SkyscraperPage Forum - Which Is the Most Sprawling City in the World? (in the U.S. by most measures)

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)

- City Discussions (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=24)

- - Which Is the Most Sprawling City in the World? (in the U.S. by most measures) (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=227953)

Which Is the Most Sprawling City in the World? (in the U.S. by most measures)

Where is the world's most sprawling city?

19 April 2017

By Douglas Murphy

Read More: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2...ty-los-angeles

Demographia World Urban Areas PDF: http://www.demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf

Quote:

.....

Although the first use of the term “urban sprawl” appears to be in the context of London in 1955, what we know as sprawl is a quintessentially American invention – it is aspirational, a culture of free individualism, of conspicuous wealth, and requires a seemingly limitless supply of land and resources.

- There is no reliable combined measure of sprawl, and many geographers shy away from using the term because of its negative connotations. Perhaps the most reliable metric comes from looking at population density. To look at the whole world is difficult, as definitions of metropolitan boundaries don’t always match up, but free-market think tank Demographia’s annual World Urban Areas survey attempts just that. --- The results seem to tally with what we expect: American areas completely dominate the low densities, and among many smaller conurbations the lowest density large cities are Atlanta, Boston, St Louis, Orlando and San Juan.

- The only real competition the Americans have is with places like Brisbane, Australia, or Quebec City, Canada, both countries with a lot of land and a love of the car. In Europe, down there in the low densities are a number of French urban areas such as Nantes and Toulon, but little else, while the Middle East sneaks in with Saudi Arabia’s Ad Dammam. According to Demographia’s metric, East Asian and South American cities tend not to sprawl at all. --- The problem with an average value though, is that it mistakes particular characteristics. For example, London and Athens have very similar average densities, but the Greek city has a far denser core and a much more sprawling suburbia.

- Some researchers try to overcome these difficulties through additional metrics. Researchers for Smart Growth America introduced mixes of use, presence of “centres”, and accessibility as other factors. Their research was pretty damning for the southern states, with Atlanta, Nashville and Memphis to the bottom of the list. --- Elsewhere, Thomas Laidley of NYU recently created a Sprawl Index using aerial imagery. One remarkable aspect was the discovery that Los Angeles is now the densest urban centre in the US. The city which is usually considered the ultimate in sprawl has reached such a consistent intensity of development that there is very little spare land of any kind that could lower its score.

- Even as it stands on the cusp of change, the ultimate sprawling city still has to be Los Angeles. Think of the classic view from the Griffith Observatory, looking down at that vast carpet of concrete with its threads of light from the clogged highways. LA is decentred, potentially limitless, and stands for everything terrible about what happens when cities are developed without planning: swathes of low density housing, completely severed by roads, the whole terrain plagued by filthy smog. --- Architecture critic Christopher Hawthorne talks of a ‘first’ Los Angeles at the beginning of the 20th century, when it grew much like a European city, before the ‘second’ LA happened post-war.

- Others have defended sprawl on its own terms. Architectural historian Reyner Banham wrote the seminal Los Angeles: City of the Four Ecologies in 1972. Excited by its unapologetic modernity, Banham argued that the sprawling quality of LA offered “radical alternatives” to, not deviations from, what was accepted wisdom in urbanism. This refrain was taken up by Jonathan Meades in his 2012 series On France, where he noted sprawl’s prevalence, and mounted a muted defence: “It is not vilified. It is nothing to be ashamed of. Nor is pride taken in it as pride is taken in conventionally elegant towns and orthodoxly pretty villages. Sprawl is accepted, it’s there.”

.....

Suburban Atlanta … a sprawling city according to Demographia and Smart Growth America. Photograph: Alamy

http://i.imgur.com/uRD53lo.jpg

Cape Coral in Florida sports the sprawling ranch-style homes and spacious yards indicative of mid 20th-century American suburbia. Photograph: Planet

http://i.imgur.com/3N6fKo2.jpg

The Griffith Observatory with Los Angeles sprawling beyond, in 1964. Photograph: Bettmann Archive

http://i.imgur.com/a72D5MA.jpg

Quote:

the ultimate sprawling city still has to be Los Angeles. Think of the classic view from the Griffith Observatory, looking down at that vast carpet of concrete with its threads of light from the clogged highways. LA is decentred, potentially limitless, and stands for everything terrible about what happens when cities are developed without planning: swathes of low density housing, completely severed by roads, the whole terrain plagued by filthy smog. --- Architecture critic Christopher Hawthorne talks of a ‘first’ Los Angeles at the beginning of the 20th century, when it grew much like a European city, before the ‘second’ LA happened post-war.

This entire paragraph: :facepalm:

LA developed without planning? :???:

Low density housing? The LA region is one of the most densely settled regions in the US.

Completely severed by roads? What cities exist that don't have large roads, besides, LA is on a grid, which is great for urban environments, compared to many other cities that are not.

The whole terrain plagued by filthy smog? What cities don't have air quality issues? Maybe back in the mid 20th century to as late as the 90's, but the air quality isn't nearly as bad as other US cities, now-a-days.

Pfff Atlanta could care less about sprawl. If anything they consider it a positive, with the nightmare traffic for commutes not being enough for them to make changes in the metro's growth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jayden (Post 7778959)

Pfff Atlanta could care less about sprawl. If anything they consider it a positive, with the nightmare traffic for commutes not being enough for them to make changes in the metro's growth.

Gosh, how ever did you come to be such an expert on what us yokels, 800 miles away, are up to!?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jayden (Post 7778959)

Pfff Atlanta could care less about sprawl. If anything they consider it a positive, with the nightmare traffic for commutes not being enough for them to make changes in the metro's growth.

Part of the problem isn't "Atlanta" itself. Maybe it's the whole organizational structure - that the metro is spread between several counties and a large number of separate cities like Dunwoody, Sandy Springs etc. Each one trying to bring development to it's own little section because if they don't, their voters don't re-elect them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog (Post 7778954)

The whole terrain plagued by filthy smog? What cities don't have air quality issues? Maybe back in the mid 20th century to as late as the 90's, but the air quality isn't nearly as bad as other US cities, now-a-days.

Say what?

American Lung Assn report from... yesterday

Most polluted metropolitan regions by average year-round concentration of particulate matter (PM2.5)

1. Visalia-Porterville-Hanford, CA
2. Bakersfield, CA
3. Fresno-Madera, CA
4. San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA
5. Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA
6. Modesto-Merced, CA
7. El Centro, CA
8. Pittsburgh-New Castle-Weirton, PA-OH-WV
9. Cleveland-Akron-Canton, OH
10. San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles- Arroyo Grande, CA

Most polluted metropolitan areas by dangerous “spikes” in particulate matter (PM2.5)

1. Bakersfield, CA
2. Visalia-Porterville-Hanford, CA
3. Fresno-Madera, CA
4. Modesto-Merced, CA
5. Fairbanks, AK
6. San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA
7. Salt Lake City-Provo-Orem, UT
8. Logan, UT-ID
9. Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA
10. Reno-Carson City-Fernley, NV

Most polluted cities by ozone pollution

1. Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA
2. Bakersfield, CA
3. Fresno-Madera, CA
4. Visalia-Porterville-Hanford, CA
5. Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ
6. Modesto-Merced, CA
7. San Diego-Carlsbad, CA
8. Sacramento-Roseville, CA
9. New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA
10. Las Vegas-Henderson, NV-AZ

As cars are more regularly updated the newer cars pollute less. It's actually the old buildings that are behind in pollution standards.

And plus according to this the worlds most sprawly city is Knoxville.

uhhh, the urban land area of the new york metro is twice the size of LA.....but good try....

Quote:

Originally Posted by (four 0 four) (Post 7779107)

Gosh, how ever did you come to be such an expert on what us yokels, 800 miles away, are up to!?

Do your research :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K (Post 7779214)

As cars are more regularly updated the newer cars pollute less. It's actually the old buildings that are behind in pollution standards.

Buildings, as a whole, use and waste the most energy, but they are not the main contributors to air pollution (particularly particulate matter and ozone).

Air quality is most negatively affected by transportation (autos, planes, trains), industry and power plants, agriculture, incineration, and natural sources (volcanoes, dust, etc.)

Old or new buildings themselves are generally not sources of air pollution.

California has climatic and topographic conditions to go along with a large population that make conditions right for poor air quality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K (Post 7779214)

tennessee sounds about right. nashville is the sprawliest city i've ever seen.

Atlanta, followed by Dallas.

This is so laughably ignorant about Los Angeles.

I didn't realize California as a whole was so polluted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Centropolis (Post 7779392)

tennessee sounds about right. nashville is the sprawliest city i've ever seen.

Nashville is far too sprawly, no doubt. But its sprawl is a bit decieving if you dont get off the expressways much, mainly because, moreso than most cities, Nashville tends to sprawl along the expressways, but in between those strips od development it is still fairly rural in many places.

Also, Nashville's core is densifying faster than almost any city in the country, so luckily, the city recognizes the problem and is trying to do something about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jayden (Post 7778959)

Pfff Atlanta could care less about sprawl. If anything they consider it a positive, with the nightmare traffic for commutes not being enough for them to make changes in the metro's growth.

And you know any of this how?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog (Post 7778954)

I wonder whether the presumably London based author has been keeping tabs on the "filthy smog" that has plagued London for the past several winters. It is supposedly almost as bad as Beijing on certain days.

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...just-five-days

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2...urners-making/

But for a little perspective on relative air quality in cities around the world, you can't beat this list. LA, PHX, and NY don't even show up until around number 152 or so.

https://www.numbeo.com/pollution/rankings.jsp

Quote:

Originally Posted by The North One (Post 7779505)

I didn't realize California as a whole was so polluted.

Generally it's not. CA deals with geographical/climatic issues such as massive mountain ranges with inland valleys that create stagnant conditions and inversions. The latest data released yesterday is data from the drought years of 2013-2015. Obviously drought years will result in high pollution. This data from some recording stations can skew an entire region.

Bakersfield and Fresno are some of the worst air quality cities, yet are sparsely populated.

atlanta is sprawly as shit. super low density east coast/southeast sprawl. it's probably the winner. (loser?) at least there's plenty of tree cover though, and some nice historic downtowns sporadically dotting the sprawl, OTP. where do we claim the prize?

Quote:

Originally Posted by austlar1 (Post 7779769)

But for a little perspective on relative air quality in cities around the world, you can't beat this list. LA, PHX, and NY don't even show up until around number 152 or so.

https://www.numbeo.com/pollution/rankings.jsp

That's very far from a scientific list.

"based on surveys from visitors of this website"

"Most of our data are based on perceptions (opinions) from visitors of this website. For pollution section, we include some relevant data from World Health Organization and other institutions if we find it helpful."

Come on. Not that the cities list near the top don;t have pollution issues, but you can definitely beat that list.