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.
Great post addressing LA. Most people like to paint that metro as the sprawl king, when in reality, it is extremely dense and has a high population. LA is after all the only other 'mega city' in the US, besides NYC.
Not saying you meant to, but aren't you forgetting Miami?
Back in 2010 the population was 5.5 million within 1,238 sq miles(which is kind of close) But you are exactly right with SF being the top contender.
I was referring to physical size when I brought up Seattle and Minny. They're both in 1000 sq mile range. Miami makes a good case for the #2 spot. It's one of the top 5 most densely populated UAs in the US, and has a high population to boot. It's more dense and much more populated than Seattle or Minneapolis, and isn't much larger in land area. San Francisco does win out though.
Last edited by RaymondChandlerLives; 12-17-2014 at 07:28 PM..
Great post addressing LA. Most people like to paint that metro as the sprawl king, when in reality, it is extremely dense and has a high population. LA is after all the only other 'mega city' in the US, besides NYC.
Earlier today I saw this video captured by a drone flying over the new 2nd phase of the Expo line, which connects Culver City and Santa Monica:
The video covers a good swath of the westside, and I think it really illustrates just how jam packed LA's "sprawl" is. Also, keep in mind that the westside is far less dense than the LA's core (Hollywood, Koreatown, Downtown) further to the east.
There seems to be much confusion over the definition of the word sprawl. According to several sources found in Google the most consistant characteristic of sprawl is very low density (because of oversized building lots) that leapfrogs itself and leaves open spaces in between the developed ones so that a metro with sprawl will use/waste more land then it needs to. Using that definition a tightly packed city like Las Vegas or Phoenix (or Los Angeles) would have the least amount of sprawl. What do you think?
Those cities MATCH that definition perfectly. Las Vegas, Phoenix, and Los Angeles probably have the most sprawl.
Cities with the least? It's hard to categorize them now since the fuel of suburban growth has given pretty much EVERY major city some sprawl. Maybe Pittsburgh, San Francisco, Baltimore, or Philadelphia.
The video covers a good swath of the westside, and I think it really illustrates just how jam packed LA's "sprawl" is. Also, keep in mind that the westside is far less dense than the [vimeo]101231747[/vimeo] LA's core (Hollywood, Koreatown, Downtown) further to the east.
Awesome, I'll definitely watch. I'm intrigued by aerial photos/videos. The westside is a metropolis all its own.
and
<a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/scottbraut/2364698804" title="Los Angeles urban sprawl by Scott Braut, on Flickr"><img src="https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2171/2364698804_9fd150d561_s.jpg" width="75" height="75" alt="Los Angeles urban sprawl"></a>
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.
