Talk:Urban sprawl/Archive 1

message: The term “urban sprawl” is so widespread that Wikipedia needs an entry on it, so I am not in favour of calling it suburbanisation. Although the term is pejorative, it is possible to deal with it in a neutral manner, that is, without taking on the bias of the anti-sprawl literature. There is no pro-sprawl literature, because this term is simply not used. I am therefore worried about the dominance of New Urbanism and Postmodernism sources in this article, and think we should stick to scholarly articles (e.g. empirical) and government reports, which although biased, do show policy standpoints regarding this issue. An example is the 1970s report The Costs of Sprawl by the US government.
--Nicolo Machiavelli 07:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: May I suggest changing the article location to suburbanization? Goodralph 22:05, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Untitled 4

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

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

text: Without a citation it is not a helpful analysis, no.--Rotten 20:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: "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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  Voilà. Done. Fait accompli. Fini. Terminé. C'est tout. :-) ShadowDragon 22:23, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled 5

message: 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)
replies: text: Who said it's a problem?--Rotten 20:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Atlanta the lowest density large urban area 

message: 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)
replies: text: So it stretches all the way to the Nevada border, yet comprises fewer than 2,000 square miles, which is less than half the size of Los Angeles County?  How does that make any sense?  -Cheapestcostavoider 19:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're confusing metropolitan area with urbanized area. The U.S. Census defines metropolitan areas as including the counties within the influence area of the central city; in L.A.'s case there are huge counties surrounding it, one of which does touch Nevada and is 3/4 empty desert (San Bernardino County). However, the urbanized area is defined as solely that area surrounding the central city with population densities exceeding a certain threshold, independent of municipality or county boundaries. This area definitely does not go all the way to Nevada. One reason why urbanized L.A.'s overall density is higher than that of the urbanized area around N.Y.C. is that while L.A. started out at lower densities and gave birth to the freeway culture, it grew to eventually fill the Los Angeles Basin and now there is literally nowhere to go except across the mountains, so L.A. and the surrounding suburbs actually became more dense over time, the only metro area in the U.S. to do so AFAIK. In N.Y.C.'s case, while Manhattan is incredibly dense (having formed around pedestrian and horse traffic), there was plenty of land in Jersey, N.Y. State and Connecticut to sprawl into.24.174.145.108 23:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual Accuracy

message: Not that I disagree with the tone, but this seems that it could be viewed as an anti-development article and subject to dispute by those who favor development and lower densities... CrazyC83 04:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you point out some specific passages that you think demonstrate a POV problem  with the article?  I read through the article again, and personally I feel it is pretty balanced.  If there are issues to deal with, I'm not sure a POV notice at the top is the right way to go.  Thanks.  209.145.162.130 20:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV issues 

message: Doesn't by the census bureau's defintation of MSA by county line already result in a line of contingous MSA's from Boston, MA to Athens, GA? Joncnunn 20:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm not really, it still today pretty much still runs from Boston to Washington, or if you want to stretch it to Richmond. But this would not really show spraw, once has to note that these areas include whole and not part counties, and that in the larger metros the counties on the periffery are sitll largerly rural in character, espically the further from the urban core that you go. I mean you could connect it to Athens, GA but you would really be strecthcing it, and it woulnd not be to accruatre to say the "megalopolis" is from Bos to Ath. Also it's Office of Budget and Managmanet (OMB) who sets the metros, census uses the defs for the stastical proposes and to produce product like these maps (these are very large) Combined Statistical Areas of the United States and Puerto Rico November 2004 and http://www.census.gov/geo/www/maps/msa_maps2004/msa2004_previews_htm/cbsa_us_wall_1104.htm. --Boothy443 |  trácht ar 04:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One can make a case for a Boston-Atlanta Megalopolis currently in formation, but it's not quite there yet because of a large gap in VA-NC. It's pretty much agreed that Boston (actually, Portsmouth, NH) to the southern D.C. suburbs in northern Virginia along I-95 constitutes a megalopolis today. There's another one that is approaching megalopolis densities (but not quite, yet, since there's still some rural stretches of 30-40 miles in there) along I-85 between Raleigh-Durham, NC and Greenville, SC, where the majority of North Carolinians and a significant fraction of South Carolinians live. This stretch between cities is not quite urban but has lost its rural flavor, sort of like Carroll County, Maryland on a grand scale. Additionally, the gap between northern VA and Richmond-Petersburg is fast disappearing.  This leaves two large gaps - Greenville to the northeastern Atlanta suburbs, which is showing signs of buildup, and the 100-mile or so I-85 stretch between Durham, NC and Petersburg, VA, which is still very, very rural. Drive it someday and you'll see what I mean.24.174.145.108 23:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Perhaps the future is already here?

message: The entire "arguments for and against sprawl" section is repititive and disorganized.  Acceptable forms of organization of a two-sided argument:
1) List reasons a, b, c, d, etc... why concept is good.  List reasons a', b', c', d', etc... responding to them why concept is bad
2) List reason a reason concept is good, followed by its response.  List another reason concept is bad, followed by its response, etc....
We seem to have an illegitimate bastardization of both.Loodog 00:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was looking at this too.  I was thinking of organizing the section based on issues (eg. Crime, Transportation, Health, Environment, Economics, etc), with each having its own heading (some smaller issues might have to be combined under one heading).  Each section could list any positives and/or negatives about that issue.  The section would have to be significantly expanded for some of these issues. Locano 22:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments: Needs organization 

message: I take issue to this entire section and would like to do some massive rewriting:
*Calling it "One view of sprawl" makes it sound like one particular person's arbitrary opinion.  Why should I bother to read one person's "view of sprawl" over another?  I understand we want it to sound neutral, but this title is misleading.
*Even the good paragraphs in this section with sourced useful information really belong in the "characteristics" section, worded for neutrality, of course.  This is what's really bringing down the quality and readability of the article right now.
*"One property that many detractors ...housing subdivisions, shopping centers, office parks, civic institutions, and roadways. (Duany Plater-Zyberk 5)"---  This completely redundant since the physical separation of space is already mentioned as an (seemingly) undisputed characteristic of sprawl in the "Characteristics" section.
*We have a nearly completely unsourced paragraph with weasel words about how disoreinting the subdivision grid may be.
*The roadways section is completely unsourced and full of weasel words.
Additionally, I understand we want to make this thing as neutral as possible, but the entire concept was invented/discovered by social commentators as a reaction to trends people followed without thinking much about them.  Sprawl followed from free capitalism, rewards for WWII veterans, and self-interest.  The entire reason the concept made it into human thought and language was to disparage a trend social commentators saw as destructive.  We will, therefore, not find as much in support of sprawl.  Look at the McMansion and Faux chateau articles.  They acknowledge the bias of the term and present arguments for the bias.  There is no NPOV problem.Loodog 19:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "One view of sprawl" 

message: Someone should describe the sociological forces that drive sprawl in more detail. I believe initially they differed somewhat between the United States (I believe originally more race oriented) and Europe (I believe initially more economically and crime driven), though over the past decade have become more similar. I am by no means an expert, but of all the conversations I have had with suburbanites about their reasons for moving far away from urban centers most 
mention crime, high cost of living in the city, and finally lack of urban green space and pollution.
Also, it should be noted that in some cases particularly in Europe, sprawl has occured along
mass-transit routes often filling in the holes between old-world towns. In this case, commuters can easily live in the suburbs without a car. 
One more thing: Someone should also consider the role of local governments in creating the conditions which have lead to sprawl (especially in the United States). Lack of building
regulation and "mafia", for lack of a better word, between local governments and developers has been said to be a major contributing
factor to continued sprawl, especially in central US cities (i.e. Memphis). 
- 17:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, few people will come out and say, "we're moving because we hate and are scared of black people."  The extent to which people associate blacks with crime is certainly something that has been covered in social science literature and would probably belong in the white flight article.  Cheapestcostavoider 22:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Reasons for Sprawl" 

message: Atlantas urban sprawl is not the least densely populated, both Sydney and Melbourne, Australia have much lower population denstity
:Were you comparing core city densities or metropolitan areas?
:Also, there used to be a note in the article, which for reasons unknown isn't there now, that Atlanta's title for most-sprawling can be contested by the cities you just mentioned; the reason they aren't mentioned that the title of "most sprawling" urbanized area is dependent on the granularity used.Loodog 21:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you comparing the urban area densities of both cities, or comparing Atlanta's urban density with the average density of the Sydney and Melbourne metropolitan areas? - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 03:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, you're definitely wrong. From the Sydney article: "Sydney's urban area of 1,687 km²..." and from this article: " Atlanta, which covers 5,084 square kilometers...". Both urban areas have similar populations (Sydney a little bigger), so Atlanta is obviously far less dense. Don't forget the crucial difference between urban areas and metropolitan areas when making such comparisons. - ҉ Randwicked ҉
Just to reiterate:
city   	urban area 	population	density
Sydney 	1,687 sq km	3,455,110 	2048 per sq km
Atlanta	5,084 sq km	3,499,840 	688 per sq km
Area and pop figures taken from relevant wikipedia articles
It's plain that Atlanta is far less dense. Remember to compare urban area sizes and not metropolitan area sizes, which don't reflect the actual bounds of the built up area. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 05:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atlantas Urban Sprawl