http://www.startbilder.de/einzelbild.php?id=268264&quality=100&identifier=3407203c1d
http://www.startbilder.de/einzelbild.php?id=268265&quality=100&identifier=65b40fe0d4

wow - thats depressing as hell. fascinating though - thanks man.

sprawl is the scourge of the nation.

:eek2: :eek2: :eek2: :eek2: :eek2:
OMFG! I don't know whether to be afraid or amazed by it.
Does anyone have a graph of the whole Megapolis in 2020? From Boston to Washington, DC or Norfolk, I don't know exactly where it ends.

holy cow! the spraw's goin crazy, especially in jersy! that means by 2020 the nyc metro's definitely gonna be connected with the philly metro... by then there's gonna be like no rural spaces between new brunswick and trenton, and long island and jersey population might as well explode.

overwhelming...

3tmk, the megalopolis pretty much starts at manchester, NH to the virginia section of washington dc metro. i don't have a graph for it. but im sure it'll be just as mindblowing as this.

Im sad.

I thought that almost all land in New Jersey is taken... that it is "built-out".... so how could the urban area possibly expand that much more?

Heck- that's some serious sprawl!

:eek2: :eek2: :eek2: :eek2: :eek2:
OMFG! I don't know whether to be afraid or amazed by it.
Does anyone have a graph of the whole Megapolis in 2020? From Boston to Washington, DC or Norfolk, I don't know exactly where it ends.

Now that would be a sight to be seen. Anyone think smaller cities around NYC would eventually fall under it's technical borders? (i.e. Yonkers, White Plains, parts of LI).

My friend who used to work with me here always had this fantasy of NYC, Philly, Baltimore, Boston...all linking up one day and making this Mega City. :runaway:

Holy shit at this rate by 2050 Albany + Troy will be a part of NYC metro. Then we can't make fun of New Yorkers for their accents anymore... ;)

My god is there any space at all on Long Island?
How the hell are people gonna commute to NYC with all these people?
Why is it going to all be sprawl?
How many more millions are going to live there?

@Dash2110- well, you would think that it would have been done already, but when was the last time NYC's borders changed? Anyways, who knows? This is 16 years down the road, anything can happen by then! :cheers:

So NY gets bigger?

So NY gets bigger?

Technically, probably not. But to me, it seems like what's considered the "Metropolitan Area" for the city keeps going further and further upstate every year!

it 's theoritical. That means if everything continu to grow like it does now.

bloody hell that's huge sprawl

Is this an official investigation, damn. NYC will be huge.

Solution: MORE SCRAPERS IN MANHATTAN!

Is this an official investigation, damn. NYC will be huge.

Solution: MORE SCRAPERS IN MANHATTAN!

Well said.

And add a new set of 110-floor Twin Towers to the borough, plus as many as 100 other 75+ floor towers (with as many as 110 million sq. ft of office space total) to all parts of Manhattan. Plus a dozen 70-floor apartment buildings each to downtown Brooklyn and Jersey City. New York Metro needs to become more like Hong Kong (you know what I mean) if it wants to keep its competitive edge.

^ Exactly. But will that ever happen? God only knows...

A lot of forests are going to die.

A couple of developers are going to get rich.

Thousands of people will live in an overpaved overdeveloped nightmare with three hour commutes each way every day to work.

:eek2: :eek2: :eek2: :eek2: :eek2:
OMFG! I don't know whether to be afraid or amazed by it.
Does anyone have a graph of the whole Megapolis in 2020? From Boston to Washington, DC or Norfolk, I don't know exactly where it ends.

A lot of people count that entire part of the continent, Boston, South to Washington, New York in the East, Detroit in the West, even most of Southern Ontario, as a hugh Megalopolis, because really, it is one big city, with some natural forest left inside it. New York's skyline is really too long and full of bricks, and older buildings. Thinking about how much bigger it will get, Freedom tower will be a nice change for them. (no matter how it turns out, it wont be the best building in New York) I think New York should consider building up. So far, the top ten buildings of chicago have more height than the top ten buildings of New York. Though that will change in a few years. New York just doesn't really have much of an impressive skyline right now. There is no real height, because like Vancouver, all the buildings are about the same height. It needs more height.

Hasn't Jersey in recent years enacted serious anti-sprawl legistlation that will force growth into existing urban areas?

:eek2: :eek2: :eek2:

Are there any efforts (funding programms) to reduce the city sizes in the USA again?
I think it's not only an ecological but also an economic "disaster". Anyway not healthy.

What The Hell Happened To Prospect Park???? I Am Against Building On Current Parkland No Way, Screw That.

That map graphic is misleading. The red "key" reads red as "pavement." There's no way in hell pavement is the whole east coast of Jersey, going into the state 20 miles. Also, Long Island is not paved throughtout the whole damn island! This map is ridiculous. My guess is that the map either gives off "heat" readings or is so far "out" that the red dots become blurred and obscure the large amount of land between everything else.

I'm not doubting the out of control sprawl, I'm just stating that the map on this thread group is a bit out of whack.

What The Hell Happened To Prospect Park???? I Am Against Building On Current Parkland No Way, Screw That.

I think in the map they are including parkland as "Paved Land". but who knows with the way Brooklyn is growing, they might have to build over it to accomodate all these people moving over here.

Anyone ever heard of the term BosNyWash? It stands for the megapolis stretching from DC to Boston and has been made like 10 years ago or earlier. Face it, when yo drive through that area you always see some developments, even if its justy industrial or spaced out houses.

Just a few months ago, New jersey passed the "highlands preservation act". This law basically prevents any further large scale devlopment in northwestern NJ.

"The New Jersey Highlands is a 1,000 square mile area in the Northwest part of the State, stretching from Phillipsburg in the Southwest to Ringwood in the Northeast. It lies within portions of seven counties (Hunterdton, Somerset, Sussex, Warren, Morris, Passaic and Bergen) and 87 municipalities."

Environmentalists have a huge impact in NJ politics. For example in the town of vernon in sussex county in northwestern NJ, environmentalists sucessfully prevented the developement of a huge hundred-acre condo developemnt and 2 golf courses at the Moutnain Creek Ski Resort. The resort's parent company, Intrawest (based in vancouver, owner of Whistler/Blackcomb,Squaw Valley, tremblant, Stratton) was forced to sell back the entire parcel of land back to the state, or they wouldn't have been able to get approval for anything else.

Trenton used to be in Philadelphia's orbit, but now it's in New York's MSA. You can tell in the accents of the people 10 or 15 years ago you'd get a hoagie and maybe drink wooter in Trenton. Today you get a sub with wuhtuh. Philly itself will soon be an "edge city" in the New York MSA.

huge still

how accurate is this?

Philadelphia wont be the "edge city" of New York. We can stand on our own.

Talk about NYC big time sprawl, it is sad imho. Maybe its time to build more high-rises across from NYC in NJ

I personally think that Tokyo's urban sprawl is bigger than the entire BosWash Area. Since Tokyo's sprawl includes most parts of the Kanto Region and continues on to Nagoya in the Southwest, then to Kobe further southwest, then to Osaka-Kansai yet further southwest and Kyoto.

I might be wrong which is why I'm asking you people to verify my claim. Thank You

the red doesn't represent a paved area, I think its just a measure of where people live in the area, if you look at the map you can see they even have the watersheds (croton) in red....and thats an area thats not even inhabited

I think its also a measure of the transportation infrastructure as it grew in time, people started to inhabit different parts of the reigion, as a matter of fact the red kinda reminds me of sprawl

I really would not be surprised if these predictions come true. I visited NYC in November and the city spills over into Long Island and New Jersey. You feel like you have entered NYC when you are still 45 miles away from the actual city limits.

Many people are choosing to live in houses rather then apartments.

One aspect that really pissed me off about the sprawl into Long Island was the destruction of Roosevelt Field. A historical site was torn down so a mall could be built. :bash:

I just realized it has that watershed in NJ in red to, Does anyone know the name of it? I think its sussex county, all I know is its like country over in that part of north jersey I remember about a year ago seeing a sign over there that said "newark watershed"? but I don't remember the exact location

I just realized it has that watershed in NJ in red to, Does anyone know the name of it? I think its sussex county, all I know is its like country over in that part of north jersey I remember about a year ago seeing a sign over there that said "newark watershed"? but I don't remember the exact location

I forget the name of the watershed, but it contains reserviors for Newark. Also, theres the Deleware Water Gap National Recreation Area is very large. That map is compeltely misleading. Northwestern NJ is very rural, and will probably stay that way for awhile, as there are many restrictions on development there, and peope just don't really seem to be moving there. Also, environmental lobbyists have a very strong influence in NJ, and can easily prohibit development. For example, the Mountain Creek Ski Resort had plans to build a golf, hotel, condo, and shopping resort. They introduced their plans in 1997, and the Sierra Club forced the state to scale back the resorts' plans by almost 50%, and forced the resort to donate 1,800 acres of forest to the state's Green Acres program.

^yes, I have to agree with this. the NW NJ isn't really urbanized, and if you continue to the DEL, which is really beautiful, well you get to farmlands, even though they're across the border in NYS... actually right where the Woodstock festival was organized (even though it's far away from the woodstock village :D)

^yes, I have to agree with this. the NW NJ isn't really urbanized, and if you continue to the DEL, which is really beautiful, well you get to farmlands, even though they're across the border in NYS... actually right where the Woodstock festival was organized (even though it's far away from the woodstock village :D)

The Deleware River valley in NY, NJ, and PA, where the Deleware Water Gap NRA is now, was a huge hippie refuge in the 60s, because the area was rural, and had no electricity. The government kicked most of them out, because they were planning on building a giant dam, but the dam plans fell through, and the areas - including whole towns - were left empty. Soon, it was designated as a NRA. I've never been there, but i've seen pictures of abandoned towns within the NRA. It's pretty cool.

I forget the name of the watershed, but it contains reserviors for Newark. Also, theres the Deleware Water Gap National Recreation Area is very large. That map is compeltely misleading. Northwestern NJ is very rural, and will probably stay that way for awhile, as there are many restrictions on development there, and peope just don't really seem to be moving there. Also, environmental lobbyists have a very strong influence in NJ, and can easily prohibit development. For example, the Mountain Creek Ski Resort had plans to build a golf, hotel, condo, and shopping resort. They introduced their plans in 1997, and the Sierra Club forced the state to scale back the resorts' plans by almost 50%, and forced the resort to donate 1,800 acres of forest to the state's Green Acres program.

yes that reservior is right near mountain creek ski resort, the hills in that area are really beautiful especially in the summer.

But New York is such a large metropolis already. Its one of the most urban cities in the world, and THE most in the entire Northern American Continent. This is only "urbanized" sprawl, not nessesarly Sprawl. Soon, all of the New York Tri-state area will be one giant Megalopolis, urban in every direction...

Wonderful news, congrats!

That is depressing though

Yeah, it's happening in all cities though. If someone could, they could post how each of the east coast metros will look. With the red diagram, it should easily be from NH to Richmond. But not all of the red will be developed, it is sad, but something will be done about it. I mean, it'll be too late, but there are new urbanist developments in the DC area, and they're really starting to get popular. The sprawl will still continue though.

I just really wish NYC was more active, they could be, who knows, but there has to be some sort of incentive or serious impetus to get developers to make projects for the city and vertical growth, I don't know what's being done, I see a lot of projects, it will happen, but it's a shame we may have to wait a lot longer.

Imagine if Long Island became as dense as Manhattan...

That's looking more towards the year 2200 than 2020, but it's interesting to think about.

[QUOTE=Vlad the Great]Holy shit at this rate by 2050 Albany + Troy will be a part of NYC metro. Then we can't make fun of New Yorkers for their accents anymore... ;)
QUOTE]

Oh ya....
and all the way to Montreal by 2100 so that I can take the subway from McGill to Grand Central :cheers:

Now you people will be known as the 'LA of the East.' Lol.

NY should just add New Jersey as another burough.

Haha my intial reaction was one of excitment instead of depression but I guess it is kind of sad that so much rural area is getting wiped out

Sprawl needs to stop now. Everytime I visit my cousins in Oxford CT there's a new road with 30 mcmansions on it. A 15 minute drive from any store, on narrow roads. He told me they are building a golf course community of 1,000 homes in the next 5 years.

Depressing. People need to go back to their city roots.

Pretty soon our whole area will be one big brick.

Rural area and farmland is gone??? :eek2:

they should build up and not out.... not just here but everywhere.. suburbs.. sprawling cities.. were destroying our natural resources.. where are we going to grow our food from when it all gets built over? This sucks.

they should build up and not out.... not just here but everywhere.. suburbs.. sprawling cities.. were destroying our natural resources.. where are we going to grow our food from when it all gets built over? This sucks.

Yeah... food prices can going higher if farmland is gone.

That area should grow vertically...think 5th element movie...

they should build up and not out.... not just here but everywhere.. suburbs.. sprawling cities.. were destroying our natural resources.. where are we going to grow our food from when it all gets built over? This sucks.
lol, fuck natural resources - Imagine everything 100 miles from the 5 boros being considered part of the city.

lol, fuck natural resources - Imagine everything 100 miles from the 5 boros being considered part of the city.

cant people in houston already say that about houston... i dont want them to be new york city mannnnn.. id rather see nyc go up than out and overtake some helpless little suburb or hick town <3

they should build up and not out.... not just here but everywhere.. suburbs.. sprawling cities.. were destroying our natural resources.. where are we going to grow our food from when it all gets built over? This sucks.

I dont think losing farmland will ever be a problem. By the time we start building over farmland technology will be able to help.

:eek2: New York's urban sprawl would soon merge with Boston's as well as Philadephia's. If that happens we would see the Northesat Corridor be an urban belt that runs from Boston all the way to Baltimore. Or worse, Boston-Atlanta. Yikes!!! :runaway:

:eek2: New York's urban sprawl would soon merge with Boston's as well as Philadephia's. If that happens we would see the Northesat Corridor be an urban belt that runs from Boston all the way to Baltimore. Or worse, Boston-Atlanta. Yikes!!! :runaway:
Theres still way to much undeveloped land between the cities. Trust.

Wow, that is incredible. : |

Now you people will be known as the 'LA of the East.' Lol.

NY should just add New Jersey as another burough.

Funny that a dude from Riverside should say that.

they should build up and not out.... not just here but everywhere.. suburbs.. sprawling cities.. were destroying our natural resources.. where are we going to grow our food from when it all gets built over? This sucks.


oh yeah of course...b/c experience has told us that a extremely dense city is any better for the environment than a unconcentrated city....

a city of any kind is going to consume natural resources and cause environmental problems... the only difference is you either spread out your problems or you concentrate them in a very small area...the overall problems still remain...

take like london and hong kong for examples... they are similar enough in population to make an alright comparison...but they are entirely different in the way in which they developed and look today

if you took the area of london and divided it into tennis courts you would end up with about 1 person on each tennis court...that isn't very concentrated...i'm sure there are plenty of people who live in a much smaller area than a tennis court in london...

now if you took hong kong and did the same thing, you would end up with something in the area of 22 people on each tennis court... now that is pretty damn dense...

so that gives you kind of a nice comparison b/w different concentrations of people in a city...

now out of hong kong and london...who do you think probably has more environmental or health concerns associated with the city???

^ Dense cities use alot less energy. Apartment buildings use far less energy to heat each individual unit than single family houses. Also, people in dense areas are far more likely to take transit, which is far more energy efficient than having to drive.
There was an article about NYC being the most environmentally friendly city in the US a while back, I think it was in the New Yorker.

^ Dense and cities use alot less energy. Apartment buildings use far less energy to heat each individual unit than single family houses. Also, people in dense areas are far more likely to take transit, which is far more energy efficient than having to drive.
There was an article about NYC being the most environmentally friendly city in the US a while back, I think it was in the New Yorker.

Well said. I agree 100 % .

WDF @ THE TENNIS COURT COMMENTS. I DON'T KNOW WHO HAS GOT MORE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CONCERNS BETWEEN HK AND LDN, MAYBE YOU CAN "SCHOOL" ME, THERE BUDDY.

People need to be more realistic. Technology is going to take care of depleting farmland ? We arent going to be around granted. So we really do not have to worry when the day comes, but jesus christ do you star trek rejects really think technology will grow apples without seeds or a peice of meat with no cow? Wow , then you truly are lame .

^ Dense cities use alot less energy. Apartment buildings use far less energy to heat each individual unit than single family houses. Also, people in dense areas are far more likely to take transit, which is far more energy efficient than having to drive.
There was an article about NYC being the most environmentally friendly city in the US a while back, I think it was in the New Yorker.


i was comparing london to hong kong...not suburbia to a dense urban environment...

so although you example demonstrates an environmental plus for cities it doesn't answer the questions raised regarding london [not dense] v. hong kong [very dense]...

although heating is hardly the biggest issue considering most high rises whether they be commercial or residential are under a cooling load for the majority of the year due to all the heat generated by occupants, equipment, appliances, etc etc...

and i would venture to argue it is more affordable to keep a home cool in the summer than it is to keep an entire apartment building cool... especially considering many today are not designed for natural ventilation and such...

i also doubt the new yorker article...granted maybe by energy consumption comparisons NYC might look good but once you factor in all the other facets of human habitation such as sewage, heat, garbage, rain water run off, etc etc you will find NYC isn't looking so hot

Well said. I agree 100 % .

WDF @ THE TENNIS COURT COMMENTS. I DON'T KNOW WHO HAS GOT MORE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CONCERNS BETWEEN HK AND LDN, MAYBE YOU CAN "SCHOOL" ME, THERE BUDDY.

People need to be more realistic. Technology is going to take care of depleting farmland ? We arent going to be around granted. So we really do not have to worry when the day comes, but jesus christ do you star trek rejects really think technology will grow apples without seeds or a peice of meat with no cow? Wow , then you truly are lame .

the tennis courts are an easy way for people to understand density when comparing cities of a similar sized population... everyone can visual a tennis court, its hard for people to visualize millions and millions of people spread over a hundred square miles...

BTW...hong kong has more pollution and health problems than london...but density is more environmentally friendly right???

so you don't think technology can save farm land but you think sticking everyone in high rise housing is a 'good solution'?

It seams the Americans hating there own cities. Everyone want to live in the suburbs.

oh yeah of course...b/c experience has told us that a extremely dense city is any better for the environment than a unconcentrated city....

a city of any kind is going to consume natural resources and cause environmental problems... the only difference is you either spread out your problems or you concentrate them in a very small area...the overall problems still remain...

take like london and hong kong for examples... they are similar enough in population to make an alright comparison...but they are entirely different in the way in which they developed and look today

if you took the area of london and divided it into tennis courts you would end up with about 1 person on each tennis court...that isn't very concentrated...i'm sure there are plenty of people who live in a much smaller area than a tennis court in london...

now if you took hong kong and did the same thing, you would end up with something in the area of 22 people on each tennis court... now that is pretty damn dense...

so that gives you kind of a nice comparison b/w different concentrations of people in a city...

now out of hong kong and london...who do you think probably has more environmental or health concerns associated with the city???


wow, very interesting

Build vertically and expand mass transit......use rooftops as recreational and greenspace....protect wild areas in seamless uninhibited wilderness areas...thats the only solution......oh yeah....underground farms, skyscraper farms are a plus too. :)