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.
The Iron Range in northern Minnesota is kind of a mess with sprawl. There aren't as many people as the cities you guys are talking about, but there's a small town here, and a small town there. These towns were build around the iron mines and the big piles or rock the mining companies left behind. There are maybe 70,000 people in an area the size of the Minneapolis - St. Paul metro area.
EVERY SINGLE CITY in the US suffers from sprawl. Naturaly Los Angeles get's thrown under the bus for it (and just about everything else) but LA is TINY compared to NYC, America's Urban poster child. NYC sprawls into 3 freaking states for crying outloud. Hello Pot, I'd like you to meet my friend Kettle
According to that article (which all of you will discredit and ignore because it actually shows LA in a positive light - I know, blaphemy!) Los Angeles is one of the least sprawly cities. Many forget that LA Metro is the most densly populated Metro in the country, followed by San Francisco. It also points out that many western cities are limited on sprawl because geography limits them. Things like Mountains and lack of water tend to get in the way. Eastern Cities don't have those limitations and Southeastern Cities just do whatever the f**k they want.
The article lists the cities from most sprawly to least, and of the metros in the US of 1 million + , only 3 sprawl less than Los Angeles: San Diego, San Francisco and Miami.
Of course ALL of America's big cities sprawl - a lot. But I think the moral here is this: People in the Northeast should look a little closer to home before before they go around on their highhorse pointing fingers.
^ Well NYC has 22 million people in its metro meanwhile la has about 17 million people in a area CLOSE to the size of nyc. Saying LA's metro is tiny compared to NYC is bs, riverside is techinically apart of LA's metro too. and NYC doesnt nessicarly sprawl in all corners of the 3 states, just the top third of new jersey, the southwest corner of connecticut and maybe 2 counties in nyc outside of the city
^ Well NYC has 22 million people in its metro meanwhile la has about 17 million people in a area CLOSE to the size of nyc. Saying LA's metro is tiny compared to NYC is bs, riverside is techinically apart of LA's metro too. and NYC doesnt nessicarly sprawl in all corners of the 3 states, just the top third of new jersey, the southwest corner of connecticut and maybe 2 counties in nyc outside of the city
LA's footprint is. That's what I meant. But my point is still clear.
^ Well NYC has 22 million people in its metro meanwhile la has about 17 million people in a area CLOSE to the size of nyc. Saying LA's metro is tiny compared to NYC is bs, riverside is techinically apart of LA's metro too. and NYC doesnt nessicarly sprawl in all corners of the 3 states, just the top third of new jersey, the southwest corner of connecticut and maybe 2 counties in nyc outside of the city
At least four counties in NYC outside the city; Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, Rockland. Though there are people commuting into NYC from as far as Poughkeepsie and northeast PA -- and more relevantly for "sprawl" purposes, real estate ads for NEPA which tout its nearness to the city. But "sprawl" is mostly a meaningless pejorative; some people seem to mean it as the growth of residential communities just outside the boundary (legal or practical) of an urban area, whereas others restrict it to only certain kinds of development, and still others include low-density growth in areas not particularly connected to a central city.
^ Well NYC has 22 million people in its metro meanwhile la has about 17 million people in a area CLOSE to the size of nyc. Saying LA's metro is tiny compared to NYC is bs, riverside is techinically apart of LA's metro too. and NYC doesnt nessicarly sprawl in all corners of the 3 states, just the top third of new jersey, the southwest corner of connecticut and maybe 2 counties in nyc outside of the city
Even if you combine L.A.'s UA with Riverside, that's 2280 sq miles (14.1 million people), a noticeably smaller footprint than New York's UA (3450 sq miles, 18.3 million).
L.A. + Riverside is actually smaller than Chicago's UA (2442 sq miles), with over 4.5 million more inhabitants. There are worse sprawl offenders than L.A., that's for sure.
Even if you combine L.A.'s UA with Riverside, that's 2280 sq miles (14.1 million people), a noticeably smaller footprint than New York's UA (3450 sq miles, 18.3 million).
L.A. + Riverside is actually smaller than Chicago's UA (2442 sq miles), with over 4.5 million more inhabitants. There are worse sprawl offenders than L.A., that's for sure.
Sorry, I meant 5.5. million more inhabitants.
L.A. + Riverside UAs = 2280 sq miles, 14.1 million people
Chicago UA = 2442 sq miles, 8.6 million people
I read somewhere that LA has the densest metropolitan area in the US. Not sure if that is true or not, I'm sure someone here can provide that answer though :P
My issue with this method is that it's non-standard. That always raises red flags for me. Someone's trying to pull something over. And a person's credentials do matter, although people can be gullible.
I'd like to point out the census bureau has adopted weighted density as well!
Standard methods can have pitfalls if misapplied. For example, using the standard density of Denver is somewhat misleading since a third of the area is used for an airport.
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.