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

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

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.

Well, how about this one? The interactive maps use real-time data supplied by 8,028 official monitoring stations from 68 countries around the world to produce maps that reveal the pollution levels at any given time in cities across the globe.

http://aqicn.org/map/world/#@g/6.2932/7.7344/2z

[SlidellWx]

Decided to parse out the data in terms of density for contiguously developed urban areas with a population above 500K in the United States.

California is definitely the leader in terms of urban density for the US. Chicago just missed out on being in the top 10 at 3,400 ppsm.

1. Los Angeles, CA = 6,000 ppsm
2. San Francisco-San Jose, CA = 5,300 ppsm
3. Honolulu, HI = 4,700 ppsm
4. Las Vegas, NV & New York, NY = 4,500 ppsm (tie)
5. Miami, FL = 4,400 ppsm
6. San Diego, CA = 4,000 ppsm
7. Bakersfield, CA & Fresno, CA = 3,800 ppsm (tie)
8. Sacramento, CA = 3,700 ppsm
9. Denver, CO & New Orleans, LA = 3,600 ppsm (tie)
10. Portland, OR & Washington, DC = 3,500 ppsm (tie)

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by SlidellWx

Decided to parse out the data in terms of density for contiguously developed urban areas with a population above 500K in the United States.

California is definitely the leader in terms of urban density for the US. Chicago just missed out on being in the top 10 at 3,400 ppsm.

1. Los Angeles, CA = 6,000 ppsm
2. San Francisco-San Jose, CA = 5,300 ppsm
3. Honolulu, HI = 4,700 ppsm
4. Las Vegas, NV & New York, NY = 4,500 ppsm (tie)
5. Miami, FL = 4,400 ppsm
6. San Diego, CA = 4,000 ppsm
7. Bakersfield, CA & Fresno, CA = 3,800 ppsm (tie)
8. Sacramento, CA = 3,700 ppsm
9. Denver, CO & New Orleans, LA = 3,600 ppsm (tie)
10. Portland, OR & Washington, DC = 3,500 ppsm (tie)

I don't get New Orleans on this list. Orleans Parish (which is contiguous with the city of New Orleans) is the most densely populated component in the New Orleans metro, and it has 2,274 people per/sq mi. Jefferson Parish is next with 1,463 per/sq mi. Your figures for several other cities also seem off to me. What is your methodology?

Here is a link with interesting data about urban county populations and density in the US includes several different lists with data and a map. http://io9.gizmodo.com/half-of-the-u...urs-1258718775

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by austlar1

Well, how about this one? The interactive maps use real-time data supplied by 8,028 official monitoring stations from 68 countries around the world to produce maps that reveal the pollution levels at any given time in cities across the globe.

http://aqicn.org/map/world/#@g/6.2932/7.7344/2z

Interesting, thanks for the link

[Tuckerman]

Statements like "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." are problematic. First off, "Atlanta" is not a person - it can't care about anything. Second, as has been pointed out several times, the political city of "Atlanta" represents less than 8% of the metro population. The city of Atlanta does not have much "control" over sprawl. One could just as easily blame the sprawl on all those millions of non-Atlantans who migrated from the so-considered non sprawl cities in the North to the region surrounding the political city of Atlanta. As a 'northerner' who migrated to the Atlanta area in 1992, I can safely assert that the number of people that one encounters who are from Illinois, NY, NJ and other such areas far exceeds any Atlanta born persons. Do the math, do the demographics and realize that the Atlanta area is not a city as portrayed by many on this forum any more than Chicago is "southern" just because of the large migration historically to that area by Appalachians. The explanation for sprawl in the newer metros of the southern us such as Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Phoenix, LA, is not found in the original populations that lived there.

[mrsmartman]

Urban sprawl should be measured by the farthest milepost uptown from the center of the city.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by austlar1

I don't get New Orleans on this list. Orleans Parish (which is contiguous with the city of New Orleans) is the most densely populated component in the New Orleans metro, and it has 2,274 people per/sq mi. Jefferson Parish is next with 1,463 per/sq mi. Your figures for several other cities also seem off to me. What is your methodology?

I would imagine because it measures contiguously developed urban areas only. Huge portions of Orleans and Jefferson Parish are basically swamp and/or protected areas and wouldn't count in this figure. The urban area stops VERY abruptly based simply on where land has been drained and is appropriate for development. Given low population growth and environmental regulations I can't imagine too much new greenfield land opening up either.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by SlidellWx

Decided to parse out the data in terms of density for contiguously developed urban areas with a population above 500K in the United States.

California is definitely the leader in terms of urban density for the US. Chicago just missed out on being in the top 10 at 3,400 ppsm.

1. Los Angeles, CA = 6,000 ppsm
2. San Francisco-San Jose, CA = 5,300 ppsm
3. Honolulu, HI = 4,700 ppsm
4. Las Vegas, NV & New York, NY = 4,500 ppsm (tie)
5. Miami, FL = 4,400 ppsm
6. San Diego, CA = 4,000 ppsm
7. Bakersfield, CA & Fresno, CA = 3,800 ppsm (tie)
8. Sacramento, CA = 3,700 ppsm
9. Denver, CO & New Orleans, LA = 3,600 ppsm (tie)
10. Portland, OR & Washington, DC = 3,500 ppsm (tie)

By that measure Toronto urban area has 7,590 ppsm. Hamilton next door is 7,776 ppsm. What constitutes an urban area must be quite liberal in the US or Toronto's is quite limited. New York at 4,500 ppsm? It doesn't seem to be a useful measure for the purpose of your argument.


Toronto 2016

Urban area: 676.25 sq mi
Population: 5,132,794
Pop. density: 7,590 ppsm

Hamilton 2016

Urban area: 87.92 sq mi
Population: 683,645
Pop. density: 7,776 ppsm

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

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.

In the case of the Los Angeles area, the largest single air pollution source is the Port of Los Angeles, which shouldn't be too surprising, being that the combined LA/Long Beach ports are the busiest, or one of the busiest, in the US. A lot of the pollution at the port comes from the diesel emissions from the cargo ships and trucks. Some years ago, LA mandated that the cargo ships shut down their engines and plug into shore-based electricity while docked at the port to reduce emissions, but apparently there has been poor enforcement/compliance.

[PFloyd]

Originally Posted by isaidso

By that measure Toronto urban area has 7,590 ppsm. Hamilton next door is 7,776 ppsm. What constitutes an urban area must be quite liberal in the US or Toronto's is quite limited. New York at 4,500 ppsm? It doesn't seem to be a useful measure for the purpose of your argument.


Toronto 2016

Urban area: 676.25 sq mi
Population: 5,132,794
Pop. density: 7,590 ppsm

Hamilton 2016

Urban area: 87.92 sq mi
Population: 683,645
Pop. density: 7,776 ppsm

FYI, the Greater Toronto Area 2016 population is 6,418,000
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Toronto_Area

The Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area 2016 population is 7,166,000

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by PFloyd

FYI, the Greater Toronto Area 2016 population is 6,418,000
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Toronto_Area

I know. The conversation is pertaining to urban area so that's what I used. The Greater Toronto Area population you posted uses a far larger catchment area than the 'urban area'. It includes Oshawa, Pickering, Ajax, Burlington, and lots of lower density areas further out like Scugog and Caledon. The Toronto urban area does not include any of those places.

When you use CMAs, the Greater Toronto Area, or Greater Toronto - Hamilton you get a higher population count but a far lower population density.

[Reverberation]

It would be interesting to study which cities can densify the most easily. Forget zoning restrictions for a second. Some sprawlier cities can add units to existing lots and just re-plat. Others (California, post 2000 Texas, Florida, etc.) can't.

For example, in Georgia and the southeast, a typical sprawly neighborhood leaves enough space to add another SFH (with gardens) in front of and behind an existing one. Of course, in America, being the free and capitalist place that it is, this is highly illegal in most places.

[PFloyd]

Originally Posted by isaidso

I know. The conversation is pertaining to urban area so that's what I used. The Greater Toronto Area population you posted uses a far larger catchment area than the 'urban area'. It includes Oshawa, Pickering, Ajax, Burlington, and lots of lower density areas further out like Scugog and Caledon. The Toronto urban area does not include any of those places.

When you use CMAs, the Greater Toronto Area, or Greater Toronto - Hamilton you get a higher population count but a far lower population density.

I seriously doubt that the US cities numbers quoted above by others use your same criteria. As a matter of fact, Oshawa, Pickering, Ajax, Burlington (as you mentioned) are examples of the typical suburban sprawl that comprises most of the so called 'urban areas' of the the vast majority of US cities, and which are included when they put their numbers together. If we were to include only 'real urban area' very small portions of the typical American city would qualify, unless it is NYC proper.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by PFloyd

I seriously doubt that the US cities numbers quoted above by others use your same criteria. As a matter of fact, Oshawa, Pickering, Ajax, Burlington (as you mentioned) are examples of the typical suburban sprawl that comprises most of the so called 'urban areas' of the the vast majority of US cities, and which are included when they put their numbers together. If we were to include only 'real urban area' very small portions of the typical American city would qualify, unless it is NYC proper.

Almost certainly, hence why I said that urban areas must be far more expansive in the US.

[PFloyd]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Almost certainly, hence why I said that urban areas must be far more expansive in the US.

So then, for the sake of comparing apples to apples (and considering that they are not going to change their criteria to be in line with yours), shouldn't it be better to use the full GTA numbers without suburban exclusions?

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by Reverberation

It would be interesting to study which cities can densify the most easily. Forget zoning restrictions for a second. Some sprawlier cities can add units to existing lots and just re-plat. Others (California, post 2000 Texas, Florida, etc.) can't.

For example, in Georgia and the southeast, a typical sprawly neighborhood leaves enough space to add another SFH (with gardens) in front of and behind an existing one. Of course, in America, being the free and capitalist place that it is, this is highly illegal in most places.

You say Texas post 2000 can't, but Houston seems to be doing a good job.

For the most part though you're right, single family neighborhoods are untouchable pretty much everywhere.

[SlidellWx]

Originally Posted by austlar1

I don't get New Orleans on this list. Orleans Parish (which is contiguous with the city of New Orleans) is the most densely populated component in the New Orleans metro, and it has 2,274 people per/sq mi. Jefferson Parish is next with 1,463 per/sq mi. Your figures for several other cities also seem off to me. What is your methodology?

Here is a link with interesting data about urban county populations and density in the US includes several different lists with data and a map. http://io9.gizmodo.com/half-of-the-u...urs-1258718775

I pulled them directly from the OP's .pdf link. New Orleans has an continuously built out urban area population of ~980,000 people in 251 square miles resulting in 3,600 people/square mile according to the methodology used in the link. The population within the levee system is fairly dense throughout, with a higher density in the historic core of New Orleans proper. There is very little empty land left within the levee system.

[SlidellWx]

Originally Posted by isaidso

By that measure Toronto urban area has 7,590 ppsm. Hamilton next door is 7,776 ppsm. What constitutes an urban area must be quite liberal in the US or Toronto's is quite limited. New York at 4,500 ppsm? It doesn't seem to be a useful measure for the purpose of your argument.


Toronto 2016

Urban area: 676.25 sq mi
Population: 5,132,794
Pop. density: 7,590 ppsm

Hamilton 2016

Urban area: 87.92 sq mi
Population: 683,645
Pop. density: 7,776 ppsm

According to the .pdf file linked to by the OP, the Toronto Urban Area includes both Hamilton and Oshawa. Population of ~6,530,000 over 888 square miles results in a population density of ~7,200 ppsm. Not too far off of those statistics.

I have in-laws in Oakville, and the overall density of the built out portions of the GTA always looks fairly uniform to me.

[softee]

Originally Posted by SlidellWx

According to the .pdf file linked to by the OP, the Toronto Urban Area includes both Hamilton and Oshawa. Population of ~6,530,000 over 888 square miles results in a population density of ~7,200 ppsm. Not too far off of those statistics.

I have in-laws in Oakville, and the overall density of the built out portions of the GTA always looks fairly uniform to me.

Correct. Since Toronto, Hamilton and Oshawa are all separate CMAs, Statcan counts their urban areas separately from one another even thought they have long since grown into each other and formed one contiguous urban area.

Demographia has rightly combined them into a single urban area.

[SLO]

Wow, the cities surrounded by mountains have the worst air pollution! Shocking!