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.
For any reason, either way, which metros do you think are full. (Over 1 million in size please)
Some metrics I use is the level of sprawl upon the metro land scape, environmental and traffic.
For me almost all of them are full, especially places like LA and Phoenix. Some others have to much growth in one direction(that’s you Dallas and Atlanta). Though even on their south sides, the level of development is decent and enough.
Most people will say their city is overcrowded, with an abundance of empty parking lots in their downtowns. Most cities are just too sprawled out, not overcrowded.
Most people will say their city is overcrowded, with an abundance of empty parking lots in their downtowns. Most cities are just too sprawled out, not overcrowded.
Agree that it’s poor use of infrastructure. Single use zoning in large swathes of land (note how I’m not saying individual parcels) is the fault of this entirely. The I-75 near me has a portion where one direction 8 lanes wide. Outside of the afternoon rush hour a lot of those lanes are crickets. The problem is single-use office zoning in the core and single-use residential in the outskirts. This land or traffic can be freed up or mitigated by putting in transit service or creating mixed use areas throughout and then putting in a counterweight to Downtown and Midtown Atlanta in what would be the Acworth area to distribute commuter traffic flows in both directions making 8 lanes of costly road infrastructure worth their taxpayer salt.
Since trying to duplicate core Atlanta’s influence is wildly unpopular in the exurbs for a variety of reasons from both sides, implementing better transit service that is actually efficient would resolve the issue.
People here are not complaining about other people they are complaining about efficiency. People can live in an area of 20 million and wouldn’t care if A) they can still escape from time to time B) water exits the faucet alright C) commute if they have one is mostly headache free D) can afford where they live and get goods and services they want. The problem with A C D is that good city planning is needed for streamline logistics and efficiency. B is more of an ecological issue. But ACD needs someone central, independent from any particular business sector, to say how can my residents best get groceries, postal service, gas, school, without inducing unnecessary stressors (traffic, sound pollution, etc). The problem is is we have private businesses trying to sway ACD in their favor to earn profit when that’s not the best for people. There has to be a firm line in the sand that says no to that. And the US is too greedy, so no one says no, and we get what we have. Is a lot of unnecessary environmental stressors.
Most cities are wildly inefficient with their layout, lack of density and lack of good infrastructure. Really applies to sunbelt and/or "newer" developed cities, I think.
I'd say these metro areas are at the top of the list, that could use fewer people due to lack of basic infrastructure and transportation crowding:
Phoenix, AZ - huge water access future issues, insane sprawl, minimal density.
*should be 3 million fewer people in the metro area, at least*
Las Vegas, NV - huge water access issues, bad sprawl, low density
*should be 1 million fewer people in the metro area*
Atlanta, GA - the sprawl is the poster child for how metro areas should not develop. Traffic is insane due to city leaders and many residents resisting expansion of public transit
*should be 3 million fewer people in the metro area*
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX - the sprawl goes on for miles and miles. Similar to Atlanta, the region has a big traffic disaster that keeps getting worse.
*should be 3-4 million fewer people in the metro area*
Status:
"See My Blog Entries for my Top 500 Most Important USA Cities"
(set 6 days ago)
Location: Harrisburg, PA
1,051 posts, read 976,625 times
Reputation: 1406
Probably Los Angeles is the big one that comes to mind. It is a sprawling Goliath, reaching out its urban sprawling tentacles 60 miles or more in all directions from its core (obviously including all adjacent municipalities). That is a span of 120 miles or more in some cases, of continued, contiguous development. Could LA densify this land is the big question? I think the living standards would have to change first. Water use per capita would have to be cut drastically. Maybe if the city had more desalination plants.
Phoenix, Las Vegas, and maybe Dallas-Ft. Worth probably have too many people based on their resource requirements too.
From what my sister says Honolulu is another one (Oahu is a small island and accounts for nearly all of Hawaii’s 1.4 million population). Housing is extremely expensive and the island is far too busy all the time (add in tourists too).
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.
