Talk:Urban sprawl

• Maybe a litle bit. But then again, urban sprawl is a loaded word anyway. Some more info on Portland would be a nice counterpoint. Burgundavia 06:19, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

May I suggest changing the article location to suburbanization? Goodralph 22:05, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Nevermind, I did something about the article myself. However we need more "pro-sprawl" links, for lack of a better word. I realize terms like sprawl and smart growth are rather loaded, but such is the context as it is used. I'd love to hear from somebody about this. Hope you enjoy the article. Best regards. Goodralph 22:39, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

The phrase "... a perception of lower crime rates..." seems to imply that people are misguided in thinking this. Are there any statistics that show how crime rates compare between inner city and suburban areas? Based on personal experience I would think crime is higher in inner city areas. Betelgeuse 14:26, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

I would like to see this as well. Best regards. Goodralph 21:25, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

I've changed that part a little bit. A metropolitan area's central city does usually have more crime but significantly fewer car-related fatalities than its suburbs. ShadowDragon 22:58, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Shadowdragon, you've changed it without the evidence requested. As much as I'd love to trust your word, I will enjoy the article much more if you provide such evidence. Goodralph 10:42, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It's based on a study I read about in Duany, Plater-Zyberk, and Speck's book Suburban Nation (ISBN 0865476063). Googling crime car city suburbs gives me this article [1], which seems to refer to the same study. That study was based on Seattle, Vancouver, and Portland. ShadowDragon 06:11, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"While development and urban growth is often a sign of economic strength and prosperity, environmentalists and an increasing number of urban planners deplore urban sprawl for several reasons."

This suggests that those "environmentalists and . . . urban planners" oppose development and urban growth. On the contrary, many support growth through denser development. Most New Urbanists/smart growthers look to Vancouver, which has grown significantly denser rather than introducing urban sprawl. Not only that, but it now has the second highest quality of life in the world. Are there any objections to changing that sentence to "Environmentalists and an increasing number of urban planners deplore urban sprawl for several reasons"? I'll slap up an NPOV until we have this resolved. ShadowDragon 06:42, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I wrote that line. I actually meant that "environmentalists and . . . urban planners" oppose LOW-DENSITY urban sprawl for several reasons. I think we are actually saying the same thing, but you may have a clearer way of saying so. Go for it. Goodralph 06:08, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Voilà. Done. Fait accompli. Fini. Terminé. C'est tout. :-) ShadowDragon 22:23, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This sentence needs fact checking: "In the United States, about 2.2 million acres (8,900 km²) of land is added to urban areas (yearly, each decade?)." All I can do, it made less sense before. "In the United States, about 2.2 million acres (8,900 km²) of land are added to urban areas."

Stats used in this article

I question the use of statistics obtained and altered by someone who clearly has an axe to grind with respect to topics on urban sprawl and smart growth. Wendell Cox, the author of the demographia.com website, is a well-known anti-rail and anti-transit urban planning critic. This article [2] or cached version [3] describes Cox's pro-road agenda and how he has been criticized of skewing data to support his findings and conclusions. Since he is able to post his "research" onto his website, without the benefit of a peer review process that would allow others to verify his data, people, such as unsuspecting editors of this article, will simply accept his data as accurate.

This article cites articles from demographia six times. While it would certainly be appropriate to have a section describing the "pro" side of urban sprawl (but I would definitely cite more scholarly work than the POV-ridden data provided by Cox), it is definitely not appropriate to use Cox's data in an encyclopedia article. Darkcore 22:44, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Be bold – make the changes that you think are appropriate and if anyone objects then we can discuss it. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:03, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I know I can "be bold" – I have been doing this for awhile now, thanks. Obviously I will edit the article as I see fit – once I get around to it – but I thought it was worth mentioning. Darkcore 05:26, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I put {{NPOV}} on the article, so hopefully others will want to verify and correct some of the fallacious data. Darkcore 05:48, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is Atlanta the lowest density large urban area

The current version of the article states "The lowest density large urbanized area in the world is Atlanta, which covers 1,963 square miles, with a population of 3,500,000 for a density of 1.783 people per square mile." Should be 1,783 people per square mile – I have corrected.

1999 Highway Statistics for all US urban areas give stats on population density and rates Houston as less dense than Atlanta. Houston had 2.409 million population over 1537 square miles or 1,567 people per square mile compared with Atlanta's population of 2.862 million over 1757 square miles or 1629 people per square mile at that time. I note that stats from demographia stated to be based on "corrected data released by the US Census Bureau 2002.08.25" for the year 2000 reconcile with the Atlanta figures quoted in the article and result in Houston having significantly higher density.

The revision to the article by Goodralph on 15 May 2004 at 22:32 mentioned the population of Atlanta of 3.8 million being spread across 701 square miles which would equate to 5420 people per square mile. Demographia updated the stats as per the link above.

I have not been to Atlanta or Houston. I had thought that Canberra, the capital of Australia, was very low density and is reported to have 13 people per hectare ACT Government population growth stats which equates to 3,367 people per square mile. Most people live on 1/4 acre blocks and there is a lot of green space – I wonder if the developed urban area is measured in a consistent way? --AYArktos 09:42, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Factual Accuracy

It says that, "But, Los Angeles has continued to build at much higher densities than other areas and is now more dense (as per 2000 US Census) than any other urbanized area in either the United States or Canada." (2nd paragraph at top). While Los Angeles is becoming more dense in the downtown area at a rapid pace as well as many other parts in order to solve a critical housing shortage, it is not at all the most dense in the US and Canada. New York City has a much higher density of people per square mile/kilo, and I can't speak for Chicago, but I strongly feel it does too. I didn't delete it though because I am not sure if it meant the city of Los Angeles or the metro area, which I then don't have stats for. Moreover, I feel there should be a source to verify such a claim. --Lan56 01:27, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC) Urbanized area usually means all 'urban' areas of enough density. City limits are ignored, so this would be talking about the urbanized area, not the metro and not the city either. The metro area goes to the Nevada border, but not all of it is urbanized.

• As a resident of Southern California I can say with factual knowledge that the LA metro area does not go to the Nevada border. The L.A. Metro area is comprised of Southern Los Angeles County, Ventura County, and Orange County. Northern L.A. County is geographically separated by a mountain range and is thus part of the Palmdale/Lancaster Urbanized Area. Western San Bernardino and Riverside Counties are part of the Riverside/San Bernardino/Ontario MSA, known locally as the Inland Empire. To the east of that is the Indio/Palm Springs Urbanized Area. South of the L.A. Metro is the Oceanside/Vista/Carlsbad Urbanized Area. South of that lies the San Diego MSA. There is no MSA or Urbanized Area in California that goes anywhere near the Nevada border. With all those things considered, New York City, San Francisco, and Chicago are all denser cities than Los Angeles, city or metro area. The Los Angeles metro however still encompasses a land area larger than the New York City metro. It all depends on perspective. If you include Philadelphia in the NYC equation, than you'd have to include San Diego into the LA equation which would leave you with the same result. Providence and Hartford are not considered part of the NYC metro. If you were to include them, you'd have to include Palmdale and Bakersfield into LA's. --71.108.65.62 21:30, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Office of Managment and Budget (OMB) has a pretty inaccurate system of deciding where a metropolitan area begins and ends. As you may know, the bureau starts with a Metropolitan Statistical Area, (MSA). Where these MSAs geographically adjoin, and the determination is made that they actually exist as a larger unit, several MSAs can be combined to create a Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA). The original MSAs are then known as Primary Metropolitcan Statistical Areas (PMSAs). The problem with this system is that the OMB only cuts off an MSA at a county line. While this works pretty well in the East, where counties are small enough that one can get a general idea of where the city "ends" and the countryside "begins", in the west, entire counties are either "in" or "out". Riverside and San Bernadino Counties are both in the Los Angeles CMSA, hence legally, the LA metro area stretches to Nevada, even though much of that land is nothing but desert. Even in the East, however, the OMB has made CMSAs significantly larger than many people would. For instance, Pike County, PA is included in the New York City CMSA, and Spotsylvania County, VA (as far as 70 miles south of DC) is included in the Washington, DC CMSA. Source: http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/metro-city/99mfips.txt

--Shawn Gremminger (New Wikipedia User)

Five Components of Sprawl Addition

I am an intern architect in Springfield, Mo. I added the Five Components of Sprawl portion, to add a detailed definition of urban sprawl. It is a small expert from a carfully researched research paper I did in Architecture School for a postmodern literature and film class. I understand that it is slightly more biased than not and would appreciate your edits. The basic idea comes from "Suburban Nation" by Duany Plater-Zyberk. See my blog where this was also posted, The New Urbanism Newsletter Blog

Housing Subdivision Edit

I deleted the quote from Suburban Nation “no wonder that so many people associate visiting suburbia with getting lost.” because of it is obviously a biased remark added for emotional effect. I also provided a proper atributive statment before the previous DPZ quote.