High density doesn't necessarily mean lack of sprawl

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by memph

I think Houston might arguably have the 5th most expansive street grid in North America. I would say the ranking is

1) New York (500-600 sq mi)
2) Chicago (~500 sq mi)
3) Los Angeles (400-500 sq mi)
4) Detroit (~350 sq mi)
5) Houston (~200 sq mi)

By "street grid", you mean simply pre-sprawl blocks, rather than windy lanes?

For NYC and LA you're massively underestimating the street grid coverage.

Take a look at Google maps. There's a consistent street grid all the way east to Babylon, Long Island, which is probably at least 50 miles from Manhattan. Take a train out that way, and you will never see "typical" North American suburban sprawl until past Babylon.

The North Shore of Long Island, which is very wealthy, tends to have a "country feel" soon after you live city limits (pretty much past Manhasset). The South Shore, generally more middle class, has an older, denser suburban form, and extends outward far from city limits.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by memph

I think Houston might arguably have the 5th most expansive street grid in North America. I would say the ranking is

1) New York (500-600 sq mi)
2) Chicago (~500 sq mi)
3) Los Angeles (400-500 sq mi
4) Detroit (~350 sq mi)
5) Houston (~200 sq mi)

Um.....la is way above 500 sq miles. La's grid goes from the north sfv all the way south to long beach. Thats 40 to 45 miles right there...

But la's grid also goes well into orange county. South santa ana.

60 to 70 miles (or more) from north to south.
From east to west it goes from woodland hills to...

Ontario?
San bernandino? 80 miles?

[memph]

Originally Posted by Crawford

By "street grid", you mean simply pre-sprawl blocks, rather than windy lanes?

For NYC and LA you're massively underestimating the street grid coverage.

Take a look at Google maps. There's a consistent street grid all the way east to Babylon, Long Island, which is probably at least 50 miles from Manhattan. Take a train out that way, and you will never see "typical" North American suburban sprawl until past Babylon.

The North Shore of Long Island, which is very wealthy, tends to have a "country feel" soon after you live city limits (pretty much past Manhasset). The South Shore, generally more middle class, has an older, denser suburban form, and extends outward far from city limits.

OK maybe 650 square miles.

As for LA, I would say a lot of the San Fernando valley is just pseudo grid, mostly just the eastern part is really on a grid. Same goes for the areas of OC connecting Santa Ana to LA county, and a lot of the areas between LA and San Bernardino. Pseudo-grid is still better than the dendritic street pattern but a lot of suburban Dallas and Houston is like that too (which I didn't include in their measurements).

Anyways, I was just giving rough ball park numbers of how big the street grids are in one city relative to the other. Toronto FYI would be only around 100 square miles for contiguous street grid but is more urban than Houston so there's a fair bit of potential for Houston (and many other Texan cities).

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by memph

OK maybe 650 square miles.

Long Island alone would have around 300 contiguous miles. NJ alone would probably have around 300-400 contiguous miles. The entire corridor along the Boston Post Road (but right along the road, only, not inland) is pre-suburban basically from NYC to New Haven.

And LA basically all the way south to Newport Beach and all the way east to Ontario.

In contrast, Houston leaves the grid pretty quickly, which makes sense, as the city wasn't particularly large in the pre-grid era. You're already off the traditional grid 6 miles or so from downtown.

[dave8721]

South Florida's grid never ends all the way up past West Palm Beach and never really ends at all as long as there is development all the way up the East coast. The numbering systems just change as you cross county lines.

[memph]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Long Island alone would have around 300 contiguous miles. NJ alone would probably have around 300-400 contiguous miles. The entire corridor along the Boston Post Road (but right along the road, only, not inland) is pre-suburban basically from NYC to New Haven.

And LA basically all the way south to Newport Beach and all the way east to Ontario.

In contrast, Houston leaves the grid pretty quickly, which makes sense, as the city wasn't particularly large in the pre-grid era. You're already off the traditional grid 6 miles or so from downtown.

I feel like Houston might have kept using the grid for longer than other cities. Or maybe it just platted out large swaths of land using the grid and built up the lots at a time when other cities had already stopped using the grid.

Also Houston was never dense. Basically, imagine two cities:

City A) Pre-1880 (pre-streetcar) it is built up at high densities of 60,000 ppsm with 8 million people (=125 square miles). Then from 1880 to 1920 it grows by 4 million people at 20,000 ppsm (=200 square miles). Then from 1920 to 1950 it grows by 2million at 10,000 ppsm (=200 square miles). Total is 525 square miles and 14 million people.

City B) Hardly any population pre-1880. By 1920 it has 500,000 people at 10,000 ppsm (= 50 sq miles) then grows by another 1 million at 5,000 ppsm (=200 sq miles) to the end of the grid era. Total is 250 square miles and 1.5 million people.

City A would be pretty similar to New York. City B would be pretty similar to Houston. I might have exaggerated the differences in density, but only slightly (measuring the areas again I'm getting 225 sq mi and 675 sq mi. I'm not including Northern Long Island, and I think there's too many gaps between New Rochelle and New Haven to include much (if any) of CT as contiguous. Not including the Meadowlands either.

The difference in weighted density is nothing new, it was already about 6 fold around 1950. Houston didn't have New York's density constrains, it had cheap oil, and probably less poverty. It was mostly built in the late grid era when densities were lower thanks to streetcars and automobiles (1910-1950/1960 or so). Houston might have already been less centralized then, although I'm not sure. But the lower densities and even more important, small size, meant that even the 1910-1960 era growth was less dense than in New York since you had less congestion.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by memph

I feel like Houston might have kept using the grid for longer than other cities. Or maybe it just platted out large swaths of land using the grid and built up the lots at a time when other cities had already stopped using the grid.

Also Houston was never dense. Basically, imagine two cities:

City A) Pre-1880 (pre-streetcar) it is built up at high densities of 60,000 ppsm with 8 million people (=125 square miles). Then from 1880 to 1920 it grows by 4 million people at 20,000 ppsm (=200 square miles). Then from 1920 to 1950 it grows by 2million at 10,000 ppsm (=200 square miles). Total is 525 square miles and 14 million people.

City B) Hardly any population pre-1880. By 1920 it has 500,000 people at 10,000 ppsm (= 50 sq miles) then grows by another 1 million at 5,000 ppsm (=200 sq miles) to the end of the grid era. Total is 250 square miles and 1.5 million people.

City A would be pretty similar to New York. City B would be pretty similar to Houston. I might have exaggerated the differences in density, but only slightly (measuring the areas again I'm getting 225 sq mi and 675 sq mi. I'm not including Northern Long Island, and I think there's too many gaps between New Rochelle and New Haven to include much (if any) of CT as contiguous. Not including the Meadowlands either.

The difference in weighted density is nothing new, it was already about 6 fold around 1950. Houston didn't have New York's density constrains, it had cheap oil, and probably less poverty. It was mostly built in the late grid era when densities were lower thanks to streetcars and automobiles (1910-1950/1960 or so). Houston might have already been less centralized then, although I'm not sure. But the lower densities and even more important, small size, meant that even the 1910-1960 era growth was less dense than in New York since you had less congestion.

I looked at houston's grid. If the west sfv or se la county is pesudo grid
I dont know what houston is 5 miles from downtown.

[LA21st]

There's a massive difference between la burbs and houston and dallas burbs. Take a close look at huntington beach grid, 35 miles se of la.
35 miles away.
Hell, it has a better street grid than most of dallas or houston.

[memph]

OK maybe 600 square miles for LA (includes about 3/4 of SFV, and up to Long Beach, Redondo Beach, El Monte) and 180 square miles for Houston.

But when I say pseudo grid, I mean roughly rectangular blocks that aren't as well connected. It doesn't have to be exactly rectangular, I still consider River Oaks (Houston) to be on a street grid. By pseudo grid I mean like Central Southwest Houston.

Considering LA has 2.5-3x the population, Houston's street grid is not that small, there's a lot that can be done with it. It's rather different from Atlanta where the street network is quite a bit more difficult to urbanize.

And with many of the pseudo-grid areas (at least in Houston) improving the connectivity is often relatively easy.

[Trae]

Originally Posted by atlantaguy

Fixed that for you.

So, are you saying that Atlanta has winding country roads?

Originally Posted by LA21st

I looked at houston's grid. If the west sfv or se la county is pesudo grid
I dont know what houston is 5 miles from downtown.

Downtown may be off the grid a little, but Houston's layout, especially west, northwest, and southwest, is a typical grid layout and the density has been really increasing in these areas. Take a lpok at Google Maps and check it out. North Dallas and the North Dallas suburbs are similar.

Now LA has a big grid itself, but let's not act like it doesn't break off in certain areas tew (I'm watching the Wire right now...that Balmur accent).

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by memph

OK maybe 600 square miles for LA (includes about 3/4 of SFV, and up to Long Beach, Redondo Beach, El Monte) and 180 square miles for Houston.

Using your definition, there probably aren't more than 50 square miles of such land in Houston, and I still think you're underestimating LA.

[LA21st]

Yup. I dont know how much of orange county isnt counted, and 200 sq miles of houston is.
It makes no sense.
I looked at both areas. Orange county has a better grid than most of houston and dallas.

[LA21st]

I love how la was laid out, in comparison to my former home of nova.

There's tons of potential to redevelop la's endless commercial corridors. City and the burbs.

[LA21st]

[QUOTE=LA21st;6708926]I love how la was laid out, in comparison to my former home of nova.

There's tons of potential to redevelop la's endless commercial corridors. City and the burbs.

[memph]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Using your definition, there probably aren't more than 50 square miles of such land in Houston, and I still think you're underestimating LA.

Note that Houston's 610 loop is 97 square miles. Even if you exclude the superblock industrial areas, Memorial Park and Astrodome area, you've got 76 square miles. There's very little of those 76 square miles I would exclude even using very strict criteria and there's still neighbourhoods outside 610 that are on a grid too.

Are you saying Pecan Park is not on a grid? Or West University Place? I'm pretty sure they have a better interconnected street network than Garden Grove.

[Nineties Flava]

Originally Posted by memph

Note that Houston's 610 loop is 97 square miles. Even if you exclude the superblock industrial areas, Memorial Park and Astrodome area, you've got 76 square miles. There's very little of those 76 square miles I would exclude even using very strict criteria and there's still neighbourhoods outside 610 that are on a grid too.

Are you saying Pecan Park is not on a grid? Or West University Place? I'm pretty sure they have a better interconnected street network than Garden Grove.

You'd have a very hard time arguing that more of Houston is on a grid than the Bay Area. Oakland and San Francisco alone cover 125 square miles and most of that is on a grid sans the Oakland Hills and the Mt. Davidson area of San Francisco. Even ignoring San Francisco, Oakland's grid extends all the way up to Richmond and down to Alameda and the Hayward/San Leandro border. With that section of the East Bay alone you're talking around 184 square miles (most of which is on a grid), never mind the rest of the Bay Area.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by memph

Note that Houston's 610 loop is 97 square miles. Even if you exclude the superblock industrial areas, Memorial Park and Astrodome area, you've got 76 square miles. There's very little of those 76 square miles I would exclude even using very strict criteria and there's still neighbourhoods outside 610 that are on a grid too.

I see a huge chunk of land within the 610 loop is that is obviously not on the grid. Try almost everything closer to the freeway itself. So, in SW, everything south of Bellaire Boulevard, but you see the same trends in most of the neighborhoods near the freeway.

[memph]

Southeast Houston, outside the 610 loop - average block size of 7.4 acres


One of the more gridded parts of the San Fernando Valley - average block size of 8.7 acres


Garden Grove - average block size of 14.9 acres


I would say the SE Houston and SFV neighbourhoods are roughly equally well gridded, but Garden Grove is less gridded, although still much better than suburban Atlanta or suburban Orlando.

Quite a bit of Houston is like SE Houston, at least 100 square miles, maybe even over 150 square miles.

[atlantaguy]

Originally Posted by Trae

So, are you saying that Atlanta has winding country roads?

Of course is does, as everyone knows.

However, you made this ridiculous claim: "Atlanta is not built in a grid at all and instead has winding country roads."

Downtown/Midtown and surrounding core areas are built on a grid that has existed since the founding of the City.

If you had ever actually been here, you would know this. Google maps are your friend, Trae.

[memph]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I see a huge chunk of land within the 610 loop is that is obviously not on the grid. Try almost everything closer to the freeway itself. So, in SW, everything south of Bellaire Boulevard, but you see the same trends in most of the neighborhoods near the freeway.

So according to you, the SE section of Bellaire is "obviously not" on a street grid, and neither is the area around Braes Blvd?

Keep in mind that I did say that I would consider areas like River Oaks, where the streets just have a gentle curve to them and still have essentially the same level of connectivity as perfectly straight streets to be "on a grid".

But even if you exclude areas like Braeswood Place, you still have 65-70 square miles, again, just within 610.