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.
This study exemplifies how big data can be very problematic. According to this study, Philadelphia's sprawl is equivalent to Las Vegas's and much worse than LA and Miami. That is simply laughable.
They divided the Philly area and other major cities by metropolitan divisions. The only thing that's really sprawling about the Philly area are the commuting patterns, as jobs are very spread out across the metro and are not as centralized as other major cities. That's one of the reasons why "reverse commuting" is a norm in the Philly area.
This study exemplifies how big data can be very problematic. According to this study, Philadelphia's sprawl is equivalent to Las Vegas's and much worse than LA and Miami. That is simply laughable.
Agreed. And to talk about the least amount of sprawl in and around big cities and have no mention of Boston as one of the top ones? I think that's pretty laughable too. There are defintiely limits to what you can learn from studies like this.
The whole exercise reminds me of the cartoon with the two professors in front of a blackboard filled with numbers and equations, and one says to the other, "Well, that's all very fine in practice. But how does it work in theory?"
Greater Miami has plenty of sprawl, but Miamis' city limits might be the least sprawling large city in the South. The city is only 35sq. miles, and most neighborhoods in the city are dense.
Miami matero is very compact compared to places like LA, Atlanta, Dallas. Houston etc..
Phoenix is super sprawled out. Im surprised its not mentioned.
I'm not, when you fly into Phoenix you see much less sprawl than flying in Atlanta, or any of the Texas cities or the Detroit area. Sprawl leads to lower densities and poor land uses, where those things are controlled and planned well in PHX. Phoenix's suburbs are on average more densely populated than suburbs in other cities. I think the misconception comes from it's radical growth over the last 50 years and the fact that it doesn't have a lot of height density. They manage resources admirably out there, they have to.
Phoenix metro is not densly populated, but remember that metro area are computed by county borders not developed tracks of land. Arizona counties cover more land area than most New England states. Here are the top 12 Urbanized areas from the 2010 census. PHX is number 12 and covers the least amount of area, and has a stronger density have half of them. I'm not saying it's the poster child for responsible urban planning, however the numbers don't lie, it's nowhere near the worst.
2010 -Land area sq mi -Density sq/mi
1 New York 18,351,295 -3,450.20 - 5,318.90
2 Los Angeles 12,150,996 -1,736.00 -6,999.30
3 Chicago 8,608,208 -2,442.80 -3,524.00
4 Miami, FL 5,502,379 -1,238.60 -4,442.40
5 Philadelphia 5,441,567 -1,981.40 -2,746.40
6 Dallas 5,121,892 -1,779.10 -2,878.90
7 Houston 4,944,332 -1,660.00 -2,978.50
8 Washington 4,586,770 -1,321.70 -3,470.30
9 Atlanta 4,515,419 -2,645.40 -1,706.90
10 Boston 4,181,019 -1,873.50 -2,231.70
11 Detroit 3,734,090 -1,337.20 -2,792.50 12 Phoenix 3,629,114 -1,146.60 -3,165.20
This study exemplifies how big data can be very problematic. According to this study, Philadelphia's sprawl is equivalent to Las Vegas's and much worse than LA and Miami. That is simply laughable.
Apparently Philly didn't enjoy the luxury of having its suburbs carved off and measured separately. I have been to Philly and its burbs many times and the thing that strikes me is how diametrically opposed its land use is within and nearer the city vs. its outlying suburban areas.
Phoenix metro is not densly populated, but remember that metro area are computed by county borders not developed tracks of land. Arizona counties cover more land area than most New England states. Here are the top 12 Urbanized areas from the 2010 census. PHX is number 12 and covers the least amount of area, and has a stronger density have half of them. I'm not saying it's the poster child for responsible urban planning, however the numbers don't lie, it's nowhere near the worst.
I still don't see how this equals MUCH LESS sprawl than the Texas metros which are only slightly less dense. There hardly seems to be a difference that's discernible to the naked eye. All three of these metros are more similar to each other than they are to Atlanta in this regard.
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.
