States with most Urban Sprawl (bigger, Boston, cons, south)

[munchitup]

The worst sprawl in California is in the Central Valley and San Joaquin Valley, not the Bay Area or Southland.

[SteelCityRising]

EVERY metropolitan area in the United States has urban sprawl. Although I'm an East Coaster I'm actually going to reinforce the Californians on this thread. There's such a thing as densely-populated urban sprawl and sparsely-populated urban sprawl. Metro Los Angeles, while sprawling like crazy, is mostly dense urban sprawl. Metro Atlanta, on the other hand, is mostly sparse urban sprawl. Metro Los Angeles may have a ton of detached single-family dwellings, but with rare exception most are smashed right atop one another with very little personal yard space or elbow room. In contrast, Metro Atlanta has mile after mile of low-density urban sprawl---big houses with big yards that are spaced further apart from their neighbors.

I grew up in sparsely-populated urban sprawl and would never want to raise my family there. I now live in the heart of a major U.S. city, and I couldn't be happier. If we're going strictly by which state has the most "dense urban sprawl" then that would be California, in my opinion. If we were going with which state has the most SPARSE urban sprawl, which is worse, in my opininon, that might be a host of states, with Georgia likely being the top offender since its a very highly-populated state with so few people living within the limits of its cities and having so few dense suburbs.

There is plentiful low-density and relatively sparse residential development within the city limits of Atlanta itself, and other than perhaps Marietta and Decatur most of the rest of the metro area's suburbs are very low-density. Just spitting distance east of Midtown Atlanta, a major CBD for the city, are neighborhoods like Virginia Highlands and Morningside, which consist of low-density and sparsely-spaced detached homes from the 1960s-era.

[AnthonyJ34]

Originally Posted by Shadow Inc.

That mess of endless sprawl called California

Born and raised in Cerritos, California, which is basically a Los Angeles suburb, and I think So: Cal is, by and large, fairly unattractive, mainly because of how dense and populated the entire area is. It’s basically a large parking lot/freeway complex from the coastline to the foothills, down into Orange County and into the San Diego metro area — with only a few small breaks in the sprawl. Very little nature or open space left anywhere at all in the greater Los Angeles Basin, and I find that to be sad.

It’s simply an almost never ending stew of houses, strip malls, freeways, and roads. It simply never ends. And for a nature-loving outdoorsy type of person, that just sucks. Forget about going for a drive in the country or a nice hike through the woods or a stroll along any rivers — obviously not many woods here, and most of our rivers are ugly concrete channels.

The LA area offers many benefits and positives, of course, as evidenced by our population here, so I’m not trashing the area wholesale. But I am saying that from a strictly nature/environmental position, the greater LA area leaves an awful lot to desire.

I lived for short periods over the last few years in Southern Washington state as well as in Chattanooga, Tennessee, and compared to here, those areas were magical; they were so green and lush and not nearly as spoiled and tarnished as is the LA area. You actually had natural rivers and deer and bald eagles and large tracts of pristine, undeveloped land. Very, very nice.

But then I returned home to the concrete jungle. But hopefully not for long.

[g500]

Basically every US state has sprawl now. Sprawl kicked off after WW2 and went into overdrive. Prior to WW2, sprawl was very limited in the USA.

State with the least amount of sprawl? Idk, probably West Virginia has the least sprawl. It has like none really (maybe tiny tiny bit of DC spillover). Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont do not seem like they have much sprawl either. They are pretty rural and sparsely populated though.

Texas, Florida, California, stand out as having the most sprawl though. They are also the most populous states so that is to be expected.

When I think of sprawl I think of the Dallas Fort Worth area of just endless single family houses, strip malls, and freeways, also The Villages Florida, and maybe even the endless cul de sacs of Orange County CA.

I voted for Texas in the poll, though, since it combines sprawl with being such a massive-sized state and having to drive long distances to get between cities.

[Thealpinist]

Yes Southern California has quite a bit of sprawl. You might notice it more in Southern California due to the open terrain and mountainous vantage points. But the entire mid Atlantic region is one giant area of sprawl as well.

The most sprawling areas are in the South Eastern United States.

Hickory/Lenoir/Morganton, North Carolina
Atlanta/Sandy Springs/Marietta, Georgia
Clarksville, Tennessee/Kentucky
Prescott, Arizona
Nashville-Davidson/Murfreesboro/Franklin, Tennessee
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Riverside-San Bernardino/Ontario, California
Greenville/Mauldin-Easley, South Carolina
Augusta/Richmond County, Georgia
Kingsport/Bristol/Bristol, Tennessee/Virginia

[GeoffD]

I know what suburban sprawl is. What’s urban sprawl? The places cited in this thread are largely single family home sprawl.

[Fly Dragon]

Looking at Texas cities (Houston, Dallas-Ft. Worth, and Austin), the sprawl just goes on and on (and the flatness adds to that feeling).

[ccm123]

Texas and California.

[Need4Camaro]

I went with California overall.. ..Texas being a close second. While TX is pretty sprawly, their suburbs do maintain relatively decent density numbers for sunbelt metros.

[Guineas]

Originally Posted by Need4Camaro

I went with California overall.. ..Texas being a close second. While TX is pretty sprawly, their suburbs do maintain relatively decent density numbers for sunbelt metros.

So does California. At least California has more geographic constraints. Texas doesn't. For me, Texas wins the sprawl no contest.