Difference between Urban Sprawl and Suburban Sprawl

[Wizened Variations]

People have a hard time dealing with continuous variation over a range. We feel compelled to break continuity into discontinuous line segments, and, identify each segment whether through informal language or mathematics, separately.

It's rather like skin color where we create labels to define segments of a continuous range between albino and the deepest ebony.

[Jasonhouse]

Originally Posted by Bailey

No...I'm well aware of the differences, both in today's terms and in a historical perspective. I've read many many books on these subject.

I'm just Wondering how people on this forum define theses terms as compared to how I've seen these terms used in the media and in the general public.

I would imagine quite differently, given that the media doesn't necessarily go by definitions accepted within the planning community and academia. They tend to let industry shills drive their narrative.

[WilliamTheArtist]

Originally Posted by 10023

Here's the question: does "urban" denote a certain level of population density, or a certain type of built form?

Yes.

Depends on the context and use. Words can have more than one meaning so its wise, in a conversation for instance, to "set the parameters" for that particular discussion lest your conversation end up going in circles.

[WilliamTheArtist]

Originally Posted by urbanactivist

I haven't read up a whole lot on the subject, but like many on this forum, I've been blessed enough to experience a variety of urban, suburban and exurban forms. The key point in distinguishing them seems to be efficiency.

An efficient environment is one that incorporates multiple uses in a relatively close proximity, while making good use of the land and resources it occupies. A good city block would have both living spaces and a variety of commerce either in the same block or very nearby. It would encourage multiple transit forms, and be closely connected to the surrounding area.

An inefficient environment is one that relies primarily on a single use concept, and is wasteful with surrounding land resources.

I think we all know about surburban/ ex-urban sprawl. For urban sprawl, I'd say it would be a development that is only single-use, and not conveniently located to other property types. Also something that's off by itself with little or no transit access. A gated community could count for urban sprawl.

I think the term you might be missing with all that is "pedestrian friendly". You can go to many cities, like Dallas for instance that….

"incorporates multiple uses in a relatively close proximity, while making good use of the land and resources it occupies. A good city block would have both living spaces and a variety of commerce either in the same block or very nearby."

and even have nice sidewalks, trees, transit nearby etc. but people rarely use the sidewalks, for there are parking garages with just about every development and there are just enough buildings along any given street that are "monolithic" have large set backs, retaining walls, few street side openings, etc. They are basically a concentration of "suburban style high-rises".

[pdxtex]

crap, a quiz...ok, lemme see...

urban sprawl is...im not sure i guess, maybe lots of tall towers in an otherwise car oriented landscape. think outer paris, toronto, stuff like that??

suburban sprawl. single family homes with car dependant infrastructure.

new urbanism, mastered planned small town/mainstreet type developments.

smart growth....uhh, growth which is steered towards land designated for new development only??? might include transit oriented design too.

infill....vacant lot today, townhouse tommorrow!

gentrification....the second or third stages of urban revitalization after pioneering types have lived there and newcomers with higher incomes displace former, lower income residents. rents and land values rise because of the new influx....

[Doady]

Originally Posted by simms3_redux

This. But if you wanted to differentiate by density or building patterns, you could say much of LA Basis and beyond into the valleys, OC, and IE are urban sprawl and much of Atlanta is suburban sprawl.

But LA is simply denser and so its sprawl is denser. Atlanta itself is not the dense, and its sprawl is hardly dense. So do you call one sprawl "urban" and one "suburban" strictly on density alone? I think not. Both are technically urban sprawl and suburban sprawl is not really a technical term used by planners, from my experience.

I'm pretty sure you're right. Sprawl is an urban vs. rural thing, the excessive consumption of rural land. It's about urban area boundaries, not "suburban area boundaries".

You might describe an urban area as being more suburban in nature based on how bad its sprawl is. But to compare "suburban sprawl" vs. "urban sprawl" doesn't make sense. Sprawl is inherently bad, so there's no sense to categorize it based on how bad or good it is.

I admit this urban vs. suburban thing here bothers me sometimes. I think it is excessive the way people separate them.

Is an urban planner able to plan a suburb? Or do we need suburban planners for that? Maybe there aren't enough programmes/courses about suburban planning.

But I think it's better to say suburban is a subset of urban. Suburban is urban that is an imitation/mockery of the rural lifestyle. It's not truly 100% urban, hence sub-urban, lesser urban. You can't spell "suburban" without "urban". This should be obvious.

[WilliamTheArtist]

The more pedestrian friendly an area is, the more urban it will be.

For good pedestrian friendly retail areas to flourish, for instance, you need many things which by default would then create a more dense, built environment.

You will need many shops in one area. The more "contiguous" the shops are to each other, in other words, the less "gaps" between them whether parking lots, garages with no retail, blank walls, etc. the better.

It's better (aka, the pedestrian friendly retail will be more likely to prosper) to have a mix of uses, retail plus restaurants mixed in (or above), businesses of all sorts mixed in, living above and right nearby within walking distances. The more living nearby within walking distances the better.

And it can't be just ANY walking distance it must be pedestrian friendly walking distances which again by it's nature, the better it is, the more dense and interesting the built environment.

Something being Pedestrian Friendly and good quality Pedestrian Friendly, far far more often than not, equates to a really good, high quality, dense, urban fabric.

In order for pedestrian friendly retail, businesses, attractions, transit, etc. to flourish, the built environment will have take the pedestrian into consideration, or it won't work as well, businesses won't make as much money, the transit will languish and not be as cost effective, etc.

I remember sitting in a cafe on a London street not long ago and it began to rain. All up and down the street, colorful awnings instantly popped out all along the way over the food and flower shop front displays, the cafe's etc. They did that to accommodate the pedestrian. And there are plenty of permanent loggias, awnings, building "insets" near entrances, etc. to accommodate pedestrians as well. Also you will sometimes find different buildings connected to each other inside and other "protected" ways of getting to and from businesses. The businesses have to evolve that way or they will lose customers. There is an area in our downtown that is starting to revitalize and when it even sprinkles in that part of town or looks like it is going to rain, the crowds vanish. That means those businesses are losing money. I just discovered to my horror, while looking to open another business in a different area near downtown that it's illegal to have awnings over the sidewalk! I wanted to put them in in order to help make the street more pedestrian friendly. Shade people from sun and rain. But can't do it. Also, though it's an old building in an area with many other building up to the sidewalk, many of them empty, discovered that if I put something into the building I will have to meed certain minimum parking requirements. In other words I would likely have to purchase and tear out a building nearby or home behind for more parking. In essence making an area in the middle of the city,less pedestrian friendly and more auto oriented, less urban, more suburban in design, feel and function. Btw, once the rain stopped and the sun came out on that cool day in London. The awnings vanished again, all up and down the street like magic, as they have done in cities all over the world for thousands of years,,,, except in Tulsa of course where it's illegal. Ugh.


Sub-Urban in my mind would then mean Less Urban or Less Pedestrian Friendly, and in todays terms, often more auto oriented and or spread out.

Now you can squash in parking garages and high rise buidlings in an area, but that won't make it pedestrian friendly or in my mind urban. Like "Texas Donuts" that look urban at first glance it's "fake urbanity" It's only REALLY urban if its pedestrian friendly and the more pedestrian friendly it is, the more urban it is.

[MolsonExport]

Tokyo sprawls....for fucking miles on end. An urban sea as far as the eye can see. literally.

Then there are most North American cities. Most American and Canadian cities (with the exception of NYC) have a noticeable drop off in density, very quickly after a somewhat dense (building-wise, but often not in terms of inhabitants) urban core. Big Box Barf, subdivisions...for fucking miles on end. A suburban sea as far as the eye can see, and way beyond.

Suburban Sprawl:
• Video Link

Urban Sprawl:

Vidipedia

[llamaorama]

Even in regards to typical US suburbia, you could make a distinction between the unrestrained growth that happens in unincorporated areas, and growth that happens inside city limits.

Example would be Northwest Harris County in Houston or that area around Spanaway in Pierce County Washington near Tacoma. Blah. On the other hand, you see interesting planning in places like Sugarland in Houston or Issaquah in Seattle.

The thing is of course that those areas are more affluent and expensive. But it doesn't have to be that way,

[memph]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Tokyo sprawls....for fucking miles on end. An urban sea as far as the eye can see. literally.

Then there are most North American cities. Most American and Canadian cities (with the exception of NYC) have a noticeable drop off in density, very quickly after a somewhat dense (building-wise, but often not in terms of inhabitants) urban core. Big Box Barf, subdivisions...for fucking miles on end. A suburban sea as far as the eye can see, and way beyond.

Suburban Sprawl:

Urban Sprawl:
Vidipedia

As far as the eye can see is not that far though.

Take the town of Hvar, the urban fabric of 3-4 storey buildings goes "as far as the eye can see" from this hillside.
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.17371...lyNv1ODzAA!2e0

Might seem like a mid-sized city, obviously not that big since you probably haven't heard of it... but what you see in that street view covers only about 0.02 square miles and home to about 1000 people.

For your Tokyo pictures, I'm estimating that the size of the area you see clearly (where you can still make out individual buildings) is maybe 1-2 square miles. That's still much less than the 1000+ square mile Tokyo urban area.

I think maybe something on the order of the central 20 square miles of Tokyo looks like your picture. After that, it drops off to something that's mostly 2-3 storey buildings with a scattering of mid rises and high-rises. 20 square miles is not that much consider Tokyo's overall size, proportionally, it's about the same as Downtown Toronto, though maybe 40-50% denser.

Outside Downtown Toronto, a lot of it is also low rises with a scattering of taller buildings. However, Toronto's low rise areas are more often 1-2 storey rather than 2-3 storey, and also have more space between them with bigger backyards, bigger setbacks, wider streets, probably more parks, and more parking lots.

I don't actually think parking lots are that much of a factor, at least not mall parking lots. If you say that there's 30 sf of retail per person in the suburbs, then Square One would be the equivalent of 50,000 suburbanites' worth of retail, and the parking area (bus terminal and access roads included) is about 0.1 square miles, so it would be responsible for about a 80 ppsm density decrease (assuming Mississauga densities). Big box centres might be a bit worse, maybe around a 120 ppsm decrease + another 60 ppsm if you include the buildings. Mississauga's Meadowvale and Airport office parks are about 1.5% of its land area, so they're not the main culprit either.

I'd say it's about
63% neighbourhoods (housing, plus local schools, and also parks)
24% industrial parks
6% commercial areas (office parks and shopping malls)
7% other (mainly the airport, also some undeveloped land)

I see the shopping malls and office parks with their parking lots as more of a product of sprawl than the cause. The main cause is the residential component, although the industrial parks would probably have to be part of the solution too.

For residential, a lot of it is the difference between this

http://torontoist.com/attachments/to..._21Suburbs.jpg

And this

http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-ge...0/0870A069.jpg

Note from the size of the cars that they're at about the same scale, but the second picture has a lot more homes in it.

As well as a housing imbalance with (imo) too few smaller 500-1500 sf units that I attribute to zoning and certain regulations, with a lot of big homes with few large households to justify them, leading to significantly more living space per capita than in Japan.

As for industrial parks, part of it is that some of the businesses in these don't need to be located in industrial parks, like what's Kirkor Architects doing the industrial park north of Downsview Airport?

You also have more parking areas, setbacks, wider roads and more under-utilized space compared to industrial areas of Tokyo. Tokyo's industrial buildings are probably more high-value too, so you don't need as much square footage. I'm guessing they have less Walmart distribution centres or whatever those mega-warehouses being built around the 401 in Mississauga, Brampton and Milton are used for. And yes industrial buildings in Tokyo will often be taller, either one very high single floor, or occasionally 2-3 floors (sometimes more, but rarely).

Tokyo
http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-ge...0/0870A069.jpg

Toronto
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.75185...TJZW25-qOA!2e0

[MolsonExport]

I've visited Tokyo, and I have travelled extensively through the surrounding districts. Anecdotally, much more of it looks urban than suburban; I'd reckon 70:30. The urban density continues right through past Yokohama. And outside of the greatest Asian cities (Shanghai, Seoul, which I also visited; probably Beijing, Chonqing, HK-Shenzhen-Guangzhou), there are few other places with similarly more urban than suburban content. then there are the sprawling shantytowns of Mumbai, Dacca, Lagos, Kinshasa....I wouldn't know how to categorize beyond wretchedness.

Seeing is believing. Toronto, while impressive in a Canadian context, doesn't come close. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Nor does NYC.

[SignalHillHiker]

I tend to use them as...

Urban Sprawl: Developing outwards from the core of the city, replacing wilderness or farmland with suburban residential developments. I've never encountered the term "Suburban Sprawl" before SSP. For me, Urban Sprawl encompasses any outward growth. It's the word "Sprawl" that implies it is suburban and negative.

New Urbanism: To me it just means building neighbourhoods using contemporary architecture and techniques but designing them to encourage the same type of pedestrian-friendly, neighbourhood feeling of more historic areas.

Infill: Anything that increases the density of an already-existing neighbourhood without requiring any Urban Sprawl. Could be anything from a new house going up on the empty lot beside yours, to a residential tower.

Gentrification: When poor neighbourhoods begin to see an influx of wealthier residents from a variety of socioeconomic backgrounds. This changes the neighbourhood from being predominantly working class and probably quite rough to having a greater number of fixed-up homes, trendier businesses, and more of an eclectic, downtown vibe. Gentrified neighbourhoods are usually more visually and personally interesting than poor or new neighbourhoods, with a greater sense of place and a strong identity. Georgestown in St. John's is a great example. My neighbourhood, Rabbittown, is one just starting the process. But it's important that the soul of the neighbourhood isn't lost. Georgestown still has Roman Catholic flags in its windows, elderly women who watch Coronation Street after afternoon tea. It still has the Georgestown Pub where the down and out sit outside on plastic chairs smoking with their beers at 10 a.m. It's critical these things survive... otherwise the neighbourhood can become quite boring.

Basically you go from this...



To this...



Gaining this...



Without losing this...





Smart Growth: Growing cities to minimize urban sprawl, with a particular emphasis on public transit.

[memph]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

I've visited Tokyo, and I have travelled extensively through the surrounding districts. Anecdotally, much more of it looks urban than suburban; I'd reckon 70:30. The urban density continues right through past Yokohama. And outside of the greatest Asian cities (Shanghai, Seoul, which I also visited; probably Beijing, Chonqing, HK-Shenzhen-Guangzhou), there are few other places with similarly more urban than suburban content. then there are the sprawling shantytowns of Mumbai, Dacca, Lagos, Kinshasa....I wouldn't know how to categorize beyond wretchedness.

Seeing is believing. Toronto, while impressive in a Canadian context, doesn't come close. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Nor does NYC.

Taipei, Barcelona, Athens, Istanbul, Cairo?

Typical Taipei neighbourhood street:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@25.01658...3SzagSszCA!2e0

These cities are mostly just smaller than Tokyo, I wouldn't call them less urban.

A typical Tokyo neighbourhood (if you define Tokyo as the 30 million urban area) looks like this from what I can tell just dropping into streetview randomly
https://www.google.ca/maps/@35.70353...eMwG-BZOLQ!2e0

I wouldn't really consider that suburban, at least, not in the sense that is applied to North American cities. I'd say it's on par with Brooklyn, or Little Portugal (in Toronto).

A lot of what you'll see if your visiting is likely to be more dense, since major roads are typically lined with taller buildings and areas near train stations are also denser and have more retail.

Area near a train station:
https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Tok...01618b22571b89

However, the surrounding neighbourhood looks more like this:
https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Tok...01618b22571b89

Are there any cities in South America, Southern Europe, Africa or Asia (including Middle East) you've visited that were more suburban than urban?

[LouisVanDerWright]

The difference between urban sprawl and suburban sprawl is probably best seen in Chicago partly because its geography allows economic conditions to express themselves cleanly and partly because its history of development straddles the pre and post suburban periods. It is almost a "you know it when you see it " propsition here where you are headed down a street and suddenly you know you've left the dense, streetcare city of prewar chicago and entered the postwar suburban sprawl. Prewar portions of Chicago are probably the most "sprawly" urban environment ever built as Chicago once consisted of endless miles of dense street car neighborhoods that really never were built on the scale as they were here anywhere else.

The streetcar neighborhoods of chicago often are 3, 4, or even 5 miles from the nearest train or freeway, but were still build as dense, urban, pedestrian oriented communities. Sadly the far flung industrial job centers that once drove these outlying areas have largely disappeared leaving these areas economically depressed or forcing them to heavily reorient towards the automobile.

[memph]

Originally Posted by 10023

I would say no, but I'm also struggling to think of an example of this happening.

I'm wondering if inner South Side of Chicago from Stevenson to 51st (Bronzeville area) might be an example? It's exhibiting significant signs of improvement comparable.

Income increases are among the highest in Chicago, comparable to West Town and greater than most of the North Side.
http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/collec...apinc9907.html

It's one of the few parts of Chicago where the number of vacant housing units have been decreasing. The other main areas are West Town, although I think the decrease has been greater in Bronzeville, and the University of Illinois area, although the U of I area has experienced very large decreases in total units in many census tracts so I don't think it should count.

There are some census tracts (CTs) where the population decreased, but even where it decreased significantly, it's not the same as say the worst parts of Englewood.

In the Inner South Side CTs, occupied units decreased by at most 10% or so from 2000 to 2010 compared to up to 25% in Englewood. Most of the Inner South Side saw major decreases in household sizes, while in Englewood not so much.

Meanwhile, in the worst parts of Englewood, the number of housing units decreased by around 10% and the increase in vacant units represented about another 10-20% of the housing stock.

This suggests that population decrease in Englewood is due to largely abandonment, and many abandoned homes are being demolished. Meanwhile in the Inner South Side, some areas are seeing population growth due to new development. Even in areas losing population, much is due to decreasing household sizes, and possibly also smaller housing units being combined into larger ones. I'm guessing if any units are being torn down, they were probably too late to save, and that occupied units aren't being abandoned. Total % of units that are vacant are still a little on the high side, but not too extreme and better than the really bad neighbourhoods of Chicago.

Now that we've established the area is improving, unlike most neighbourhoods that are improving, it doesn't seem to be tied to the white population increasing and minorities being pushed out. Although Whites are increasing, it's maybe like from 2% to 3% and not enough to have much of an effect. In much of the census tracts where population is increasing due to new development, most of the increase is from blacks.

So the area is improving, and it seems largely tied to the black population. Now the question is how much of that is existing black residents that are becoming successful and deciding to stay instead of moving to the burbs like in many other cities... and how much is middle class blacks moving in. Maybe someone more familiar with the area could tell?