Source: Sierra Club

Large Cities

Atlanta
St. Louis
Washington
Cincinnati
Kansas City
Denver
Seattle
Minneapolis-St. Paul
Fort Lauderdale
Chicago

Medium Sized Cities:

Orlando
Raleigh
Austin
Las Vegas
West Palm Beach
Akron

Small Cities:

McAllen, TX
Pensacola, FL
Daytona Beach, FL
Little Rock, AR

Dishonorable Mentions:

Los Angeles
San Diego
Phoenix

What? No Charlotte? :runaway:

http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/report98/sprawl_images/sprawl_map89a.gif

From the Sierra Club site...

America's Most Sprawl-Threatened Cities...

What do they mean by threatened? Do they think the city will explode or something? Funny how they point out a bunch of cities and offer no good solutions.

is that good or bad, btw why "dishonorble"mentions

Here's a link to the Sierra Club website and the report. It's from 1998, but still very useful.

Sierra Club Most Threatened Cities (http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/report98/angeles.asp)

Ft.Lauderdale??...are they joking?
Broward county is fully developed...there isn't any land to sprawl.
It is hemmend in by the Atlantic ocean on the east and the Everglades to the west.
Same thing can be said for W.Palm Beach or Miami.

Where is Houston? When they say threatened, do they mean have a good chance for bad sprawl to happen? I hope not because it has already been done in most of these cities.

Well for once, I'm glad Houston isn't included in one of these silly lists.

That site has not been updated for about 4 years. Very old list

Raleigh Sprawl is getting worse

That site has not been updated for about 4 years. Very old list

I doubt the list would be all that different now.

Phoenix or Houston might take Chicago's place as 10th!

funny that flordia got 5 cities that are sprawling.

how is it funny that 5florida cities are sprawling of which 2 have no ability to sprawl,so i consider this list just another meaningless chart

how is it funny that 5florida cities are sprawling of which 2 have no ability to sprawl,so i consider this list just another meaningless chart

While the Everglades are a natural boundary there is some validity to Fort Lauderdale sprawling. In 10 years Weston has become a city off 60,000 and Pembroke Pines is about to eclipse Fort Lauderdale as the largest city in Broward County. While the area is continuously built up, I don't see a lot of vertical movement other than close to the shoreline.

Why is it funny, becuase it was on the map? Even though I knew than Pensacola doesnt sprawl and FT.Lauderdale and West Palm Beach are combined. Those cities are still on the map.

While the Everglades are a natural boundary there is some validity to Fort Lauderdale sprawling. In 10 years Weston has become a city off 60,000 and Pembroke Pines is about to eclipse Fort Lauderdale as the largest city in Broward County. While the area is continuously built up, I don't see a lot of vertical movement other than close to the shoreline.


i get your point,and the reason why pembroke pines and miramar grew was because nothern dade grew also .

also who wants to go vertical by the everglades when you can do it on the bay

America's Most Puppy-Threatened Cities

Large:
Omaha
French Lick
Nashville
Manchester
Boston

Medium:
Kansas City (KS)

Small:
Augusta (GA)
Orlando


^That's about how useful this list is.

arent these the cities that are experiencing the most growth?

Here is my TOTALLY unofficial list of overtly sprawled cities.

Dallas-Fort Worth
Houston-Galveston
Los Angleles
Chicago-Milwaukee
Minneapolis-St. Paul
Atlanta
Oklahoma City-Norman
Omaha
Washington-Baltimore
Phoenix-Scottsdale

Here is my list of cities that have done an excellant job of keeping sprawl marginal.

New Orleans
San Francisco
Seattle
Tulsa (yes, red states too)
St. Louis
Charleston, SC
Denver
Salt Lake City

Now strangely these are America's most beautiful, touristy cities that are for the most part "fading away".

I fail to see how Pensacola is sprawled, so I guess there is a bunch of different definitions of what can be considered 'sprawl'

Here is my TOTALLY unofficial list of overtly sprawled cities.


Houston-Galveston
OMG r u kidding?

We are so locked! The Trinity River to the East, The Gulf to the south, and the Brazos to the west! And for the north, Theres Lake Conroe! SHEESH YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING!

:D

What's a river gonna do to Houston?

It is 100 miles from Glaveston to N. Conroe... so yes, Houston is overly sprawled.

Plus, some people that consider Huntsville part of the Metro would say Houston has passed L. Conroe.

Yes, I actually know a lot, but I try not to flame people in all caps. Tap the caps lock once more for me?

I was kidding... Houston is the friggin' Sprawl poster child.

Oh. My liscense plate says Shrink and I fail to tell when people are kidding. I am so sorry. :)

Oh. My liscense plate says Shrink and I fail to tell when people are kidding. I am so sorry. :)
its all good in the woods.

Someone needs to check this, but is it possible that Omaha and OKC have the most sprawl per capita?

Washington-Baltimore
1) Baltimore and Washington are two seperate and distent cities.

2) One can make an arguement for DC sprawl...but Baltimore sprawl?? Its one of America's most dense cities.

I was actually hoping this would be an update from the Sierra Club, oh well...

This is different than what I thought. I thought is was more to do with smaller existing communities being threatened by the sprawl of larger near-by cities.

The Town I work for, Cumberland, Indiana, was once listed by the National Register of one of the "10 most threatened communities" by sprawl. Indianapolis was/has been growing all around us and because we partially lie in Marion County (where we have no jurisdiction) Indy was able to ram big-boxes and strip malls into our once, small-town community.

DC-Balt are a consolidated metro and deserve to be mentioned together. When there are people from Northern VA traveling to close to B'more and more from B'more coming to DC to work, I think they definitely deserve to be mentioned in that sense, and there aren't many cities that actually sprawl in their limits, these are all metros, DC is every bit as dense as B'more.

But, yeah, I don't agree with that guy's "unofficial" list either, I wish there was a newer survey though.

What? Neither D.C or Baltimore sprawl

Source: Sierra Club

Large Cities

Atlanta
St. Louis
Washington
Cincinnati
Kansas City
Denver
Seattle
Minneapolis-St. Paul
Fort Lauderdale
Chicago

Medium Sized Cities:

Orlando
Raleigh
Austin
Las Vegas
West Palm Beach
Akron

Small Cities:

McAllen, TX
Pensacola, FL
Daytona Beach, FL
Little Rock, AR

Dishonorable Mentions:

Los Angeles
San Diego
Phoenix



This list is flat out worthless.... How so? Uhh, where is Detroit, Nashville or Tampa, three of the greatest sufferers of sprawl known to man.

I like the Sierra Club, but they blew it with this list IMO.

what a stupid list.

It was just a chance for some person with a mediocre ability to make maps show their worth to the company and then someone picked cities out of a hat to try to insult.

I've seen clips of episodes of barney more insulting and more intelligent than this list.

You find Barney insulting?

Ft.Lauderdale??...are they joking?
Broward county is fully developed...there isn't any land to sprawl.
It is hemmend in by the Atlantic ocean on the east and the Everglades to the west.
Same thing can be said for W.Palm Beach or Miami.

Ever been to western Broward? Its probably the most ugly sprawled place on earth. Unlike Miami-Dade which has a strict urban development boundary Broward can build much farther west. Maybe I'm just comparing it too much to the density of Miami but western Broward county is a suburban nightmare.

I was kidding... Houston is the friggin' Sprawl poster child.

Really, now? We don't have you beat? We're #1 on their "useless list." :nuts: <- That's my happy face.

Some other sprawl-Threaten cities I could think of is Dallas, OKcity, Pittsburgh, and Trenton.

Ever been to western Broward? Its probably the most ugly sprawled place on earth. Unlike Miami-Dade which has a strict urban development boundary Broward can build much farther west. Maybe I'm just comparing it too much to the density of Miami but western Broward county is a suburban nightmare.


You bet... West Broward is a complete suburban shithole. I know, I've stayed out that way on a few occasions (uncle has timeshare I've used), and know that area the best of all of the Miami metro as a result.

For the large cities, I am very surprized Phoenix, Houston, Dallas and Los Angeles are not up there. They should even make up the top 5.

Sprawl will eventually happen in growing cities all around the country unless everybody wants to live in Skyscrapers.

I don't know if this list is for just sprawling city limits or sprawling metro areas. That would change that list a lot. One thing for sure thought, Raleigh, NC, tops both of them. The city of Raleigh has annexed so much land that it is not 3 times (300%) larger in area than it was in 1990. But, it's population has only gained about 120,000 people (I know that is a lot of people and it is one of the highest and everyone is laughing for me saying only, but keep reading and see what I mean), or about 50%. So, it's land area grew by six times the amount that it's population grew. THAT IS SPRAWL. But it's not just the city itself. All of the towns in wake county have outgrown themselves and sprawled out so much, it's like an East Coast version of LA. (well I guess Atlanta would take that one, but the triangle deffinetly comes in a close second). And that is NOT a good thing.

Sprawl will eventually happen in growing cities all around the country unless everybody wants to live in Skyscrapers.

That's not true. Look at the cities of the Northeast and Great lakes. They grew by hundreds of thousands of people A MONTH in many cases, and limited their sprawl. Granted, times have changed, but non-sprawl cities doesn't mean that everyone lives in skyscrapers.

The most sprawl threatened metro is San Bernardino/Riverside which is the western component of the Greater Los Angeles area. This area has the fastest sprawl growth in America.

But when their isn't anymore land to develop within their cities they are going to Sprawl...

Living in an Urban Area we have to expect the ills that comes along with it...Sprawl,Traffic,Crowds,Pollution.
That's not true. Look at the cities of the Northeast and Great lakes. They grew by hundreds of thousands of people A MONTH in many cases, and limited their sprawl. Granted, times have changed, but non-sprawl cities doesn't mean that everyone lives in skyscrapers.

But when their isn't anymore land to develop within their cities they are going to Sprawl...

Living in an Urban Area we have to expect the ills that comes along with it...Sprawl,Traffic,Crowds,Pollution.

No that is just all of the cities since that nuclear testing site Los Angeles came into existance and all of the new cities followed the same patern. The traditional classic cities knew what they were doing.

They need to start building more highrises in Southern California if they want to preserve the land,because the spillover from Los Angeles will not stop.
The most sprawl threatened metro is San Bernardino/Riverside which is the western component of the Greater Los Angeles area. This area has the fastest sprawl growth in America.

Think, magnitude 8.5

I don't know if developers will risk building upwards. Maybe they will......

i'm sure they will build the new skyscrapers to withstand quakes.
Think, magnitude 8.5

I don't know if developers will risk building upwards. Maybe they will......

Nothing built can withstand an earthquake passed a certain magnitude. However, they will continue to build mid rise buildings in L.A. 25-50 stories. Supertallls are not in the forecast.

Nothing built can withstand an earthquake passed a certain magnitude. However, they will continue to build mid rise buildings in L.A. 25-50 stories. Supertallls are not in the forecast.

Yup. The ground isn't stable enough. That's the same reason that there aren't any Skyscrapers in Paris. With all of the catacombs (miles and miles of tunnes, with dead bodies inside!). The gound isn't stable enough to handle super tall buildings.

For the large cities, I am very surprized Phoenix, Houston, Dallas and Los Angeles are not up there. They should even make up the top 5.

Maybe they arent sprawl threaten, they are already sprawl? ;)

Yup. The ground isn't stable enough. That's the same reason that there aren't any Skyscrapers in Paris. With all of the catacombs (miles and miles of tunnes, with dead bodies inside!). The gound isn't stable enough to handle super tall buildings.


No skyscrapers in Paris?? That's news to them... :rant:
Nr Height (m) Height (ft) Year Building
1. 300,0 987 1889 Eiffel Tower
2. 209,0 688 1973 Tour Maine Montparnasse
3. 200,0 658 1975 Framatome
4. 180,0 592 1985 Tour TotalFinaElf
5. 179,0 589 1974 Tour GAN
6. 167,0 549 1995 Societe Generale
7. 161,0 530 2001 Coeur Defense
8. 155,0 510 2001 Tour EDF
9. 152,0 500 1974 Tour Axa
10. 150,0 493 2002 Tour Adria
11. 150,0 493 1999 Tour Egee
12. 142,0 467 1975 Tour Ariane
13. 106,0 349 1989 Arche de la Defense
14. 90,0 296 1330 Notre-Dame
15. 83,0 273 1791 Pantheon
16. 83,0 273 1914 Sacre Coeur
17. 80,0 263 1989 Bastille Opera
18. 79,0 260 1995 Bibliotheque Nationale de Paris

^Most of these in the list are in La Defense, a district of high-rise offices on the outskirts of the city.

Some aren't skyscrapers at all. Eiffel Tower is obviously the tallest, yet it's also merely a shell of a structure. Notre Dame, Sacre Coeur, The Pantheon, L'Opera and the National Library are definitely not skyscrapers.

The only skyscraper in the Paris city proper is Tour Montparnasse. which sits alone amid low-rise Paris.

http://www.domnik.net/topoi/commons/FR/ile-de-france/paris/montparnasse/04n_tour_montparnasse.jpg

No skyscrapers in Paris?? That's news to them... :rant:
Nr Height (m) Height (ft) Year Building
1. 300,0 987 1889 Eiffel Tower
2. 209,0 688 1973 Tour Maine Montparnasse
3. 200,0 658 1975 Framatome
4. 180,0 592 1985 Tour TotalFinaElf
5. 179,0 589 1974 Tour GAN
6. 167,0 549 1995 Societe Generale
7. 161,0 530 2001 Coeur Defense
8. 155,0 510 2001 Tour EDF
9. 152,0 500 1974 Tour Axa
10. 150,0 493 2002 Tour Adria
11. 150,0 493 1999 Tour Egee
12. 142,0 467 1975 Tour Ariane
13. 106,0 349 1989 Arche de la Defense
14. 90,0 296 1330 Notre-Dame
15. 83,0 273 1791 Pantheon
16. 83,0 273 1914 Sacre Coeur
17. 80,0 263 1989 Bastille Opera
18. 79,0 260 1995 Bibliotheque Nationale de Paris

The eiffel tower doesn't count as a skyscraper. It's very tall and very beautiful but it doesn[t count. If you are going to call a 260 foot tall building a skyscraper, well sorry, that's just ridiculous.

I had no Idea that Notre Dame dated back to the 1300's. That is interesting....

How is Atlanta #1 on the sprawl list?

Source: Sierra Club

Large Cities

Atlanta
St. Louis
Washington
Cincinnati
Kansas City
Denver
Seattle
Minneapolis-St. Paul
Fort Lauderdale
Chicago

Medium Sized Cities:

Orlando
Raleigh
Austin
Las Vegas
West Palm Beach
Akron

Small Cities:

McAllen, TX
Pensacola, FL
Daytona Beach, FL
Little Rock, AR

Dishonorable Mentions:

Los Angeles
San Diego
Phoenix

I find it funny how the Texan didn't happen to mention Houston ot Dallas which both sprawl out the ass. And ST. Louis County is almost fully urbanized the first time i ever saw a cow in person is when i actually moved to Florida.

Why are we talking about a study from seven years ago? Seattle, for example, has changed its ways pretty dramatically since then.

Sprawl leading metros since 2002
Some of these metros listed, are component parts of larger metropolitan areas known as CSA's

Metropolitan
1) Riverside—San Bernardino, CA MSA part of the L.A. CSA
2) Greensboro—Winston-Salem—High Point MSA
3) Raleigh—Durham, NC MSA
4) Atlanta, GA MSA
5) Greenville—Spartanburg, SC MSA
6) West Palm Beach—Boca Raton—Delray Beach, FL MSA part of the Miami CSA
7) Bridgeport—Stamford—Norwalk—Danbury MSA
8) Knoxville, TN MSA
9) Oxnard—Ventura, CA MSA part of the L.A. CSA
10) Dallas Fort Worth—Arlington, TX CSA
11) Gary—Hammond, IN MSA part of the Chicago CSA

I wanted to post the link but I can't find it now :bash:

11) Gary—Hammond, IN MSA part of the Chicago CSA:


Why is that not in the same MSA of CHicago? Hammond borders chicago... unless its because it is just across the stateline in Indiana?

Here is my TOTALLY unofficial list of overtly sprawled cities.


Chicago-Milwaukee
".

I dont know about that.

^
Eventually we will have a Chicago-Milwaukee sprawling metro of over 14 or 15 million people. In maybe 25 years or so.

^
Eventually we will have a Chicago-Milwaukee sprawling metro of over 14 or 15 million people. In maybe 25 years or so.


Looking at a map, it almost looks like its one metro now. However, I dont think we have a suburban sprawl mess on our hands yet with bigger cities like Racine, Kenosha, Waukegan, etc. in between.

Looking at a map, it almost looks like its one metro now. However, I dont think we have a suburban sprawl mess on our hands yet with bigger cities like Racine, Kenosha, Waukegan, etc. in between.

You are right ReddAlert, it is almost one metro. Currently there is maybe 10 or 15 miles in between that need to be developed. Again, within 20 or 25 years it definetely will be. As for sprawl, Chicago does sprawl for miles in every direction except of course east. I don't think it has the worst sprawl in the country, but it is surely up there.
http://www.advancedfertility.com/pics/image_map%20200.gif