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.
Every city sprawls to one extent or the other. It's just that some sprawl around more developed, denser cores and some sprawl around less developed, less dense cores.
Most won't care to admit their own city. However, I'll start it.
Boston. Sure, it's uber-urban at the core, but the suburbs are super low density and sprawl for miles. Because most of the towns just outside Boston started as independent rural communities long ago, there's a fight to keep them that way. In order to do that, zoning laws were enacted to make "minimum" lot sizes in order to preserve the "small town character" of these towns. Instead of higher density suburbs close to the city, the population is forced outward because the growth is such low density. Metro Boston now extends halfway across the state in a Westward direction towards Worcester, all the way North into Southern NH (inc. Portsmouth, Nashua and upto Manchester) and South into RI and towards Cape Cod. Metro Boston is about 1/3 the size of metro L.A. but covers nearly as much land.
Boston deserves credit for its urban core, but the suburbs are a sprawling, low density nightmare, though some do have nice, historic centers (Lexington, Concord, Hingham, Plymouth, Manchester etc).
We definitely sprawl, but I wouldn't say that all the suburbs are nightmares. I think the "population control" which you speak of has worked relatively well. My family has lived in the same town (Scituate) since my parents were children, and we've done a pretty good job of keeping our population the same. I believe the population of the town in the 50s was something like 11,000...and we're currently at about 18,000. So a 64% gain in population over 60 years isn't too crazy.
Obviously the inner-burbs like Cambridge, Newton, Brookline, Malden, Medford, Watertown, Everett, Lynn, Chelsea and Revere are directly linked to Boston. However, there are dense cities lining the outer suburbs like Lawrence, Lowell, Worcester, Brockton, Manchester, and Nashua which seem to have their own identities. There are obviously plenty of low-density suburbs around Boston too, but the layout seems so different from other cities.
Let's compare Boston with Phoenix, which is relatively new as far as major development is concerned (it also shares a similar development style with many American cities). If you look at the satellite view, it appears that development in Phoenix is a never-ending spread of similarly dense neighborhoods. In contrast, Boston has an ultra-dense core, then relatively-dense burbs, then a mixture of forest and very low-density suburbs...much of which are connected via commuter rail...but then when you get outside the low-density burbs and forest--around the 495 belt--you have a mix of high-density cities (which I mentioned before), traditional outer-burbs or coastal towns.
If you were to compare these cities to a painting, Boston would have a heavy splotch of paint in the middle, with several smaller splotches surrounding it. Phoenix/traditional American model would be a giant smear.
I'm not saying one is better than the other, but I think we can all agree that sprawl can come in many different forms.
If Houston is America's worst sprawl than so is LA. Once Houston is as populated as LA is now; it will have similar density.
Los Angeles:
Population: 3,833,995
Density: 8,205/sq m
Land size: 469.1 sq mi
Houston:
Population: 2,242,193
Density: 3,828/sq mi
Land size: 579.4 sq mi
Los Angele has the mountians and Houston has the flood plains stopping them from building on certain areas in their city limits.
No offense, but that's some odd logic.
You don't have the same population as Los Angeles, and therefore it's a moot point. You would have a case if Houston's land area was halfed...but it's not. It's over 1.5m people smaller and over 100 square miles larger.
That'd be like me saying "If Boston had the population of Paris, we'd be nearly as dense as Paris".
You don't have the same population as Los Angeles, and therefore it's a moot point. You would have a case if Houston's land area was halfed...but it's not. It's over 1.5m people smaller and over 100 square miles larger.
That'd be like me saying "If Boston had the population of Paris, we'd be nearly as dense as Paris".
It sound about right to me considering both Houston and Los Angeles have very bad sprawl. Houston density at this point is about half of Los Angele's density; as well as our population is almost half of Los Angeles (not sure if they've reached 4 million yet). They both have large amounts of land that can't be built on.
Paris is still has a more dense enviroment outside of the city compared to Boston. Houston and LA both continue the same amont of density all throughout the metro area.
It sound about right to me considering both Houston and Los Angeles have very bad sprawl. Houston density at this point is about half of Los Angele's density; as well as our population is almost half of Los Angeles (not sure if they've reached 4 million yet). They both have large amounts of land that can't be built on.
I suppose I see what you're getting at...however I think most people already call Los Angeles "sprawled"...in fact I think most people would argue it's the model of how the American city could be successful and be based almost 100% on car-centric development.
I suppose I see what you're getting at...however I think most people already call Los Angeles "sprawled"...in fact I think most people would argue it's the model of how the American city could be successful and be based almost 100% on car-centric development.
I made that point because someone said Los Angeles is an exception. Los Angeles is more urban and dense than Houston, but Houston has some some-what amazing density for a sunbelt city; especially when you take into account its size.
When it comes down to it, most U.S. cities are very sprawled whether they are in the sunbelt or not. People love to associate sprawl with the South and with California, but truthfully it is very much all over the country and very much in every city.
Yes, but as Akheneton said above, there are significant degrees of difference. Many cities like Mpls and St Paul have managed to retain density within their corporate limits (~700k vs. 2.8m in the suburban and rural areas of the MSA) without annexing any suburban areas since WWII.
It sound about right to me considering both Houston and Los Angeles have very bad sprawl. Houston density at this point is about half of Los Angele's density; as well as our population is almost half of Los Angeles (not sure if they've reached 4 million yet). They both have large amounts of land that can't be built on.
Houston and Los Angeles densities are pretty different IMO and the characterisitcs of their sprawl is very different. L.A. is a good amount more dense, in the city itself and in the metropolitan area.
65% of Los Angeles lives in neighborhoods with more than 10,000 people per square mile. Some of these neighborhoods include Koreatown with 124,000 residents at 42,600 per square mile, Westlake with 117,000 people at 38,000 per square mile, East Hollywood with 78,000 residents at 31,000 per square mile, Pico Union with 45,000 residents at 25,300 per square mile, and MANY MORE. The core area of Los Angeles in the basin has about 2,600,000 people living in neeighorhoods from 10,000 people per square mile to 42,600 per square mile. This is MUCH more crowded than anywhere in Houston and comparing Houston density to L.A. density is like comparing L.A. density to New York City (no comparison). Houston is much more in common with places like Atlanta, Dallas, Austin, Phoenix, etc.... L.A. is sort of in a league of its own in the sunbelt.
Montrose in Houston has a density of about 9,800 per square mile and this is one of (perhaps the most) dense neighborhoods in Houston. It would be below average in L.A.
Further evidence of why L.A. and Houston are not that similar:
Los Angeles is ranked 9th by WalkScore of most walkable places. There are a lot of dense walkable neighborhoods here.
-47% of L.A. residents live in neighborhoods with Walk Scores of 70-100.
-84% of L.A. residents live in neighborhoods with Walk Scores of 50-100.
-16% of residents live in car dependent neighborhoods.
Houston:
-12% of Houston residents live in neighborhoods with Walk Scores of 70-100.
-54% live in neighborhoods with Walk Scores of 50-100.
-47% live in car dependent neighborhoods.
When you break things down on a neighborhoods by neighborhoods basis, Los Angeles' dense neighborhoods are A LOT more dense, with a higher proportion of residents in dense neighborhoods, than Houston. The two aren't that similar IMO.
L.A. density is actually more like the Miami area.
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.
When it comes down to it, most U.S. cities are very sprawled whether they are in the sunbelt or not. People love to associate sprawl with the South and with California, but truthfully it is very much all over the country and very much in every city.
