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.
So being incorporated in 1636 isn't old? That's news to me. Like I said before, the house I live in was built in the mid-1800s. My friend's house was built in the late-1600s. I have several other friends who live in houses built pre-1900. It's very common in this area. I never said that there wasn't new development, or that there hasn't been a great deal of development since the 1800s. What I said was that these communities have been well-established for a long time. As a result, they're often more reluctant to allow bulldozers from coming in than other areas in the country.
Like I said before: I'm not saying that new development doesn't exist. However, it's not usually on the same scale as cities in the Sunbelt.
I thought I stated " If you think that suburban development in the Northeast is "old" then you haven't been to any of those suburbs recently" - didn't I? What does suburban development have to do with when a city/town was incorporated? I was specifically talking about DEVELOPMENT, not when a city/town was incorporated. Decatur, a suburb of Atlanta, was incorporated in 1823, but most of it's suburban development wasn't built until the 80s and beyond.
I would say that surburban development in Philadelphia, Boston, and other Northeastern cities is at least on the same scale as suburban development in the Sunbelt. Are suburbs in the Northeast not popular? Last I heard they were.
A great website that dispels the numerous myths about sprawl on city data (myths like ""only Southern cities and LA have sprawl", Northern cities have no sprawl" etc.)
A great website that dispels the numerous myths about sprawl on city data (myths like ""only Southern cities and LA have sprawl", Northern cities have no sprawl" etc.)
NY, DC and Philly more sprawling than Dallas
Good idea...
Except (isn't there always an exception?) that the information used to determine the ranking was from 1970-1990, so it's 20 years old at the very least. Atlanta is far from the #1 sprawler in 2010.
Status:
"Pickleball-Free American"
(set 2 days ago)
Location: St Simons Island, GA
23,461 posts, read 44,074,708 times
Reputation: 16840
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeaconJ
Good idea...
Except (isn't there always an exception?) that the information used to determine the ranking was from 1970-1990, so it's 20 years old at the very least. Atlanta is far from the #1 sprawler in 2010.
have remain unchanged for 20 years, when the truth is that these 'suburbs' have urbanized in their cores to the point of unrecognizability. My cousin, who left here in 1983, is completely lost when she returns for a visit.
I'm afraid I can't accept a 20 year old list as gospel for Atlanta or any other city.
I thought I stated " If you think that suburban development in the Northeast is "old" then you haven't been to any of those suburbs recently" - didn't I? What does suburban development have to do with when a city/town was incorporated? I was specifically talking about DEVELOPMENT, not when a city/town was incorporated.
I live in the suburbs...and if you don't think there's tons of old development in them, you're mistaken. I have never said that there wasn't new development in those areas...just that the towns of the Sunbelt aren't usually as established as those of cities like NYC, Philly, and Boston (think about cities like Dallas, Phoenix, and Houston).
Quote:
I would say that surburban development in Philadelphia, Boston, and other Northeastern cities is at least on the same scale as suburban development in the Sunbelt. Are suburbs in the Northeast not popular? Last I heard they were.
The total amount of suburban development? Probably. However, it has taken place over a much larger period of time in the Northeastern cities...so there is a huge mix of Colonial-era homes, then others from the 1900s on, etc, etc.
I live in the suburbs...and if you don't think there's tons of old development in them, you're mistaken. I have never said that there wasn't new development in those areas...just that the towns of the Sunbelt aren't usually as established as those of cities like NYC, Philly, and Boston (think about cities like Dallas, Phoenix, and Houston).
The total amount of suburban development? Probably. However, it has taken place over a much larger period of time in the Northeastern cities...so there is a huge mix of Colonial-era homes, then others from the 1900s on, etc, etc.
That's simply not true...but think what you will. I really don't care if you believe the truth or not.
That's simply not true...but think what you will. I really don't care if you believe the truth or not.
What isn't true? That the towns of the Sunbelt cities usually aren't as established as those of the Northeast?
Maybe I should clarify: The towns of the Sunbelt cities usually arean't as established as those of the Northeast prior to experiencing most of their development.
I live in the suburbs...and if you don't think there's tons of old development in them, you're mistaken. I have never said that there wasn't new development in those areas...just that the towns of the Sunbelt aren't usually as established as those of cities like NYC, Philly, and Boston (think about cities like Dallas, Phoenix, and Houston).
The total amount of suburban development? Probably. However, it has taken place over a much larger period of time in the Northeastern cities...so there is a huge mix of Colonial-era homes, then others from the 1900s on, etc, etc.
Many of the suburbs in Phoenix are older than Phoenix, LOL! Glendale, Tempe, Guadalupe, Peoria, etc...Phoenix was founded in the late 1800's and the many other cities in the mid-1800's and Phoenix is far from being the most sprawling metro or city:
Quote:
According to 2000 U.S. Census data, Phoenix ranked number 10 in population density out of the 36 urban areas with more than one million in population.
Phoenix urban area had a population density of 3,683 per square mile, with 2,907,000 residents living in 799 square miles. What may be even more surprising is that only one Eastern urban area --- New York --- was more dense and only one Midwestern urban area was more dense --- Chicago. In the South, only the Miami urban was more dense than the Phoenix urban area. In 2000, Phoenix was nearly 10 percent more dense than Portland. As is shown below, this gap may have widened since 2000 (in the 10 years since 2000 Phoenix has increased density at astounding levels).
This contrast can be best seen in comparison to the Boston urban area, widely perceived as one of the nation’s most dense urban areas. Nothing could be further from the truth. Central Boston, including such municipalities as Boston, Cambridge, and Somerville clearly fit this description and rank among the highest density areas in the United States outside the four highly urbanized boroughs of New York City. The densest part of the Boston urban area (in land area) has a population density of 28,000 --- more than double that of Phoenix (nearly 14,000) and even more in comparison to Portland (12,000).
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.
