Talk:Urban sprawl/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

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)

Untitled2

I see in the Bibliography of works cited, the following refernce Baudrillard, Jean, Simulacra and Simulation, 1983 Yet I can find no reference to it in the text of the article. Perhaps it was removed in subsequest edits. Can this cite be removed? --Euthydemos June 29, 2005 16:43 (UTC)

Untitled 3

• 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)

Untitled 4

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)

Untitled 5

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)

Per-capita crime rates in the city and the suburbs remain the same. But because the population density of the suburbs is less, there are fewer acts of crime per square mile than in the city. Suburbanites believe that it is safer in the suburbs because there is "less crime," however, they are just as likely to be victimized in the suburbs as in the center. Is this a helpful analysis? --Defenestrate 17:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

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

Untiltled 6

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)

The Australian City of Brisbane seems to have even lower population density. The article states 379.8 people per km², which is less than the 600 odd stated for Atlanta in this article. That said, the Brisbane City boundary contains within it a large forested area. I don't know whether it is excluded when calculating pop density, but I suspect not. That said, when I was studying planning at uni, we were often told that Brisbane has one of the lowest pop densities in the world. I can't dig up any stats just at the moment, but thought this was worth contributing. -- Adz|talk 09:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I've dug up the statistics for Brisvegas. The density of the Brisbane statistical division (a census division corresponding roughly to the metropolitan area) gives an amazingly low number of 353.8 people per square kilometres. However, the division tends to be cobbled together from the respective local government areas, regardless of their urbanization or lack of. For example, it includes sparsely populated Moreton Island.

A fairly fined grained result is found in the Brisbane Social Atlas, with 930 people per square kilometre. The higher result is due to the ABS limiting themselves to urban and suburban areas.

This should be mentioned. Sprawl isn't just an American problem.

--Tphcm 04:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Who said it's a problem?--Rotten 20:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The lowest density of any metropolitan area in the US is Hickory, NC. Fully half of the 25 lowest density metros in the country are in NC, SC, and GA. Also, sprawl is not a problem, in fact it is a false construct, contrary to history.--Stolypin

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)

I took issue with the "LA is most dense" argument as well. I've seen arguments for this, and it just doesn't make sense. Of course, when an area like Southern California is highly sought after, it will become denser logically. But, no, New York, San Francisco, Chicago, Portland, etc. are all more dense. If common sense doesn't prevail, look to public/mass transit ridership. Higher densities are a necessity for these services, and LA is obviously not as accessable without a car than any of the other cities mentioned. (Once again, due in part to increased densities, I have seen articles that mass transit is improving in SoCal as well.)

I can't speak to the Houston/Atlanta thing, as I've been to Texas only as a boy, but I can say I've seen tons of articles on urban Texas and its notorious low density. Atlanta I've heard the same.

Also, when you guys talk about MSAs and stuff, I'd like to hear more about Neilsen TV ratings and its role in determining these boundaries and other ways this information is gathered.

By the way, I work for the City of Chicago (for the O'Hare Modernization Program) and have worked in other city governments, and also in the demographic marketing section of a national chain store.

-Tim jjmtim@yahoo.com

2005.12.20

I note that some had doubted whether the Los Angeles urbanized area is the most densely populated in the United States. This is a matter that needn’t be left to doubt. The term “urbanized area” was used for the first time by the US Census Bureau for its definition of continuously built up urbanization in the 1950 Census. The data is readily available from the Census Bureau, so needn’t be doubted at all. In fact the 2000 census puts LA at 7068 per square mile, a full 900 above second place SF and 1700 above New York. This may seem unbelievable to those who have never visited the suburbs or who dislike them. But it is true nonetheless. For any doubting these facts, I suggest a visit to the US Census Bureau’s American Factfinder site. You can also look at a tabulation on our website at http://www.demographia.com/db-ua2000pop.htm. You will find only one difference… San Francisco, where our data reflects a revision made after the original Census release that is not yet reflected on the American Factfinder site.

To reiterate… here is the situation

1. “urbanized area” is a very specific term used by the Census Bureau. 2. In the United States, there is one definitive source for urbanized area data --- the census Bureau 3. The data we have supplied is the urbanized area data from the Census Bureau. 4. There is therefore no doubting to be done. 5. Any not happy with the Census Bureau’s definition or data might express their views to them at pop@census.gov. 6. In the meantime, doubting and questioning on this matter merely betrays an intense unfamiliarity with the data.

Someone further took the population density data I had supplied for Portland (in square miles) and multiplied rather than divided by the factor to convert to a metric measure (per square mile) and managed to come up with a density 6.5 times reality. I have correct that error.

Someone else had somehow doubted my3,500,000 figure for Atlanta and substituted it with a 4,500,00 figure (probably mixing it up with a metropolitan area, a tendancy clear from other changes that were made that reflected a failure to understand the very considerable difference). In fact the 2000 urbanized population of Atlanta was 3,499,840, which I rounded to 3,500,000.

As for the view that the Los Angeles metropolitan area does not stretch to Nevada --- wrong. The Los Angeles CMSA (former title) now CA (consolidated area) extends all the way to Nevada and Arizona, by virtue of the fact that metro areas are delineated outside New England by county. One poster rightly notes that this makes no sense, but the Census Bureau did not take the opportunity to use the appropriate unit of measure (census tract or block) for building up metro areas. Thus, again, what one may feel while crossing the San Gabriel Mountains says nothing about the reality of what the Census Bureau, the only authority on US metropolitan areas, says.

I can be reached at Demographia@gmail.com

Wendell Cox Principal, Wendell Cox Consultancy Visiting Professor, Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers, Paris

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)

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)

Los Angeles is the most dense urban area in the country. This is not disputable. It is back up by the statistics. Beside, look at the Google satalite photos of LA. A blind man could see the density in a minute. There are hardly any undeveloped parcels for miles (unlike New York, where miles of undeveloped swampland exist a fews miles from Times Square.) Most of the urban areas with the highest densities exist in the west where water is scarce and higher densities are needed for water distribution. Even the great "sprawlers" Las Vegas, Phoenix, and Salt Lake City have higher densities than most cities in the east. Almost all of the lowest density urban areas in the US are found in the Southeast where ground water is plentiful and the soil is most suitible of septic tanks, freeing development from the need to be tied to expensive water and sewer lines. In the south, urban development can go literally anyway.

The confusion comes from the difference between a city (defined by municipal boundaries) and metropolitan area (defined by county boundaries), both of which are completely arbitrary and useless, as opposed to urbanized area (defined as contiguous parcels of land with a density higher than 1000 people per square mile), which is the only practical definition of an urban area. In fact, using the benchmark of 1000 people per square mile has ties to water/sewer lines as well, as it is cost prohibitive to build a water or sewer line in an area with a density lower than 1000 people per square mile. Check out this website I found interesting, it contains same-scale maps of every US urban area with a population of over 1 million with the urbanized area shaded grey and highway/transit lines drawn visible. http://www.beyonddc.com/features/compare.html --stolypin 21 August 2006

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 exerpt 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.

I think this article is better than ever. Thank you everyone for providing just the right edits to hone the "Five Components of Sprawl" article to perfection. It needs a little more work, I noticed some redundent words and poor sentence structure.

POV issues

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)

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) (this was me, somehow I got logged out and it posted anonymously) TMS63112 20:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

This article has some major POV issues. The majority of the article was focused on the environement as if the end-all of human existenance is to protect the environment, and thus the over-arching tone of the article is that development is inherently evil. I felt like I was reading the ranting of a environmentalist's blog as opposed to a balanced encycolpedia article. Blanket Statements without source materials such as the one about economic sustainability only worsen the POV problems. Chrisbaird.ma 18:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I also think there are some major POV issues. The article seems overwhelmingly slanted against urban sprawl. Take statements such as these in housing developments: “Subdivisions often incorporate curved roads and cul-de-sacs, which some find inherently disorienting.” and “Some complaints about subdivisions is that suburban homes are often identical in design, color, and materials; sometimes even indistinguishable within a development.” Such statements are subjective and there is no balance; the article only focuses on the complaints. Many people may like the curved roads (called curvilinear) and cul-de-sacs. Overall it seems there is a focus on the negative without offering the countering positive viewpoints. -matt 20-3-06

There is nothing positive about urban sprawl. It destroys habitat and disrupts rural lifestyles. 68.69.194.125 19:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Urban Sprawl as a Term

I think a lot of the problem here is that the term urban sprawl is almost universally used by those who oppose it. It's like the term death tax vs. estate tax. However, it does deserve its own page because the implications and issues surrounding urban sprawl are different than those involving urban expansion in general..

White Flight?

The author of the section mentioning "white flight" is correct about Western Europe and the US, but how did a homogenous asian nation such as Japan experience white flight? I think this should be explained, or replaced with a more accurate term. [unknown user]

Perhaps changing all "White Flight" references in this article to "Middle Class Flight" would fix that issue. Joncnunn 20:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that being a good idea, "White Flight" is not the same as "Middle Class Flight", while the initial concept behind them are basically the same, in Europe and North America, or at least in the united states, it was not only a class issue but was clearly a race issue as well, as in the case of the US is is by far predominantly white middle and upper-classes that moved out of the cities, with an extremely low number of other races (blacks especially) moving to the suburbs, as they were practically locked out sue to "redlining".

White Flight is quite different from Middle Class Flight. Detroit, MI used to have a fairly varied mix of ethnicities, but then experienced a period of White Flight which made Detroit the city largest percentage of African Americans. See "Demographics" section of Detroit article for more info. Perhaps it would be best to distinguish Japan from that section in the article. Locano 22:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The difference between "white flight" and "middle-class flight" is that middle-class flight is real (though far too simplistic), while white flight is a false premise. People move to the suburbs when they achieve the required level of affluence to afford the privacy, mobility, and choice that suburbs provide. When the term "white flight" was coined, the majority of people with that required level of affluence were white. This is no longer the case. Many cities, particularly in the South, have extremely large numbers of minorities living in the suburbs, by choice of course. It is not uncommon to see wealthy African Americans to choose to live in suburban subdivisions where whites are in the minority, a sort of self-segregating by hundreds of individual choices. Middle-class flight is not particularly accurate either as working-class and industrial suburbs have been the norm since the start of the Industrial Revolution. Today, many suburbs are home to low-income residents, and even housing projects. Stolypin 11:15, 21 August 2006

"White flight" isn't exactly a false premise... while certainly some of the movement to the suburbs was merely the result of rising living standards, a substantial amount, especially in cities like Detroit, was the result of a reaction to changing demographics. That being said, I think the negative connotations associated with the word outweigh any value it brings to the discourse. I don't see how anyone who has driven through East Detroit could fault those people who decided to leave after the city's economic base collapsed, especially after the riots. The arguments are usually disingenuous anyway. Many of the people who decry white flight are the first to complain about gentrification and minorities being priced out of the housing markets by whites returning to the city. autolykos2 10:37, 26 September 2006

Perhaps the future is already here?

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)

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)

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)

Arguments: Needs organization

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)

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)

"One view of sprawl"

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)

"Reasons for Sprawl"

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)

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)

Your comment about the "mafia" between developers and local governments is well-known in urban studies. It was originally identified in the 1970s with the term "growth machine" and has since been described as a kind of "urban regime" (Source Logan and Molotch, Urban Fortunes).--Nicolo Machiavelli 21:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Historical Perspective

In 1968, noted sociologist Herber J. Gans asserted, "Nothing can be predicted quite so easily as the continued proliferation of suburbia." Seventeen years later, however, Kenneth Jackson ventured that "the long process of suburbanization ... will slow over the next two decades." Has it? Kennth T. Jackson's "Grabgrass Frontier" appeared in 1985. In retrospect, Jackson seems to have been remarkably prescient about many future developments. One questionable suppostion, however, was his sense that energy issues might diminish continuing suburbanization. Jackson had experienced the serious oil crisis of the 1970s. That deterred suburban development very little, if at all. We should be cautious today in supposing that energy costs will restrain consumer preference for suburban life. Very possibly suburbanites will absorb increased price of fuel as a "cost of doing business." More likely this acceptance will result in general inflation, so that the ultimate cost will be diffused, born not merely by the users of fuel, but shared by all consumers.

Robert Bruegmann's "Sprawl" appeared in 2005, twenty years after Jackson's work. It marked conclusion of the "two decades" foreseen by Jackson in his prediction. Bruegmann's views have been unwelcome to many opponents of "sprawl." Although his work is primarily history, presenting considerable evidence, the argument contra opponents of "sprawl" seems revisionist. Yes, Bruegmann recognized a modest counter trend to "return to the city," but also recognized that this movment largely represent segments of society. New Urbanites are largely "swinging singles" and "empty nesters." Few families choose the city over the country (or the suburbs, which provide some benefits of both).

Perhaps Bruegmann's ideological stance is best conveyed by his proposition that "the question is really at what level and through what means should planning and decision making take place. Should this be intensely local, at the level of the family or municipality or country, or should these decisions be pushed upward to a region or a state or an entire country. Is it best done by governmental regulation or do market forces peovide a more flexible and beter informed process of decision making?"

This comes down to a "bottom up" versus a "top down" view of collective policy. Approach may vary depending upon culture of different societies. Some favor more paternal state initiative, utilizing the police power to enforce regulation. Other societies however value personal determination more highly, being less willing to yeild individual choice. Regarding choice of where to live, these people will "vote with their feet." Or, with thier pocket books, accepting increasing energy and environmental costs in order to live in sprawling suburubs.

Paul Malo June 23, 2006

Atlantas Urban Sprawl

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)

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)

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)