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.
^^^Those are the choices people that live there make. I don't know why it's such a big deal.
Yes, but we don't want to hear these people whining about more money from the governemnt when they can no longer afford to support their sprawlsburg.
This is happening in Detroit to a certain extent, which is why I said Michigan. Metro Detroit has doubled in area yet the population since the 1950s has been stagnant.
Yes, but we don't want to hear these people whining about more money from the governemnt when they can no longer afford to support their sprawlsburg.
This is happening in Detroit to a certain extent, which is why I said Michigan. Metro Detroit has doubled in area yet the population since the 1950s has been stagnant.
Not everyone is able to live in cities with decent transportation.
The west and especially California sprawl much less than midwest, east, and especially southeast cities. Our lots are smaller and suburban homes are much closer together than you find in other areas of the country. Take Los Angeles for example. The urban area is largely contiguous and goes on for extreme distances, but that's not the same as sprawl. That just means that LA is effin' huge! Our suburbs have higher population densities than most US cities. The fact that LA has the highest population density in the country means that we sprawl the least, not the most.
As for which state has the most sprawl I'd say Georgia because it has Atlanta. Or maybe North Carolina because it has several mini-Atlanta's.
Whats is you peoples problem with Urban Sprawl? Just curious to why it bothers most of you.
Seriously??
Here's one reason: American society has some major addiction problems. One of these addictions is to fossil fuels. Bland, sprawled out, cookie cuttier suburbs, where you have to drive everywhere to do anything, is a huge enabler of this addiction. I know because I have unfortunately lived in this nightmare my entire life. Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that sitting in a car x hours a day only furthers the inactive lifestyles so many Americans are plagued with. They sit at home and watch tv. Then sit in their car to go to work. Then sit at work. Etc. Etc. Etc.
If you look at dense cities like San Francisco, Chicago, Boston, New York, and most European cities, the number of people who own cars drops significantly. People are more likely to use public transportation, walk, or ride a bicycle. This is not only better for the environment, but better for one's health.
That's my problem with sprawl. This world is not ours for the taking, and we should really start considering responsible living and that includes responsible urban planning. I don't think anyone is really catching on though, because sprawl is happening as fast as it ever has been.
The state with the most sprawl is without a doubt New Jersey. A good one third of the state is NYC sprawl. Another chunk is Philly sprawl. So I'm guessing about half of the state consists of suburbs and exurbs. That means that a lot bigger percentage of New Jersey is sprawl than in California.
New Jersey is getting better though. The quality of life in both Newark and Jersey City is improving rapidly and the cities are gaining population. Sure, they're still part of the NYC metro but pretty soon they'll definitely be dominant of New Jersey itself.
Someone brought up a good point about sprawl in the east vs. sprawl in the west. If you take a look at Salt Lake City suburbs, houses are close together and on smaller lots. If you take a look at a Charlotte suburb, the houses are spread out on large lots.
It's for that reason that I think Georgia and North Carolina are the worst for sprawl (I just picked Georgia though for the sake of choosing one).
Texas cities may seem like they're sprawling, but in reality most of Texas' new construction consists of homes that are very close together. Cookie cutter and automobile dependant? Yes, but they're far more dense than new developments out east.
Not everyone is able to live in cities with decent transportation.
Exactly.
They should have built the transit system when it was fiscally sound.
Instead, Detroit decided to build its reigon around the car, and now its "Wealthiest" community is closing the pulbic library and several communities are literally begging for money.
The only reason mountains are not developed in LA are because of it's too costly and risky to build, or because it is park land. My impression of So-CAL is that they build on what ever hillsides possible.
That's the exact point I was trying to make. I think its sort of retarded to live on a hillside given the seismic activity and sparse vegetation there is to absorb a heavy rainstorm, but hey, its not my money that I'm spending (aside from tax dollars used to pave those freakin' roads)
In most areas of SoCal, you can find an undeveloped area without much problem within a 15-20 minute drive simply because the mountains are protected land or its too cost prohibitive to build on.
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.
