Cities without sprawl (largest, Baltimore, Dallas, Atlanta)
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.
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.
Yeah I don't think it exists because of that even though some places come close.
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!
This cracks me up! San Francisco came up once before in a discussion of cities where you can be in nature in 1/2 hour. SF is a city of 837,442 (2013) in a CSA of 8,713,914! There are 10X the people in the CSA as in the city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bronxguyanese
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.
Seriously? Again, look at the CSAs. Boston- 8,099,575 (pop 645,966) CSA is 12X larger than city; DC 9,625,360 (pop 672,228) CSA 14X the city; NYC 23,723,696 (8,550,405). By the looks of that, NYC is the least, with "only" about 3X as many people in its CSA as in its city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by speagles84
Pittsburgh would fit the bill. This is one area where not having a lot of population growth actually wins a category haha.
304,391 City; 2,648,605 CSA. About 9X as many in the CSA as a whole.
Why would the city population to CSA ratio be relevant? That just reflects what the city limits are. I think MSAs are generally a better measure than CSAs, IMO; but either doesn't really change my point. Boston's CSA is defined as much of eastern New England, places historically were separate regions. Just from the direction San Francisco developed and what got preserved there is a lot of nature nearby:
Why would the city population to CSA ratio be relevant? That just reflects what the city limits are. I think MSAs are generally a better measure than CSAs, IMO; but either doesn't really change my point. Boston's CSA is defined as much of eastern New England, places historically were separate regions. Just from the direction San Francisco developed and what got preserved there is a lot of nature nearby:
Why is that relevant? It shows the extent of the sprawl. This is true whether you use CSA or MSA. I have long felt the SF area to be particularly sprawly, from the first time I saw it in 1980.
Denver's CSA is quite extensive too, with Greeley in there, basically all of Weld County, some of which is quite rural. Well, rural with oil wells. Boulder, Jefferson and Douglas Counties have lots of mountain land in their western halves (roughly). Part of Rocky Mountain National Park is in Boulder County. Adams and Arapahoe Counties are very rural for their eastern 2/3 or so. But that is how the CB does things.
I could never make a case that SF doesn't have sprawl. Ditto DC, for two. Pittsburgh isn't real sprawly in that it hasn't grown for decades, but some of the suburbs have large lots, compared to here in CO anyway.
Why is that relevant? It shows the extent of the sprawl. This is true whether you use CSA or MSA. I have long felt the SF area to be particularly sprawly, from the first time I saw it in 1980.
Why does the ratio show the extent of sprawl? I don't get it. If San Francisco merged with its suburbs it would change the ratio but nothing development-wise.
San Francisco feels less sprawly to me compared to most US cities, at least for its size. I wouldn't say it has no sprawl.
Quote:
Denver's CSA is quite extensive too, with Greeley in there, basically all of Weld County, some of which is quite rural. Well, rural with oil wells. Boulder, Jefferson and Douglas Counties have lots of mountain land in their western halves (roughly). Part of Rocky Mountain National Park is in Boulder County. Adams and Arapahoe Counties are very rural for their eastern 2/3 or so. But that is how the CB does things.
The CB also has MSA and urban area. The urban area limits stop at the end of development, but it has its own weirdness
The ratio shows the number of people living in the city compared to those living in the burbs. A city with 10X as many people living in the burbs, is "sprawly" indeed. SF has an MSA of 4,679,166. That's still about 5X as many people in the burbs than in the city. Denver's is about 1:4. And people call Denver "sprawly".
I simply do not understand any thinking that SF is not sprawly. It probably has people commuting from way longer distances than Denver does.
Yes, I understand what the ratio is comparing. But I don't get why it connects to sprawl, as I explained above.
I'd guess San Francisco has more long-distance commuters than Denver, too. But that's partially from being bigger
I'm flabbergasted! Isn't that the definition of sprawl, people living outside the city in the suburbs? Just what is the definition of sprawl if not that?
SF isn't *that* much bigger. It just has all these suburban residents that commute into the city! I think it's the weather, too. People in Denver are (in general, not saying everyone) more hesitant to live a long distance from work b/c of the snow.
the urban core is less then 30 minutes away from the natural zone.
I agree, Pittsburgh is a great choice, there's a rural looking area just on the other side of mount Washington. What about Cleveland? Look at rust belt cities that haven't grown much after WWII.
I have to say your post is confusing. You want nature within 30 minutes but you want the biggest city. A smaller city will have closer access to nature. Especially look at a small city with steep areas nearby - where it never boomed like Pittsburgh since Pgh has a lot of housing built on its steep slopes.
My advice is to list the amenities you want and find the hilliest rust belt city that has them. The PA forum is a good place to start.
Would you be happy with a city that has wilderness in one direction and sprawl in the other direction?
I'm flabbergasted! Isn't that the definition of sprawl, people living outside the city in the suburbs? Just what is the definition of sprawl if not that?
No, never heard that was the definition, though apparently pvande55 did as well. I thought sprawl referred to development patterns, not something to do with city limits. Definition is kinda ambiguous but usually refers to either lots of low-density development or just endless development. OP how far do you have to go to be "in nature" seems more like the latter.
Quote:
SF isn't *that* much bigger. It just has all these suburban residents that commute into the city! I think it's the weather, too. People in Denver are (in general, not saying everyone) more hesitant to live a long distance from work b/c of the snow.
I'm referring to metropolitan population; San Francisco is at least twice as large.
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.
