Poverty Moves to the Suburbs

[The North One]

No it's not, sprawl indicates nothing about density, a densely packed cul-de-sac isn't suddenly not sprawl.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by eschaton

The truth is the inverse. Sprawl can be measured largely by the number of units of housing per square mile/acre. Much of California has a relatively poor level of urbanity/walkability, but as suburbs go, only South Florida is built more densely/in a less sprawly fashion.

So would you say that Orange County is one of the least sprawly counties in America? It's certainly one of the densest.

To me, there are few places on the planet as sprawly as Orange County. Over 3 million residents and not a single decent urban center.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Crawford

So would you say that Orange County is one of the least sprawly counties in America? It's certainly one of the densest.

To me, there are few places on the planet as sprawly as Orange County. Over 3 million residents and not a single decent urban center.

It seems to me when considering sprawl the main question really is to what degree denser development has stopped the expansion of greenfield development in the exurban fringe.

For example, the Boston MSA actually had a significantly lower weighted density than the Los Angeles MSA (7,980 versus 12,114 in 2010). If Southern California was built structurally like Boston, it would have a denser more urban core, but it would also have much lower density suburbs. Hence the overall area that suburban development would have to sprawl over would be significantly larger.

Edit: To be clear, I'm not saying that this sort of development isn't sprawly at all. However, it's significantly less sprawly than the norm for the U.S. Those bucholic quarter-acre (or more) suburbs in the Northeast sprawl a lot more, given the very low levels of residential density.

[skyscraperpage17]

Just to ensure we're actually having a fact-based discussion, below is the list of top 20 metros with the worst sprawl based on employment decentralization (share of jobs 10 miles outside of CBD).

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...sK_2imYYFOC0BM

1. Detroit (78.05%)
2. Tampa (75.13%)
3. Riverside / San Bernadino (66.69%)
4. Chicago (63.61%)
5. Los Angeles (61.94%)
6. Atlanta (61.91%)
7. Philadelphia (59.63%)
8. St Louis (58.02%)
9. Dallas (57.86%)
10. San Diego (51.73%)
11. Houston (50.27%)
12. Seattle (49.54%)
13. Washington D.C. (47.34%)
14. Boston (44.97%)
15. Phoenix (40.80%)
16. San Francisco (38.98%)
17. Minneapolis (36.61%)
18. Denver (32.92%) - tie
18. Miami (32.92%) - tie
20. NYC (22.58%)

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by The North One

Maybe more dense than Atlanta or Charlotte but that's an extremely low, destitute standard.

How is this at all relevant? A satellite view of the eastern US proves little about urban sprawl and water hasn't prevented the likes of Pheonix, LA, San Diego from sprawling like hell. No shit the eastern US is more developed (it's by far the older more habitable dominate side of the country) what you're seeing is multiple more cities, this has nothing to do with how sprawly they are. The vast majority of the west is uninhabitable, this is like comparing a satellite view of Europe and Australia and calling Europe more sprawling because there's no deep dark outback.

Weighted density. Phoenix MSA is just behind Denver, Seattle and Sacramento and is more dense than New Orleans, El Paso, Buffalo, Houston, New Haven, Dallas- FW, Cleveland, Detroit, Madison, San Antonio, Minneapolis, Tampa, Hartford, Columbus, Austin and Pittsburgh [in that order].

2010 data, which was the depth of the housing crash, since then it has added about 700,000 people in the metro area.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by The North One

I'm well aware of how dense LA is, that's not mutually exclusive with how insanely sprawled it is. Bay Area is sprawled like crazy too.

20 million people will tend to sprawl outwards. However, those 20 million people are confined to a relatively small geographic area. L.A. CSA contains nearly the entire state of Florida.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

Just to ensure we're actually having a fact-based discussion, below is the list of top 20 metros with the worst sprawl based on employment decentralization (share of jobs 10 miles outside of CBD).

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...sK_2imYYFOC0BM

1. Detroit (78.05%)
2. Tampa (75.13%)
3. Riverside / San Bernadino (66.69%)
4. Chicago (63.61%)
5. Los Angeles (61.94%)
6. Atlanta (61.91%)
7. Philadelphia (59.63%)
8. St Louis (58.02%)
9. Dallas (57.86%)
10. San Diego (51.73%)
11. Houston (50.27%)
12. Seattle (49.54%)
13. Washington D.C. (47.34%)
14. Boston (44.97%)
15. Phoenix (40.80%)
16. San Francisco (38.98%)
17. Minneapolis (36.61%)
18. Denver (32.92%) - tie
18. Miami (32.92%) - tie
20. NYC (22.58%)

These numbers appear highly suspect.

Miami is the second most centralized employment market in the U.S.? And Chicago has a regional lower share of CBD jobs than LA, Atlanta, Dallas, San Diego, Houston and Phoenix?

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Crawford

So would you say that Orange County is one of the least sprawly counties in America? It's certainly one of the densest.

To me, there are few places on the planet as sprawly as Orange County. Over 3 million residents and not a single decent urban center.

O.C. handles sprawl in an orderly fashion. The wide arterial street grid on a township and range plot, with collectors within the grid and then freeways cutting across the grid.

The county has a net increase in daytime commuters and about 1.2 million Orange County residents live and work within the county.


Total Workers That Live And Work in Orange: 1,181,354
Total Workers Commuting In: 313,305
Total Workers Commuting Out: 230,146
http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.go...orange2010.pdf

181,000 leave L.A. County for work in Orange County and 178,000 leave O.C. for work in L.A. County.

[JManc]

@ Pedestrian, I love that house.

[eschaton]

To the people arguing that something like the OC is the epitome of sprawl - aside from the NYC metro, what would you define as not being sprawly?

The only U.S. examples I can think of are some of the small boroughs in the Coal Region of Eastern PA, which literally go from rowhouses to wilderness. But this is unique because the area started declining economically right around 1920, meaning the boroughs never developed their own newer-construction suburbs.

But a true compact model - where cities are dense, and then there is an unbroken area of wilderness or farmland until you hit the next urban town center - is basically absent from the U.S.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by Crawford

These numbers appear highly suspect.

Miami is the second most centralized employment market in the U.S.? And Chicago has a regional lower share of CBD jobs than LA, Atlanta, Dallas, San Diego, Houston and Phoenix?

Take it up with Brookings (whose data is almost always reliable).

[dave8721]

Originally Posted by Crawford

These numbers appear highly suspect.

Miami is the second most centralized employment market in the U.S.? And Chicago has a regional lower share of CBD jobs than LA, Atlanta, Dallas, San Diego, Houston and Phoenix?

10 miles is a pretty big area (assuming they mean 10 miles in every direction rather than 10 square miles). 10 miles in every direction includes just about all of Miami's employment centers. If you drop that distance to say 2 or 3 miles from the center than Miami would drop way down the rankings.
Also obviously they are separating Miami and Fort Lauderdale and West Palm. If you do it based on what % of a MSA population is employed within a certain distance of downtown Miami than Miami would probably drop all the way to dead last in the US since the MSA includes so many other nodes.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

Take it up with Brookings (whose data is almost always reliable).

I'm not saying Brookings is lying (obviously), so there's nothing to "take up".

They're obviously using business rules that have no relevance to the conversation (unless you truly believe that Phoenix has a larger core than that of Chicago). It's a junk ranking.

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by Crawford

These numbers appear highly suspect.

Miami is the second most centralized employment market in the U.S.? And Chicago has a regional lower share of CBD jobs than LA, Atlanta, Dallas, San Diego, Houston and Phoenix?

Well, most of the major employment centers in South Florida are near the coast for each of the 3 counties. Miami is pretty small geographically and most of the city outside the CBD is residential. Same with Atlanta with downtown and midtown being the main economic centers.

[The North One]

Philly and Chicago are some of the most centralized and dense cities in the United States. That data seems useless.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by Crawford

IThey're obviously using business rules that have no relevance to the conversation (unless you truly believe that Phoenix has a larger core than that of Chicago).

No.

They were very clear about what they're measuring (percentage of jobs in MSA outside of CBD). It has nothing to do with the size of the actual CBD.

Given that population growth and density is driven by proximity to employment, the centralization of jobs in a MSA (or lack thereof) is very relevant to the discussion of sprawl.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

No.

They were very clear about what they're measuring (percentage of jobs in MSA outside of CBD). It has nothing to do with the size of the actual CBD.

Then I stand corrected. If what you say is true, and if you're posting their actual numbers, then Brookings is lying. It's 100% fakenews.

There is no way in hell any of these numbers are correct; not for any city.

I suspect, however, you're misrepresenting Brookings, and you have no clue of their actual business rules.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by The North One

Philly and Chicago are some of the most centralized and dense cities in the United States. That data seems useless.

Yes, but going by weighted density of the metropolitan area as a whole, LA is denser than both, and Miami isn't far behind.

[dubu]

I think we've learned sprawl doesnt work with old technology and it's a place for poor people usually.

If everyone had a device for free energy and everyone had a foldable bike and lived by a train stop it would be better. Or my idea about a train for bikes

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Then I stand corrected. If what you say is true, and if you're posting their actual numbers, then Brookings is lying. It's 100% fakenews.

There is no way in hell any of these numbers are correct; not for any city.

I suspect, however, you're misrepresenting Brookings, and you have no clue of their actual business rules.

Well again, like I said, take it up with Brookings.

I'll buy the data from Brookings over assumptions without supporting empirical evidence made by enthusiasts on an internet forum.

EDIT: And BTW, just because you dislike the data doesn't make it "fakenews."