25 Years of Urban Growth and Density Change in 66 Global Cities

[badrunner]

All of that isn't a part of the Portland Metro Area though. Salem is its own MSA. Actually the topo shading on that map does a good job showing just how little flat land there is in Western Oregon, particularly in the immediate vicinity of Portland.

[Capsule F]

Information presented like this is infuriating for several reasons:

"Rather, they represent the contiguous built-up urbanized area of each city’s respective metropolitan region."

"It’s important to note that this definition includes very low-density suburbs. It even includes some undeveloped or rural/agricultural land, if that rural land is surrounded by or within a certain distance of the actual urbanized built-up area."

Yes, sunbelt cities are more dense because they have a solid sheet of garbage development radiating out of their "center." For example:



Whereas developed cities which are purportedly less dense, achieve the same density via tight density clusters. For example:



Now you have to be out of your damn mind to want to celebrate "higher density" if it is presented in a solid sheet of garbage development. Its quite evident that northeastern cities are a victim of this trash metric, because they have compelling high density clusters surrounded by relative wilderness areas.

I strongly object to this trash methodology.

[AbortedWalrus]

It’s important to note that this definition includes very low-density suburbs. It even includes some undeveloped or rural/agricultural land, if that rural land is surrounded by or within a certain distance of the actual urbanized built-up area.

This part is highly problematic in the Northeast, because it's essentially small towns surrounded by rural or undeveloped land, and they are probably spread just enough to the extent to be included in density metrics but in reality are not reflective of actual density in northeast cities.

[Trae]

Originally Posted by 10023

But who cares about those NY suburbs? They’re what some people want. On the other hand, there is no part of LA where someone would choose to live without a car (i.e., not for financial reasons). There isn’t much of LA that is really walkable and urban parts (and I’m not sure these offer everything a person needs).

For sure not the entire city, specifically the San Fernando Valley, but you can definitely do this in many parts of the basin. A pretty active/reliable bus system combined with a more expansive rail network has made this much easier within the last few years. When I lived in Pasadena, I hardly ever drove into work in Koreatown. I walked a few blocks to the train stop and made one connection at Union Station in order to get to my job. It took about 45 min driving vs 52 minutes via rail, so I was okay with the extra time if it meant I wasn't the one fighting traffic. I had multiple stores for daily needs nearby to that I walked to.

Nowadays I just drive but that's only because I drive on one street to get to my job. I could take the bus very easily if I wanted to and keep my car parked. Now you might be saying "well that's not car free" but I could very easily do it.

A population density of 3,500/sq mi is quite low in absolute terms, and nothing to be excited about. One really has to see densities above 10,000/sq mi before an area really feels urban. Chicago is, on average over its entire ~230 square miles, almost 20% denser than this. A neighborhood doesn’t really become the sort of walkable environment that people here prefer until it tops 15,000/sq mi.

Maybe it's low when compared to the urban cores of some older cities, but overall it is definitely not low (by American standards), especially for suburbs. The DC urban area is less than 3,500, despite how dense DC is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...es_urban_areas

Quibbling over the difference between average metro area densities in the single-digit thousands is pointless. The only relevant data points for urbanites are 1) how much of the city has density above some truly urban threshold (which is probably at least 15k per square mile); and 2) how much of it is served by fixed infrastructure transit (commuter, heavy or light rail).

Also, rural lanes through wooded areas with the occasional house are vastly nicer than inland Western suburban tract housing. They are both equally suburban and auto-dependent, but at least one has something going for it.

I don't think they're equal. A winding rural road provides no chance at walkability, even if there is a sidewalk. At least on the west, there will be wide sidewalks that lead somewhere and it's set in a grid which only increases the chance of walkability in the future.

If you're talking about what looks nicer, it depends on what you like. Some like the wooded, closed in feeling of the NE suburban roads. Others don't mind the mountain backdrops/hills in the western suburbs. Besides, tract housing exists in the NE, but they are sometimes set back by yet another winding road that leads into the neighborhood.

The west has those rural roads too but they're mostly in the hills or mountains, not the flat lands.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by 10023

How?

New York is just bigger. And the dynamic in Eastern cities is different, because there are existing towns/villages amid protected rural farmland which have been that way for a hundred years, and then suddenly become considered part of “metro NYC”. But places like the North Fork and Montauk (which I wouldn’t consider metro NYC, but seem to be coloured in yellow on the map) aren’t sprawl ‘burbs. They’re towns surrounded by farmland, protected nature reserves and vineyards.

And there’s also a starting point bias (or some similar concept). Most of the densest cities in the developed world have become less dense because households have become smaller and people no longer cram a family of 5 into a 2-bedroom apartment, as everyone on SSP should understand. Metros like Houston will increase density because they were so sparsely populated before. But you wouldn’t want many NYC neighborhoods to be as dense as they were prior to WW2.

Same for those Chinese cities. They’re probably building some sprawl, but there’s also people moving out of overcrowded, substandard housing.

I was being flippant and we are talking from 1988 onward...not the Herbert Hoover era.

[Trae]

Originally Posted by Capsule F

Information presented like this is infuriating for several reasons:

"Rather, they represent the contiguous built-up urbanized area of each city’s respective metropolitan region."

"It’s important to note that this definition includes very low-density suburbs. It even includes some undeveloped or rural/agricultural land, if that rural land is surrounded by or within a certain distance of the actual urbanized built-up area."

Yes, sunbelt cities are more dense because they have a solid sheet of garbage development radiating out of their "center." For example:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/skyscraperp...ton_sprawl.png

Whereas developed cities which are purportedly less dense, achieve the same density via tight density clusters. For example:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/skyscraperp...hia_sprawl.png

Now you have to be out of your damn mind to want to celebrate "higher density" if it is presented in a solid sheet of garbage development. Its quite evident that northeastern cities are a victim of this trash metric, because they have compelling high density clusters surrounded by relative wilderness areas.

I strongly object to this trash methodology.

Actually the difference is one area has a very dense core versus more rural suburban areas, while the other may not have as dense of a core, but the density drops off gradually rather than abruptly.

Also keep in mind that it's 2018, so many of these suburbs are developing their own walkable areas now. You look at a map of Houston or Dallas or LA sprawl, and you will see a clear grid. This leads to better density in the future versus a similar spot in an older city:

Houston:


Dallas


LA


And these are now what the suburbs are doing. How is this that much different than the small high density cores you speak off in these satellite towns in the NE? The biggest difference is rail connection isn't there (yet) and that these suburban cores are surrounded by denser development:

The Woodlands (Houston):
https://goo.gl/maps/tH2z6uwScqF2

https://goo.gl/maps/S1aJ1XL2SHK2

Plano (Dallas):

https://goo.gl/maps/Fp4LVZzjr7s

https://goo.gl/maps/vG1J2WDMqau

It's not 2005 anymore.

[edale]

I much prefer the suburban density patterns of the midwest and east coast over those in many western cities. A relatively high population density number in a suburban area just means that your home has less yard and separation from your neighbors, which is kind of the point of the suburbs in general. Look at places like Irvine, CA. Tons of cookie-cutter homes in nearly identical gated communities, hemmed in by massive roads with 50 mph speed limits. My friend grew up in such a place, and I thought it was so strange that even in this very suburban landscape, you're basically living right on top of your neighbors, but you are also totally unable to walk to almost anything. I think that is the worst of both worlds.

I think the density of the suburbs also contributes to the often heard notion that LA isn't a 'real' city (which is BS, but I hear it often) because in many places, there isn't much noticeable difference between the development patterns of the burbs and the city neighborhoods. When city neighborhoods have generous setbacks and parkways, and the suburbs have relatively dense SFHs, it can be hard to distinguish between urban and suburban. This is more acutely felt in places like Vegas and Phoenix than LA, I think.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by 10023

But who cares about those NY suburbs? They’re what some people want. On the other hand, there is no part of LA where someone would choose to live without a car (i.e., not for financial reasons). There isn’t much of LA that is really walkable and urban parts (and I’m not sure these offer everything a person needs).

A population density of 3,500/sq mi is quite low in absolute terms, and nothing to be excited about. One really has to see densities above 10,000/sq mi before an area really feels urban. Chicago is, on average over its entire ~230 square miles, almost 20% denser than this. A neighborhood doesn’t really become the sort of walkable environment that people here prefer until it tops 15,000/sq mi.

Quibbling over the difference between average metro area densities in the single-digit thousands is pointless. The only relevant data points for urbanites are 1) how much of the city has density above some truly urban threshold (which is probably at least 15k per square mile); and 2) how much of it is served by fixed infrastructure transit (commuter, heavy or light rail).

Also, rural lanes through wooded areas with the occasional house are vastly nicer than inland Western suburban tract housing. They are both equally suburban and auto-dependent, but at least one has something going for it.

LA isn't 3,500/sq mile, where are you getting that from? It's over 8,000/sq mile now, and LA proper is lilkely much higher than that.

And LA is more walkable than you are saying. What year did you visit? 1975?

[Trae]

I think there is just less hodge-podge development in the west rather than the east because it won't really skip over vast developable lands in the west like in the east. It also depends on the city. What it sounds like to me is people who favor the East Coast way of developing do not care that their sprawl takes up more land or that these suburban cores are surrounded by exurb-like development just because the central city is denser. So it's okay because you move to the suburbs for more land? We should still try to conserve what space we have as much as possible.

How about, the east cost built cities better and the west does sprawl much better. In my opinion anyway. The only thing western sprawl is missing is more rail connection to the central cities but those are coming along.

[10023]

^ In short, high density without walkability is actually the worst of both worlds.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Originally Posted by badrunner

All of that isn't a part of the Portland Metro Area though. Salem is its own MSA. Actually the topo shading on that map does a good job showing just how little flat land there is in Western Oregon, particularly in the immediate vicinity of Portland.

You're missing the point. If you ever visit Western Oregon you will notice how abrupt the transition between the urbanized area and countryside is. That is a conscientious choice by Oregonians to save farmland, limit outward suburban sprawl and make development cheaper. The only really low density sprawl you see was developed before 1975.

The Willamette Valley is mostly quite flat with some hills and small mountains punctuating it. Until you get into the higher and steeper elevations of the Cascades or Coast Range there is a massive theoretical amount of land that could be developed.

[10023]

Originally Posted by LA21st

LA isn't 3,500/sq mile, where are you getting that from? It's over 8,000/sq mile now, and LA proper is lilkely much higher than that.

And LA is more walkable than you are saying. What year did you visit? 1975?

I was directly quoting Trae’s post, which said you could go 40 miles from DTLA and still have densities of 3500/sq mi. To which I say, so what?

Density of 2,000/sq mi is not urban. Density of 6,000/sq mi is also not urban. Even density of 8,000/sq mi really isn’t urban.

Of course there are urban parts of LA, like Koreatown which is something like 40,000/sq mi.

My point was that this repeated comparison of Western suburbs to Northeast suburbs is stupid and pointless. Neither is in urban in the least, and slightly more dense suburbia is not necessarily preferable. The question of density in urban environments is to some extent a binary one (is it a walkable urban neighborhood, or is it not?) rather than a continuum in which more density is better than less density.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by edale

I much prefer the suburban density patterns of the midwest and east coast over those in many western cities. A relatively high population density number in a suburban area just means that your home has less yard and separation from your neighbors, which is kind of the point of the suburbs in general. Look at places like Irvine, CA. Tons of cookie-cutter homes in nearly identical gated communities, hemmed in by massive roads with 50 mph speed limits . . . . This is more acutely felt in places like Vegas and Phoenix than LA, I think.

Does this:


https://www.hellorf.com/video/4595372/similar

really look the same as this:


https://www.123rf.com/photo_44588120...n-arizona.html

to you? It's Tucson, AZ by the way.

[10023]

^ Beyond the immediate foreground of that picture, yes. At least in terms of urbanity.

Whether the suburban homes are on quarter acre lots or acre lots, one still has to get in the car and drive to do anything. At least the more sparse development provides some recreational open space and privacy (and it’s prettier, at least in a part of the country with greenery).

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Trae

And these are now what the suburbs are doing. How is this that much different than the small high density cores you speak off in these satellite towns in the NE? The biggest difference is rail connection isn't there (yet) and that these suburban cores are surrounded by denser development:

No, the obvious difference is that NE Corridor suburbs were built in the prewar period, so not oriented around autos.

Plano or the Woodlands could never remotely approximate a railroad-era suburb. A mall without a roof isn't the same as a 19th-century main street.

[Vlajos]

Tuscon looks like Schaumburg, IL with mountains in the back and no vegetation.

[edale]

How about using pictures with the same level of zoom for starters? Also, let's try to compare like with like. Of course a neighborhood of single family homes is going to look more suburban than a photo of downtown. Don't be ridiculous.

Both of the below street scenes come from metro Phoenix. One is from the City of Phoenix, and one is from the suburbs. Can you tell which is which?

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.3380...7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5429...7i13312!8i6656


here are the same neighborhoods from roughly the same height aerial

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ph...4d-112.0740373

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ph...4d-112.0740373

Looks pretty damn similar to me.

[Trae]

Originally Posted by 10023

I was directly quoting Trae’s post, which said you could go 40 miles from DTLA and still have densities of 3500/sq mi. To which I say, so what?

Density of 2,000/sq mi is not urban. Density of 6,000/sq mi is also not urban. Even density of 8,000/sq mi really isn’t urban.

Of course there are urban parts of LA, like Koreatown which is something like 40,000/sq mi.

My point was that this repeated comparison of Western suburbs to Northeast suburbs is stupid and pointless. Neither is in urban in the least, and slightly more dense suburbia is not necessarily preferable. The question of density in urban environments is to some extent a binary one (is it a walkable urban neighborhood, or is it not?) rather than a continuum in which more density is better than less density.

Well this thread is about the urbanization of metro areas across the globe, not just the core cities.

Originally Posted by Crawford

No, the obvious difference is that NE Corridor suburbs were built in the prewar period, so not oriented around autos.

Plano or the Woodlands could never remotely approximate a railroad-era suburb. A mall without a roof isn't the same as a 19th-century main street.

They are getting denser every year. Of course, you didn't even click on the Plano link that shows exactly that (okay...20th century street). They may not have the historic feel but it'll serve the exact same purpose.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by Pavlov's Dog

If you ever visit Western Oregon you will notice how abrupt the transition between the urbanized area and countryside is

This is nothing new. It's a standard development pattern in the Western US.

Originally Posted by Pavlov's Dog

That is a conscientious choice by Oregonians to save farmland, limit outward suburban sprawl and make development cheaper.

But think about why there is even a need to conserve farmland in the first place. Would the same need exist in the midwest with endless expanses of flat land? It goes right back to geographic constraints. Flat land is at a premium in the Portland metro area, and I mean the actual Portland MSA, not all of Willamette valley, most of which is outside of commuting distance to Portland anyway.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by edale

Both of the below street scenes come from metro Phoenix. One is from the City of Phoenix, and one is from the suburbs. Can you tell which is which?

But why does it matter that a suburb within the city of Phoenix looks identical to a suburb in a neighboring city? We're not too concerned with arbitrary municipal borders here.