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 difference does it make? We're talking sprawl. Period. You may try to put a spin on the "type" of sprawl, but it's still sprawl. Look at a map of the night lights from space and please tell me how Phoenix looks anything like the Boston urban area in the amount of land it gulps up. Many people like to clamor about how the Phoenix MSA eats up thousands and thousands of sq kilometers (much of it being uninhabited desert land that HAS to be included because Maricopa County itself is so big) and you can CLEARLY see that the urban area is much smaller than the MSA.
You fail to understand that the cities I mentioned aren't suburbs that developed overnight like suburban Houston, Dallas or Phoenix. These are established cities that grew into each other. Each with their identity and infrastructure.
It's a different kind of sprawl.
The same thing maybe said of greater New York. Well except Long Island is a giant suburb.
I don't want you to be confused. Perhaps we should be speaking about URBAN AREAS rather than MSA's. Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, etc..btw, are no worse offenders of urban area sprawl than Boston is.
You fail to understand that the cities I mentioned aren't suburbs that developed overnight like suburban Houston, Dallas or Phoenix. These are established cities that grew into each other. Each with their identity and infrastructure.
It's a different kind of sprawl.
The same thing maybe said of greater New York. Well except Long Island is a giant suburb.
Wow...so basically you're saying that cities such as Scottsdale, Tempe, etc. have no identity nor infrastructure and just developed overnight?
Wow...so basically you're saying that cities such as Scottsdale, Tempe, etc. have no identity nor infrastructure and just developed overnight?
Yup, you are most certainly correct. That is exactly what I'm saying. They are giant suburbs of a larger suburb.
The entire region was desert 25 years ago. When you add 1 million people in 8 years and they DIDN'T move into dense housing/urban setting...that's urban sprawl, my friend.
The Phoenix metro is 17,000 square miles and home to 5 million people.
Greater Boston has the same population in 1/4, that's, I'll spell it out, one quarter the area, ie 4x the density.
All cities go thorugh an ebb and flow. 50-100 years ago, Northeastern cities grew by leaps and bounds in ways that sunbelt cities can't fathom. The institutions created during that tremendous growth of the 19th and 20th centuries in Northern cites are still paying dividends. Are they growing as fast today as sunbelt no...are they losing populations, not every city.
Cities like Detroit, Cleveland and Pittsburgh "failed" or came close because they existed to serve one industry, whether the automobile, or steel. This is what happens when you put all your eggs in one basket. Cities like Boston, NYC, Chicago, some extent Philly, DC/Baltimore prosper because of the strength of a highly diversified economy, the propect for growth and equity, and the abilty to attract people who can contribute a lot to the local society, whether as a high paying job or skilled labor. This process is very cyclical and supports itself.
Sunbelt cities are based just on that, the SUN. When did these cities start growing....when the air conditioner became affordable in the 1950's. The infrastructure (built, economic, implied) and institutions are built on weaker foundations, it's "there" because it has to be there, nothing about those cities in organic.
Northern cities have weathered all sorts of crises, because their footing is there. The most recent housing/mortgage crisis began in these sunbelt cities...they over built for the means of the greater population and it spread to other cities, like a ripple.
It is predicted that in the coming years, more "established" cities will see tremendous growth simply because thay offer affordibilty, comfort, highly diversified economies, and livability.
As sunbelt cities age, and they will, the lack of livabilty, transportation, dense housing, high paying-high growth jobs, will move people away. Today people live there because it's cheap, the cost of a dollar might go further...but what value is it, when you give up viable security.
I just graduated college with a master's, for example, I know I could move to Texas/Florida/Georgia for cheap, but I know I give up a lot of personal security and protection to make a life there rather that a place like New England/New York where I know a can have a very secure job and a very high standard of life.
Quote:
johnatl mentioned the "rapid densification" of these cities...while you mentioned low housing costs. Density and low housing costs definitely do not go together. Since the rapid growth of these cities has been helped by the extremely low housing costs, how do you two think densification will affect future growth in cities like Atl, Hou, Dal, Phx? Some of the predictions for future populations in these cities is off the charts and at times assumes a constant rate of growth. Do you think these cities will actually be able to grow at a constant rate once COL begins to rise? Or do you think we're going to start seeing MSAs that begin to top 15,000 square miles?
This silliness ) Sunbelt cities are not only growing out but up. There are 28 small counties and 5 cores counties in Metro Atlanta
Fulton County (535 sq mi) 816,006 in 2000, now 1,020,104. South Fulton isn't develop most of the county population stay in less than 400 sq mi
Gwinnett County (437 sq mi) 588,448 in 2000, now 800,080
DeKalb County (271 sq mi) 686,712 in 2000, now 739,956
Cobb County (345 sq mi) 607,751 in 2000, now 701,355
Clayton county (144 sq mi) 236,517 in 2000, now 273,718
Over 500,000 right there nearly half of Metro Atlanta growth since 2000 in just 5 counties out 28 which means "drum roll" yes Metro Atlanta is growing denser! What did you think a million people just move out to the exurbs.
Yup, you are most certainly correct. That is exactly what I'm saying. They are giant suburbs of a larger suburb.
The entire region was desert 25 years ago. When you add 1 million people in 8 years and they DIDN'T move into dense housing/urban setting...that's urban sprawl, my friend.
The Phoenix metro is 17,000 square miles and home to 5 million people.
Greater Boston has the same population in 1/4, that's, I'll spell it out, one quarter the area, ie 4x the density.
Metropolitan Statistical Areas are defined by counties. Maricopa County is 9,224 sq mi, and Pinal County is 5,374 sq mi. Most of that 17,000 sq mi is not inhabitat or devolop. Phoenix Metro Area does not sprawl 17,000 sq mi but since MSAs are counted by hold counties Phoenix's MSA is 17,000 sq mi. The devolop Metro Area is probably half.
Yup, you are most certainly correct. That is exactly what I'm saying. They are giant suburbs of a larger suburb.
The entire region was desert 25 years ago. When you add 1 million people in 8 years and they DIDN'T move into dense housing/urban setting...that's urban sprawl, my friend.
The Phoenix metro is 17,000 square miles and home to 5 million people.
Greater Boston has the same population in 1/4, that's, I'll spell it out, one quarter the area, ie 4x the density.
Most of the 16,000 sq miles is desert and certainly uninhabited. Maricopa and Pinal Counties are huge. The urban area is not even half of that. More like between 2-3000 sq miles. The urban area as of 2000 was 2069.4 sq miles. In contrast, Boston's was 4496.7 sq miles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...es_urban_areas
Secondly, there are approximately 4.2-4.3 million people in the metro, not 5 million.
In addition, cities like Tempe (175,523) and Scottsdale (244,250) may certainly not be as old as cities to the east, but they didn't just pop up 25 years ago.
Other larger cities in valley and when they were established:
*Although the Hohokom people lived in the area and built canals to support agriculture between 800-1400 AD, the area known as Tempe (Fort McDowell) was established in 1865 and named Tempe in 1879. In fact, Phoenix was settled just a couple of years prior to Tempe, which in 1885 was chosen as the site for the Territorial Normal School which eventually became Arizona State University. Tempe is also headquarters for two Fortune 500 companies (US Airways and Insight) has hosted the Superbowl, Fiesta Bowl, Insight Bowl, one of the nation's largest New Year's Eve Block Parties, etc...
*Scottsdale, which was once a Pima village, was named in 1894, and has been influenced by individuals like Frank Lloyd Wright. Today, the city is second only to NYC as having more AAA-Five Diamond resorts and hotels than any other city in the U.S. and has the highest number of destination spas per capita than any other city in the U.S, and has become a premiere shopping and golf destination in the U.S., and has become a trendy spot for the younger crowd.
*Mesa (460,000) - 1878
*Glendale (246,531) - 1882 - due to Arizona Canal construction - home to AZ Cardinals, Phoenix Coyotes
*Chandler (240,595) - between 1900-1912 - former agricultural plots
*Peoria (142,024) - 1897 - named after two men from Peoria, IL who acquired four sections of land here
*Gilbert (217,501) - incorporated in 1920, originally a farming community fueled by the rail line and construction of Roosevelt Dam and canals
Last edited by CaseyB; 03-23-2010 at 05:06 AM..
Reason: rude
Most of the 16,000 sq miles is desert and certainly uninhabited. Maricopa and Pinal Counties are huge. The urban area is not even half of that. More like between 2-3000 sq miles. The urban area as of 2000 was 2069.4 sq miles. In contrast, Boston's was 4496.7 sq miles. List of United States urban areas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Secondly, there are approximately 4.2-4.3 million people in the metro, not 5 million.
In addition, cities like Tempe (175,523) and Scottsdale (244,250) may certainly not be as old as cities to the east, but they didn't just pop up 25 years ago.
Other larger cities in valley and when they were established:
*Although the Hohokom people lived in the area and built canals to support agriculture between 800-1400 AD, the area known as Tempe (Fort McDowell) was established in 1865 and named Tempe in 1879. In fact, Phoenix was settled just a couple of years prior to Tempe, which in 1885 was chosen as the site for the Territorial Normal School which eventually became Arizona State University. Tempe is also headquarters for two Fortune 500 companies (US Airways and Insight) has hosted the Superbowl, Fiesta Bowl, Insight Bowl, one of the nation's largest New Year's Eve Block Parties, etc...
*Scottsdale, which was once a Pima village, was named in 1894, and has been influenced by individuals like Frank Lloyd Wright. Today, the city is second only to NYC as having more AAA-Five Diamond resorts and hotels than any other city in the U.S. and has the highest number of destination spas per capita than any other city in the U.S, and has become a premiere shopping and golf destination in the U.S., and has become a trendy spot for the younger crowd.
*Mesa (460,000) - 1878
*Glendale (246,531) - 1882 - due to Arizona Canal construction - home to AZ Cardinals, Phoenix Coyotes
*Chandler (240,595) - between 1900-1912 - former agricultural plots
*Peoria (142,024) - 1897 - named after two men from Peoria, IL who acquired four sections of land here
*Gilbert (217,501) - incorporated in 1920, originally a farming community fueled by the rail line and construction of Roosevelt Dam and canals
Providence, RI: (175,000) capitol of Rhode Island, center of finance, industry, jewelry, manufacturing, major seaport, education, founded 1636 Worcester, MA (185,000) second largest city in Mass, center of healthcare, biotech research, home to the first canal in America--the Blackstone Canal--built to connect worcester and Providence, founded 1673 Cambridge, MA (110,000) home to Harvard and MIT, center of finance and the biotech industry for the ENTIRE nation, founded, 1630. Manchester, NH (110,000) largest city in New Hampshire, center of manufacturing, founded 1751
Lowell, MA (110,000) birthplace of the American Industrial Revolution, the first industrial city in America, founded 1653, industrialized 1826.
Brockton, MA (100,000)
Fall River, MA (100,000)
New Bedford, MA (100,000)--go read Moby Dick to see why this city is important.
btw, only Worcester has 30 sq mi, the rest aren't any bigger than 15 sq mi....that's how density is done.
All of these cities are practically on top of each other as is, you get any movement out into the suburbs, and boom, overlaping metro areas. Phoenix, Scottsdale, Tempe, Mesa (those 3 are suburbs, they are not urban centers in their own right--they are subordinate to a city, hence the name) in no way shape or form developed this way. People had to make a choice upon deciding to move to the area, "do we buy a house in Phoenix, or a condo in Tempe, or do we rent in Mesa?" That's pretty much how the conversation went. Telling me about what kind of economic activities happens there proves nothing, I mean they are pretty pointless...spas, and the Cardinals...fantastic. Hey, didn't that little housing crisis start in Phoenix...? So those millions of home bought or built weren't affordable to the people living there-excellent economic strategy, sunbelt cities.
I fail to see why you can even dare to compare Phoenix to anything on the East Coast.
I don't care how big Phoenix's urbanism is or isn't. The point of this thread is to assert the fact that sunbelt cities simply didn't exist in any significant form 30 years ago. The density of Phoenix is not the same density of Boston. Boston's inner core is only 150sq mi and has 2 million people. The city itseld has 13,000ppm. If Boston was the same area as Phoenix it would have 6.8 million people.
Great you have a city named in 1894. That proves my point, that nothing was there until a short while ago. And yeah, 1894 is a short while ago, when my little suburb was founded in the 1600's. When those cities you mentioned were founded they had a few hundred people each, so maybe the entire population of the Arizona Territory (yeah, I'll make the disticntion between that and state) was a few thousand. In 1900 Massachusetts had 2.9million people, Arizona had 122,000. Boston itself had 560,000 people. Today the difference between MA and AZ is 2,000 people. But MA is 1/12 the size of Arizona, or smaller than Maricopa County.
Don't even get me started about what's located in greater Phoenix, again, it has little to no bearing here in the Northeast. Your entire rant about Scottsdale is totally pointless, you're proving exactly how much a sunbelt city Phoenix is...it's a weekend getaway for wealthy Los Angelinos and others in the moutain west. I know one person who's been to Phoenix--my father. He's like "It's great if you love desert."
Don't come on here and blame Boston, or other Northeastern cities for urban sprawl. I said all of these neighboring cities grew into each other and were eventually absorbed into a single metro area.
What is screwed up by stupid sprawl, I promise, promise, promise, is made up for with a world class transportation system. www.mbta.com Not one of those 7.6 million people is more than a 10 min bus ride to a train station. I know Phoenix doesn't have anything near that. You could anywhere you want in that sprawling mess, without touching car.
In Phoenix (and other places), you have what were effectively bumps in the road until about 30-50 years ago. Today, they are just largers bumps in the road.
All cities go thorugh an ebb and flow. 50-100 years ago, Northeastern cities grew by leaps and bounds in ways that sunbelt cities can't fathom. The institutions created during that tremendous growth of the 19th and 20th centuries in Northern cites are still paying dividends. Are they growing as fast today as sunbelt no...are they losing populations, not every city.
Cities like Detroit, Cleveland and Pittsburgh "failed" or came close because they existed to serve one industry, whether the automobile, or steel. This is what happens when you put all your eggs in one basket. Cities like Boston, NYC, Chicago, some extent Philly, DC/Baltimore prosper because of the strength of a highly diversified economy, the propect for growth and equity, and the abilty to attract people who can contribute a lot to the local society, whether as a high paying job or skilled labor. This process is very cyclical and supports itself.
Sunbelt cities are based just on that, the SUN. When did these cities start growing....when the air conditioner became affordable in the 1950's. The infrastructure (built, economic, implied) and institutions are built on weaker foundations, it's "there" because it has to be there, nothing about those cities in organic.
Northern cities have weathered all sorts of crises, because their footing is there. The most recent housing/mortgage crisis began in these sunbelt cities...they over built for the means of the greater population and it spread to other cities, like a ripple.
It is predicted that in the coming years, more "established" cities will see tremendous growth simply because thay offer affordibilty, comfort, highly diversified economies, and livability.
As sunbelt cities age, and they will, the lack of livabilty, transportation, dense housing, high paying-high growth jobs, will move people away. Today people live there because it's cheap, the cost of a dollar might go further...but what value is it, when you give up viable security.
I just graduated college with a master's, for example, I know I could move to Texas/Florida/Georgia for cheap, but I know I give up a lot of personal security and protection to make a life there rather that a place like New England/New York where I know a can have a very secure job and a very high standard of life.
Most of these sunbelt states have diverse economies. You get paid more up north, because everything cost more. The quality of living up North isn't much better then what you can find in the Sunbelt. Not to mention that the Sunbelt cities are making strides to improve there public transit. I think people are jumping to conclusions thinking the the Sunbelt will bust, because of how spread out the cities are.
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.
) Sunbelt cities are not only growing out but up. There are 28 small counties and 5 cores counties in Metro Atlanta
)
