Originally Posted by Tom Servo
Just read this whole Exxon Campus sprawl debate... interesting opinions by some to say the least.
You know, what I find interesting about Houston's growth, is that they're doing much of it by expanding the city itself, rather than growth from within. Although a lot of inner city development is trending, the outward growth still seems to be fairly prevalent. Nonetheless, the population numbers are a bit deceptive. I personally think it'd be funny if Houston were to surpass Chicago in population as it would help bolster the bigger =/= better argument concerning city growth and sprawl. (not meant as an insult; related more to the debate we had in the city discussion sub-forum a few months ago)
Anyway, it got me thinking about city, metro, and CSA population numbers. Here's some food for thought:
Chicago has a population just under 3 million
in 234.0 sq mi
Chicago's city and suburbs (Chicago, Aurora, Elgin, Joliet, and Waukegan) has ~8 million
in about 2,000 sq mi
If you include NW Indiana, you get a little over 8.5 million in about 2,400 sq mi
And if you expand that even more, you pick up another couple million... in the entire tri-state area (exburbs), you get a population of just under 10 million in about 10,000 sq mi
By contrast, Houston has a population of ~2 million
in 627.8 sq mi
Houston's city and suburbs (Houston, The Woodlands, and Sugar Land) has a population of just under 5 million
in about 1,600 sq mi
And then the entire metro area of Houston has a population a little over 6 million in about 10,000 sq mi
And then other big metro areas (each of comparable density to either city)
Dallas and suburbs is ~5 million in about 1,700 sq mi
Dallas "metroplex" is ~6.5 million in about 9,000 sq mi
Washington DC and suburbs is ~4.5 million in about 1,300 sq mi
Washington DC metro is ~9 million in about 8,000 sq mi
So I guess my point is... all big cities (after NYC and the never-ending-giant of LA) tend to have very comparable sprawling metro areas with very comparable populations beyond their city limits. But what sets the Sun Belt cities apart from the industrial northern cities is their lack of dense urban cores. As is evident in looking at city limits versus their populations; the Sun Belt cities have very big city limits. Nonetheless, the sprawl is still about the same in terms of square miles. I personally wouldn't take much issue with the Exxon campus. I realize many of you fear this will promote even more sprawl outward, but I think it might allow for city planners to more aggressively pursue commuter rail options.
I think what's more important is that Houston focus on small scale urban development in the city's core. That's the only way to combat sprawl: make the inner more desirable.
An outsider's opinion, for sure. And I realize every city's development patters are different, especially when comparing the denser urban cities with the auto-centric Sun Belt cities. Nonetheless, I feel like the criticism I've read about sprawl problems should be understood within the context of the greater sprawl problem facing all American cities. And in my opinion, the development of housing and retail in the inner city is key. Jobs can really be located anywhere; like I said, maybe this spurs more aggressive pursuit of commuter rail, something that Houston would benefit from greatly.
|
Prev
Linear Mode
