described by standard deviation and variance in combination with some metric that qualifies an area as a "city center" might lead to an objective definition. Just sayin'.
Note: The entire discussion about "sprawl" and "suburbs" seems to be largely meritless and a waste of time in part because people can't objectively describe the terms. Some seem to define anything outside an arbitrary political boundary as "sprawl" or "suburb". Others seem to focus on a "built form" as defining "suburb" and "sprawl". All of these inherently (and wrongly) seem to place a "city" (whether defined by "built form" or political boundary) on some sort of unearned "center of the universe" pedestal.
Perhaps you are using a first order derivative when a second order would better capture your idea of "sprawl"? Instead of "density" perhaps "change in density" is the metric that better describes your idea of "sprawl". Thus second order metrics that can be described by standard deviation and variance in combination with some metric that qualifies an area as a "city center" might lead to an objective definition. Just sayin'.
That's an interesting number, I think I've seen it measured as "density gradient index" [calculated by dividing a density weighted by census tract population by the overall urban area density] which gives high numbers to metros with relatively dense core areas and relatively low density outer suburbs. Large northeast metros score the highest by this measure, western metros generally the lowest. But I don't think this measures sprawl but something else; more how distinct the "city center" is density-wise from the rest of the metro.
Perhaps you are using a first order derivative when a second order would better capture your idea of "sprawl"? Instead of "density" perhaps "change in density" is the metric that better describes your idea of "sprawl". Thus second order metrics that can be described by standard deviation and variance in combination with some metric that qualifies an area as a "city center" might lead to an objective definition. Just sayin'.
Note: The entire discussion about "sprawl" and "suburbs" seems to be largely meritless and a waste of time in part because people can't objectively describe the terms. Some seem to define anything outside an arbitrary political boundary as "sprawl" or "suburb". Others seem to focus on a "built form" as defining "suburb" and "sprawl". All of these inherently (and wrongly) seem to place a "city" (whether defined by "built form" or political boundary) on some sort of unearned "center of the universe" pedestal.
Agreed, except that I don't put "the city" as the "center of the universe". (I do agree that many regulars on this forum do so, however.) But, when talking about, let's say Denver to change the convo from SF which has gotten polarized, "Denver" usually means first the city, then the burbs. Practically everything that has been said about SF can be said about Denver-its suburbs have their own personalities-blue collar, low income blue collar, white collar, very high end white collar, college town (Golden and Boulder), family oriented, etc. Shocking that, in a white bread city like Denver, right? You can get from the Capitol Building which is about in the center of the city (take note of the bold) to Red Rocks Park Mountain Park in Morrison in 25 minutes (16 mi.) (per Google)https://www.google.com/search?q=red+...w=1920&bih=916
Some of the cities in the metro area have been around about as long as Denver. In fact, when Colorado became a state in 1876, the debate was whether Denver or Golden would be the capital city. Boulder has also been around a long time (1871), and boasts the first high school in the state.
How am I being disgeneous? You asked for what I thought sprawl was and said so..
Quote:
We've spent a lot of bandwidth on this forum talking about suburbs and how (insert derogatory term here) they are. I know, nei, you like to treat each thread as is its own separate little idea and think we should never consider what was said on any other thread, ever, but there certainly is a sense on this forum, at least among long time posters, about what "sprawl" is.
Normally, forum conversations (everywhere else I've seen on CD) follow from what previous posts on the thread say, rather than switching to a discussion of the general feeling from the "forum" of long ago threads — which is composed of different poster's views. Non-regulars haven't seen previous threads, I don't think they would have a particular interest in what the sense on the forum is rather than the actual thread topic. To the bolded: yes, it's almost always a hijack.
Quote:
What's "low density"? Where's the cut-off? A lot of SF suburbs that I've seen are predominantly single family housing.
Well you can measure by overall urban area density. Not a perfect measure but I got
For you guys to argue that a city in this huge metro area is the one in the country that isn't surrounded by sprawl is, quite frankly, ridiculous in the true sense of the meaning of ridiculous, that is, worthy of ridicule.
I'm rather certain I didn't say that. If I did, I wrote badly. I don't think jade408 has, I agree that's a ridiculous argument, but I'm not arguing that
Last edited by nei; 04-17-2017 at 04:25 PM..
Reason: fixed miscalculation
Why unfair? I just don't get that you can't see that a huge metro has sprawl basically by definition. Cheyenne hardly even has suburbs.
Also, the OP did focus on larger metros. Nor did he say no sprawl:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecoplanner
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.
Honolulu should be a good contender, its city center is somewhat dense and its small so its development doesn't feel endless (802,000 at 170 square miles = 4715 / square mile)
Since you're bound and determined that I'm wrong and that SF is the "poster city" for "not a lot of sprawl", this will be my last post in this thread.
Here's how the OP described "not a lot of sprawl".
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecoplanner
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.
Hence, my response that a city of 800K in an MSA of 4.5 Million has a lot of "sprawl", AKA "suburban zone". Period. Urban core less than 30 min away from that natural zone? In some places yes for SF, but also Denver, Pittsburgh, Omaha for that matter (except it's farmland there, not "natural zone").
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.
