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.
And as far as the 7,000 sq mile Bay Area, only 1,100 of those 7,000 square miles are developed. Yet another lesson the Bay Area teaches other places, how not to sprawl. Your welcome.
Are you serious?
Where are you going to sprawl to. The Pacific Ocean? The Diablo Range? The SF Bay.To chalk up Bay Areas high density to superior regional planning is incredulous. Your density is by necessity not design. You have outdone yourself on this one which I didnt think was possible.
Out of 390 posts I believe I have seen Philadelphia 2x. Absolutely incredible.
To see a historic and current powerhouse like Philadlephia listed below these embryonic metroes is simply outrageous.Get your act together people.
Metropolitan population from 1790-2000.
Youve probably only seen it twice because most people dont think Philly is one of the 5 most important cities in the US. I dont. Top 10 yes, top 5 no.
As far as Im concerned the 4 of the top 5 are obvious:
1) NYC
2) LA
3) DC
4) Chicago
The 5th slot is subjective. I choose Houston because its the energy and natural resource capital of the world.
Now if were talking top 10 most important cities in the US, I would throw Philly, San Francisco, Atlanta, Dallas, and Miami/Boston (dont know which) into the ring.
Where are you going to sprawl to. The Pacific Ocean? The Diablo Range? The SF Bay.To chalk up Bay Areas high density to superior regional planning is incredulous. Your density is by necessity not design. You have outdone yourself on this one which I didnt think was possible.
Unbelievable.
Um, actually, a lot of those areas could have been developed and were protected by various groups who sought to stop such rampant sprawl. Just look at the 280 corridor. They managed to build a freeway there, but not tons of homes. It could have been done, but wasn't.
Um, actually, a lot of those areas could have been developed and were protected by various groups who sought to stop such rampant sprawl. Just look at the 280 corridor. They managed to build a freeway there, but not tons of homes. It could have been done, but wasn't.
Krudmonk the entire western flank of the Bay Area looks like this.
More than 50% of Bay Areas potential real estate is under water. Not only is sprawl ill-advised its entirely impossible in 50% of The Bay Area. Its Ok to toot your horn for having a landscape that necessitates density, its something entirely different by boasting that the density was by design. Compared to a metro like Philadephia the Bay Area has 1/4 of the buildable land when taking into account the Pacific Ocean, Bays and Mountain ranges.
I think Houston is gaining on Chicago fast, but for now, I think this is more accurate and agreeable for most poeple.
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.
