Douglasville GA, building it up????

[Need4Camaro]

Originally Posted by bu2

I actually read the opposite, that North American cities tended to grow to the north and west and not to the east. Obviously that doesn't apply to coastal cities that have geographic limits.

Houston, Dallas, Austin and San Antonio all have the most growth in the north and then secondarily the west with very little in the east. Chicago has grown mostly to the north and west and not particularly to the east in Indiana. Cincinnati is mostly north without much east or west.

Well, Eastern Chicago literally sits right on the state line of Indiana and is actually fairly dense and urban in that area. Ontop of which the cities in Indiana such as Highland, Gary, ect (all sitting on Lake Michigan) I personally consider suburbs of Chicago. We used to commute from Highland to Chicago by train, Skyway, and 80/94.

You're right about Eastern Houston though. After passing I-610 heading east it just turns to Oil Refineries and swamp then nothing.

[Saintmarks]

Originally Posted by bu2

I actually read the opposite, that North American cities tended to grow to the north and west and not to the east. Obviously that doesn't apply to coastal cities that have geographic limits.

Houston, Dallas, Austin and San Antonio all have the most growth in the north and then secondarily the west with very little in the east. Chicago has grown mostly to the north and west and not particularly to the east in Indiana. Cincinnati is mostly north without much east or west.

Would say that Dallas has grown west to meet Fort Worth which is exactly 30 miles due west as it is only natural that the early suburban growth would be between the two centers. But Fort Worth suburbia does not reach to the west much at all compared to the south and especially the north. The metro area is much like Atlanta in that the north overwhelms the suburban growth. Neither west of Fort Worth or east of Dallas (the east and west of the DFW metro area as a whole) has expanded greatly in comparison to the north and to a lesser extent the south.

When you think of it there are few cities that compare to DFW and Atlanta that don't have some geographical feature or state boundary that have confined the suburban growth. There aren't many large cities in the country that can grow 360 like this. The Texas cities outside Houston, Indianapolis, Columbus, OH, Twin Cities... there really aren't many other examples. Mountains, major rivers, state lines, lakes, oceans, swamps, deserts... some geographical feature has mapped most American cities' outward trajectory.

[Saintmarks]

There was a thread on this some years back, but I think Douglas County and Douglasville would benefit by following the lead of Macon, Athens, Columbus and Augusta and consolidating their governments. Would boost Douglasville as a population leader and put it at the top of the heap in population statistics as far as the Atlanta suburbs go. 142k as of the 2016 estimates, would put it well above Sandy Springs. Douglasville is the only incorporated town in the county.... minus the sliver of Villa Rica that crosses into Douglas.

Rockdale and Forsyth are two other good candidates.

[Tarzanman]

Originally Posted by Need4Camaro

Well, Eastern Chicago literally sits right on the state line of Indiana and is actually fairly dense and urban in that area. Ontop of which the cities in Indiana such as Highland, Gary, ect (all sitting on Lake Michigan) I personally consider suburbs of Chicago. We used to commute from Highland to Chicago by train, Skyway, and 80/94.

You're right about Eastern Houston though. After passing I-610 heading east it just turns to Oil Refineries and swamp then nothing.

You're being a little disingenuous here. East Chicago is an economically depressed wasteland that has more industrial plants and casinos than amenities or other commercial activity. I made several work trips there over the past 2 years at my last job.... I don't think I'm speaking out of turn to describe a lot of the area as a dump.

The population density there is lower than that of the city of Atlanta, plus it only has about 30,000 people. I would hardly call that area dense and urban.

[aries4118]

Originally Posted by bu2

I actually read the opposite, that North American cities tended to grow to the north and west and not to the east. Obviously that doesn't apply to coastal cities that have geographic limits.

Houston, Dallas, Austin and San Antonio all have the most growth in the north and then secondarily the west with very little in the east. Chicago has grown mostly to the north and west and not particularly to the east in Indiana. Cincinnati is mostly north without much east or west.

Originally Posted by Saintmarks

Would say that Dallas has grown west to meet Fort Worth which is exactly 30 miles due west as it is only natural that the early suburban growth would be between the two centers. But Fort Worth suburbia does not reach to the west much at all compared to the south and especially the north. The metro area is much like Atlanta in that the north overwhelms the suburban growth. Neither west of Fort Worth or east of Dallas (the east and west of the DFW metro area as a whole) has expanded greatly in comparison to the north and to a lesser extent the south.

When you think of it there are few cities that compare to DFW and Atlanta that don't have some geographical feature or state boundary that have confined the suburban growth. There aren't many large cities in the country that can grow 360 like this. The Texas cities outside Houston, Indianapolis, Columbus, OH, Twin Cities... there really aren't many other examples. Mountains, major rivers, state lines, lakes, oceans, swamps, deserts... some geographical feature has mapped most American cities' outward trajectory.

Birmingham's growth is oriented towards the south.

Charlotte's growth is oriented towards the south.

[biscuit_head]

Originally Posted by Saintmarks

I once read an article that stated how the western side of a city has the least developed suburban areas because commuters faced a drive into the sun going east in the morning and into the sun setting in the west in the evening. I'm trying to think of a city where the western suburbs have the panache (like Atlanta's northern burbs). Except for cities hard on a shoreline to the east, I can't think of any city where the burbs to the west are the premiere burbs. And even those that I can think of where a coastline is to the east (Miami, Chicago, Boston for example) the north and the south areas still are more built out... or at least evenly so compared to due west.

Northern Virginia in the DC area has the majority of the area's most prominent suburbs, and it's immediately to the west of the District. It also houses many of the major job centers in the area outside downtown DC (Crystal City, Rosslyn, Tysons Corner, Reston, etc.). The Chesapeake Bay, Maryland's development/land use laws and a number of other factors have meant that NOVA has had the vast share of the area's growth for the past 30-40 years rather than the Maryland side.

[aries4118]

Originally Posted by aries4118

Birmingham's growth is oriented towards the south.

Charlotte's growth is oriented towards the south.

Nashville's growth is oriented towards the south.

[Saintmarks]

Originally Posted by aries4118

Nashville's growth is oriented towards the south.

Can you think of one that doesn't have any geographic impediment in the other directions whrere the west is the primary growth side?

Yeah I knew B'ham was very southern driven. Something about the lay of the land does play into its growth patterns. Red Mountain acts like a big segregating wall. Still one of the most segregated feeling metro areas I've been to.

[Saintmarks]

Originally Posted by biscuit_head

Northern Virginia in the DC area has the majority of the area's most prominent suburbs, and it's immediately to the west of the District. It also houses many of the major job centers in the area outside downtown DC (Crystal City, Rosslyn, Tysons Corner, Reston, etc.). The Chesapeake Bay, Maryland's development/land use laws and a number of other factors have meant that NOVA has had the vast share of the area's growth for the past 30-40 years rather than the Maryland side.

I guess DC being skewed at an angle makes this feel different. Still think of most of NOVA as south of DC. Dulles is pretty much due west. And the Maryland side built out earlier and then runs into Baltimore, would say that is why NOVA has had the lions share of more recent growth.

Interesting dynamics tho. Not being a part of either state makes DC an anomaly for sure.

[biscuit_head]

Originally Posted by Saintmarks

I guess DC being skewed at an angle makes this feel different. Still think of most of NOVA as south of DC. Dulles is pretty much due west. And the Maryland side built out earlier and then runs into Baltimore, would say that is why NOVA has had the lions share of more recent growth.

Interesting dynamics tho. Not being a part of either state makes DC an anomaly for sure.

Yes, Prince William (except for the northern end by Manassas), Stafford, Spotsylvania, and parts of Fairfax County are to the South of DC and have been growing since the 80s along I-95, but a lot of growth in the area has occurred along the East-West oriented axis of Interstate 66 to Centreville and Gainesville, and VA-267/Dulles Toll Road west into Loudoun County (Reston and Herndon in Fairfax; Ashburn, Sterling, and Leesburg in Loudoun). The whole DC-Baltimore dynamic makes a lot of the growth lopsided - DC-Baltimore relationship is certainly nothing like the Dallas-Fort Worth dynamic even though their downtowns are about the same distance from each other, give or take 10 miles.

Virginia's more business friendly climate, friendlier developer laws (Maryland seems to be a lot more zoned orderly, and organized than Virginia in terms of infrastructure and road network and has more open space preserves) and lower taxes also played a part as to why the suburbs there have been growing a lot more than the Maryland side in the last 30-40 years. One County in Maryland is considered to be undesirable by a lot of people due to demographics, crime, and schools (PG County - and I'm an African-American who lives there, so if someone gets offended by me saying this, I don't care), and the other major county there, Montgomery is known for its anti-development and highly-regulated environment, which drove a lot of employers and housing developers across the river. MoCo used to be the premiere suburban county in the DC metro area due to it's ease of access to DC and wealthy communities, but by the late 70s/early 80s, it was clear that Fairfax would become the "star" in the area. Anne Arundel has a few suburbs that it shares with DC (Odenton, Crofton), but definitely is more oriented towards Baltimore and has its own major employment center with Annapolis as the state capital. Maryland's wealthiest county (by household income) is now Howard County, which DC shares with Baltimore, and is more oriented towards the latter.