Different Sprawl Patterns in the U.S. Cities

[M II A II R II K]

Different Sprawl Patterns in the U.S. Cities


Apr 25, 2010

Houshmand E. Masoumi



Read More: http://architecture.suite101.com/art...-the-us-cities

After The World War II, urban sprawl has been a major form of the development of the urban areas across the United States. But it is usually neglected that speed of urban sprawl in different American regions is various. Traditionally, Los Angeles is an icon in the mind of the Americans which represent huge sprawl and auto dependency. Although car use is an undeniable characteristic of L.A. but an interesting report conducted in 2001 showed that L.A. and generally western cities have better status compared to Northeastern and southern cities in case of sprawl. This research entitled “Who Sprawls Most? How Growth Patterns Differ across the U.S.” was done by William Fulton, and his colleagues Rolf Pendall, Mai Nguyen, and Alicia Harrison for the Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy.

The research shows that during the 15 years of 1982 to 1997, there has been higher level of sprawl in the Northeastern and Southern cities compared to the Western ones. The Western settled more population and consumed less land during the mentioned years in comparison with Northeast, South and Midwest. In general, in 1997, the highest metropolitan population density has been related to West region with 4.85 persons per urbanized acre. At the same year Northeast region had a population density of 4.51 persons per urbanized acre.

These conclusions are based on calculating the negative or positive growth of population of the urban areas on the one hand, and the negative or positive growth of land consumption on the other hand. If the rate of population growth is faster than the rate of the land consumption, it means there is “densifying”. If the speed of land urbanization is faster than the population growth, then we will have “sprawling”.

An example of the comparison of the West and Northeast regions are Los Angeles and New York. In 1982, L.A. had a population and population density of 12.1 millions and 8.09 persons per urbanized acre. While in the same year, New York had 17.5 millions and 9.44 respectively.

In 1997, the condition was some how different. In this year the population and population density were 15.8 millions and 8.31 persons for L.A. and 18.6 and 7.99 for New York. Therefore we can see that in 1997 the two cities were at a similar position but Los Angeles had found a better way to accommodate new residents through the 15 years time. In fact L.A. had settled 3.7 million new residents in 412000 acres of marginal land while New York accommodated 1.13 million people in 478000 acres.

[Crawford]

This article is silly. Sprawl is primarily based on geography.

Speaking broadly, western cities have more "things in the way."

Yes, there are other issues, like local politics and climate zones.

And the West doesn't really have semi-populated areas. It has urban areas and then nothing.

[ue]

It's no secret the Eastern American suburbs take up way more land than the Western (and Canadian suburbs [even Eastern it seems] too) cities suburbs. That is the main difference between the two. It is a major difference, but they both have their 2 car mega-garages, Walmart Supercenters, and Interstates ripping through them.

[mhays]

The study ends 13 years ago? Their basic point is valid, and important, but sheesh.

(My own city got aggressive about slowing sprawl in the 90s, so I am speaking in self-interest here to some degree.)

[LMich]

I'm not sure who suite101 is aimed at, because for most that follow urban issues, this is old news. A given, even.

[KB0679]

Mr. Masoumi, we already knew that LA has dense sprawl. Next.

[Buckeye Native 001]

We know Phoenix sprawls to high hell, but my family didn't have even half the backyard we had at our house in Ohio...They pack those cookie-cutter houses in tight.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by LMich

I'm not sure who suite101 is aimed at, because for most that follow urban issues, this is old news. A given, even.

It's also horribly written.

[SpawnOfVulcan]

I remember the flight back to Alabama from the BCS National Championship Game in January. It was quite interesting to see the different patterns below.

LA's sprawl looked completely different than those of Tuscaloosa and Birmingham. It was quite strange.

Of course, it all makes sense when you look at the terrain. From what I saw in LA, the way it looked was like a mountain then a flat area, then another mountain and another flat area. However, in Alabama it's pretty hilly all over the place, save for the central Tennessee Valley in North Alabama.

Oh how I hate Birmingham sprawl...

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

And the West doesn't really have semi-populated areas. It has urban areas and then nothing.

ding, ding, ding.

the most interesting aspect of western cities for someone from the east is that they just simply "stop" at some given arbitrary point and then there's nothing but desert or mountains or wilderness. it's very strange phenomenon. in the eastern half of the country, where everything is wet, our cities have no defined edges, density just simply keeps lowering from the central city all the way until you 100 miles out in the middle of some farm, and it's a consistent gradient the whole way down. eastern cities don't simply "stop", they taper off in the most gradual of ways making it difficult to draw hard edges and boundaries.

[llamaorama]

could the size and shape of available land parcels and the extent of rural highways also have an influence?

Some regions have the public land survey system, others don't.

[Thundertubs]

^^^ Exactly (@ Steely Dan). A lot of western suburbia was built by developers as large subdivisions. Eastern/Midwestern sprawl is often a more organic house-by-house case. The countryside is more populated here due to the farms, small towns, and less harsh nature of the landscape. Many eastern outer suburbs were old independent small towns that got absorbed.

An interesting difference between Eastern sprawl and Midwestern sprawl is that most Midwestern sprawl was built on former farmland, while back east places often went straight from forest to suburbia. My relatives from Illinois always commented at how lush and green New Jersey was when they visited.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Thundertubs

An interesting difference between Eastern sprawl and Midwestern sprawl is that most Midwestern sprawl was built on former farmland, while back east places often went straight from forest to suburbia. My relatives from Illinois always commented at how lush and green New Jersey was when they visited.

that might be true generally speaking, but new jersey being a former agricultural state, i have to imagine that there's a good deal of suburban jersey built on former farm fields as well. i mean it's not like new jersey was an unpopulated forest until 1900. the state was significantly geared towards agriculture for a long time before suburbia overran it in the 20th century.

also, not all midwest suburbia was built on former corn fields, check out chicago's north shore or detroit's gross pointe area for heavily forested suburbia in the midwest.

[HooverDam]

Originally Posted by Thundertubs

^^^ Exactly (@ Steely Dan). A lot of western suburbia was built by developers as large subdivisions. Eastern/Midwestern sprawl is often a more organic house-by-house case. The countryside is more populated here due to the farms, small towns, and less harsh nature of the landscape. Many eastern outer suburbs were old independent small towns that got absorbed.

Thats part of it, but a bigger thing that contributes to the type of Western sprawl is water. In the East and Midwest you can put a water tower any old place and likely pump plenty of groundwater and have a community. Whereas in the West in a place like Phoenix or Tucson the development haults where the water pipes stop. You don't see as much leapfrog development because they're not going to run pipes from the central source out past empty areas to a leapfrog area.

[Thundertubs]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

that might be true generally speaking, but new jersey being a former agricultural state, i have to imagine that there's a good deal of suburban jersey built on former farm fields as well. i mean it's not like new jersey was an unpopulated forest until 1900. the state was significantly geared towards agriculture for a long time before suburbia overran it in the 20th century.

also, not all midwest suburbia was built on former corn fields, check out chicago's north shore or detroit's gross pointe area for heavily forested suburbia in the midwest.

True, it is very generally speaking. You need to go pretty far out into central Jersey (out past New Brunswick) to get to former cornfield sprawl. The North Shore suburbs here in Chicago do remind me of New Jersey. I grew up in the older, forested suburbs in NJ, so my perspective might be skewed. When I see the endless, treeless tract housing out around Joliet and Elgin it strikes me as being very different from the suburbia back east. Both types of suburbs exist in both regions, but perhaps in different ratios.

[dave8721]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

ding, ding, ding.

the most interesting aspect of western cities for someone from the east is that they just simply "stop" at some given arbitrary point and then there's nothing but desert or mountains or wilderness. it's very strange phenomenon. in the eastern half of the country, where everything is wet, our cities have no defined edges, density just simply keeps lowering from the central city all the way until you 100 miles out in the middle of some farm, and it's a consistent gradient the whole way down. eastern cities don't simply "stop", they taper off in the most gradual of ways making it difficult to draw hard edges and boundaries.

South Florida is a pretty glaring exception as an Eastern city that has an absolute defined edge where it goes from ~10,000 people per square mile to nothing.

Miami's western suburbs so from dense, to farmland buffer outisde the UDB to the Everglades. No small towns or tapering off of densities whatsoever (and no room to grow in the future)
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sour...55525&t=h&z=13

[hudkina]

It just depends on how old the development is. Back in the 1920's-1950's a lot of suburban development looked as "barren" as the stuff you see now. The difference is that the trees that were planted in that era have since matured.

[Gordo]

Some of it in the west is related to water, but a lot of it also just that much more of the land out west was kept in federal government hands in one way or another - BLM, National Forest, National Parks, etc, etc. There would be all sorts of development in many parts of Idaho, Oregon, Washington, and Montana, if not for the land being protected in one way or another.

Even in California, it's crazy to see the difference in the amount of people living in some of the forested areas surrounding the Bay Area or Sacramento area (areas that were settled way back when) compared to the areas further north towards to the Oregon border or south towards Yosemite that have very similar forests, yet are protected by the state or feds in one way or another. Development just stops where the forest starts in those areas.

Back east, there are considerably fewer national forests or conservation areas, in spite of the area originally having even more forested area to begin with, simply because of when the areas were settled.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by hudkina

It just depends on how old the development is. Back in the 1920's-1950's a lot of suburban development looked as "barren" as the stuff you see now. The difference is that the trees that were planted in that era have since matured.

that's true in some places, but where i grew up in wilmette, IL, we had 150+ year old growth oaks and elms all over the place that were there long before anyone had any designs on building a suburb there.

[eternallyme]

One general thing I find: lot sizes are largest in communities built between the 1960s and late 1980s. Newer communities often (but not always) have somewhat greater densities - about 4 to 6 units per acre instead of 1 to 3 units.