U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 03-02-2012, 06:21 PM
 
434 posts, read 153,537 times
Reputation: 153
Urban sprawl is sad in some ways. It makes people more car dependent. You have to drive 30 miles to work and the same back, and then countless miles and miles doing other stuff in between. Whatever happened to living fairly close to where you work, or walking to the grocery store to pick up stuff for dinner?
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-02-2012, 08:58 PM
 
6,320 posts, read 4,847,879 times
Reputation: 5288
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.drew View Post
Urban sprawl is sad in some ways. It makes people more car dependent. You have to drive 30 miles to work and the same back, and then countless miles and miles doing other stuff in between. Whatever happened to living fairly close to where you work, or walking to the grocery store to pick up stuff for dinner?
It scales quite poorly. Everyone has to live near where they work. Hard enough for single wage-earner families, impossibly limiting for multiple wage-earner families. You need many, many (necessarily small, and thus quite limited in selection) grocery stores in order for there to be one within walking distance of all residential units. Your overriding criterion in where you live must be where you work, and if you change jobs or your job moves (not even very far) you have to move.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2012, 10:33 PM
 
434 posts, read 153,537 times
Reputation: 153
I'm not saying everything has to be within a couple blocks of where you live.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2012, 07:28 AM
 
Location: Waterloo, ON
1,892 posts, read 1,485,574 times
Reputation: 1057
Well if you live in downtown Toronto, there are close to 20 supermarkets (Canadian equivalents of Safeway, Kroger, etc) and at least 100 small businesses like butchers, variety stores, fruit markets, etc in an area of about 5 square miles. The availability of other ammenities people need like coffee shops, hairdressers, dry cleaners and banks within walking distance is also very good.

As for commutes, the idea is to take transit. North American cities aren't that well suited for that today but hopefully they can be in the future. Also, cities elsewhere in the world are much more compact, so even if most forms of transit aren't as fast as driving on the highway, you don't have to go as far.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2012, 06:01 PM
 
Location: Hartford, Vermont
233 posts, read 132,422 times
Reputation: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Oh, baloney. If you live in a burb, you pay taxes to the burb, not the city. Yes, many older cities, especially eastern cities, have 'streetcar suburbs', that are quite old. But they're still suburbs, with suburban schools, as I said, suburban taxes, and so forth.
They aren't just like southern/ western suburbs especially around Boston the older ones were cities that developed by themselves but were overpowered by Boston some examples are Cambridge, Waltham, Lowell, Pawtucket, Providence (the capitol of RI), even Worcester and Manchester have large commuting populations and both Manchester and Worcester have their own MSAs so yes Boston sprawls but the old suburbs are different because they developed as cities with a downtown and some of them are still walkable although most have had a major decline in walkability. The streetcar suburbs are more similar but still look and feel more urban because they used to have downtowns and some still do.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2012, 06:07 PM
 
Location: Duarte, CA
4,995 posts, read 4,990,568 times
Reputation: 3212
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
I know everyone loves to pick on LA for this topic but at least its DENSE sprawl, which is more functional and makes public transit more viable compared to the low density sprawl found in most metro areas. Any large metro area will have sprawl to some extent. Sunbelt cities seem to be like the poster child for sprawl, but older northern cities have it as well. Detroit, Chicago, DC Metro, NYC Metro, etc.. they all have far reaching sprawling suburbs.
I've lived in both the Detroit and LA Metro areas and I can tell you Detroit is in a bigger state of sprawl than LA.. most of the LA suburbs are about as dense as Detroit city proper and most of the Detroit suburbs are about as dense as the Exurbs in the LA area (like the Inland Empire.)
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2012, 11:22 PM
 
Location: Western Massachusetts
26,989 posts, read 13,367,681 times
Reputation: 8570
Quote:
Originally Posted by citylover94 View Post
They aren't just like southern/ western suburbs especially around Boston the older ones were cities that developed by themselves but were overpowered by Boston some examples are Cambridge, Waltham, Lowell, Pawtucket, Providence (the capitol of RI), even Worcester and Manchester have large commuting populations and both Manchester and Worcester have their own MSAs so yes Boston sprawls but the old suburbs are different because they developed as cities with a downtown and some of them are still walkable although most have had a major decline in walkability. The streetcar suburbs are more similar but still look and feel more urban because they used to have downtowns and some still do.
In the Massachusetts forum, there are a number of threads that start with "I got a job in Cambridge, what's a good suburb to commute into Cambridge". Suburb is usually used to refer to places that are not old industrial cities or mill town that just happen to be close to Boston, though it's a gray line.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2012, 11:28 PM
 
Location: Western Massachusetts
26,989 posts, read 13,367,681 times
Reputation: 8570
Quote:
Originally Posted by garmin239 View Post
Isn't it natural that the suburbs would have much more residents than the city in older cities? In many of these older cities the boundaries are much smaller than the newer sprawling cities. You can only fit so many people into a place like Boston.
Not necessarily. The NYC metro has one of the highest percentage of residents in the center city and it's old. But usually, yes, newer cities often have larger boundaries, but not always.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2012, 11:31 PM
 
Location: Western Massachusetts
26,989 posts, read 13,367,681 times
Reputation: 8570
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
I included several posts that are germane to this conversation. I simply did a ratio of city residents to suburban residents. I don't think that is "ridiculously flawed". I think that is an important criteria. San Francisco is pretty d***** sprawly, once you get out of the city, ditto Boston. Phoenix, yeah it's sprawly, but the newer sections have very small lots. I've only been to Houston once, can't comment on it.

I'm a number cruncher. SF MSA density is 1,191 people/sq mile. That's not dense. Boston's is 997/sq mile. That's very un-dense. Houston, 566/sq mile, yes less dense. Phoenix, 307 sq/mi. But have you ever been to Phoenix? Some of that MSA land is completely empty! The counties in Arizona are huge. From your link: "Arizona's permissive laws on annexation and incorporation have allowed cities to expand their boundaries far into undeveloped territory" The population density in the areas where people are actually living is higher.

Since you're good at finding these statistics, why don't you dig up Pittsburgh, Denver and Atlanta. I'll crunch the numbers for you!

Thanks for the honor of the "Katiana rating". I like that!
I'm not sure why San Francisco should be considered sprawly, depending on the measure, it's the least sprawling area in the country. The MSA area is completely misleading, because as you said, MSA boundaries include undeveloped land. Large potions near San Francisco are protected parkland while the population lives in rather dense areas.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2012, 11:51 PM
Status: "Happy Halloween!" (set 5 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
69,112 posts, read 58,222,176 times
Reputation: 19665
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
I'm not sure why San Francisco should be considered sprawly, depending on the measure, it's the least sprawling area in the country. The MSA area is completely misleading, because as you said, MSA boundaries include undeveloped land. Large potions near San Francisco are protected parkland while the population lives in rather dense areas.
Are you kidding? The Bay Area is swarming with people, and it's very sprawly.

sf bay area - Google Maps
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.


 
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 $84,000 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

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

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 - Top