Now I know a looooooooooot about urban-sprawl, but I must ask all of you, what is America's worst sprawled city/metro area?

I know most Atlantans don't want to believe it, but I have to say that Atlanta is probably the most sprawled metro there is.

^^I hear a lot of southern cities are pretty bad. Atlanta, Memphis, Raleigh-Durham, Charlotte, Jacksonville etc.

Well Phoenix is pretty bad. Top notch sprawl...in the city limits.

I have to say Los Angeles is still the worst, but they are adopting (or being forced to adopt) infill developments. Really no more room to spread out to, except south westward.
Also notorious sprawl:(not in order)
Atlanta
Houston
Phoenix
Chicago
Jacksonville
Bay Area
DC/Baltimore
New York Metro

many more....

Tie between Houston, Atlanta and Phoenix. Pretty much every major metro suffers from mindnumbing sprawl, but these three cities don't really have a centralized urban core to offset the blandness. Downtowns yes, but they lack truly urban neighborhoods outside of downtown.

Yes, Phoenix has HORRENDOUS sprawl. I hate it here!!!!!

Atlanta, Houston, Phoenix, Jacksonville, and Los Angeles...By far, the 5 most poorly planned cities in the United States. Sprawl in these cities is horrible and it's ashamed that these cities were led by such poor planners in earlier days...

Atlanta, is one of (if not) the biggest sprawler. Western cities like LA, Las Vegas, and others sprawl, but it's relatively dense sprawl (if that makes sense) because the desert prohibits sprawl like back east.

In terms of size or percentage? Hard to compete against NYC, Chicago or LA - but certainly , most if not all sunbelt cities are primarily sprawl.

Indeed though - Atlanta is insanely massive. Oh well, at least I live in the city though...

^Las Vegas too!

south of Maryland and west of Chicago...yea, thats pretty much it

Atlanta, Phoenix, Houston and dont forget Dallas:

phoenix is numero uno

houston (ugh, the commute is a bitch), phoenix and asslanta. although asslanta proper is landlocked but its burbs are sprawly,,,

Take your largest metros. That's your list. Such a small percentage of a metro's population comes from the core city nowadays that you can really just go straight down the list of metro population to get a feel for which cities sprawl the most.

Metropolitan Washington D.C. is the absolute worst imo. Endless suburban sprawl now going past Frederick Maryland, Harpers Ferry WV, Hagerstown Md, Faquier County Va, Prince William County Va and beyond.

Atlanta
Chicago
Phoenix

Man, I know you're from the area, and that you didn't enjoy it that much, but it is simply not the worst, Phoenix, LA, and Atlanta are much worse.

Every city has sprawled.
Phoenix was named one of the best planned cities in the World.
If you think Phoenix has sprawl, you should come to the South. Florida, Georgia, North Carolina.

Sprawled is not bad, I rather live in a big house than in high rise in New York.
I have four cars and I love them. in NY I would not be able to afford four cars. I have a big house in Arizona, and one here in North Carolina. I feel like a rich person living in Both Arizona and North CArolina.

I love the wide street and freeways of Phoenix. and the well planned communities in Maricopa county.
So long live sprawled and I am sure millions are with me on this.

Beside the ones posted above. SOme cities such as Kansas City feels like sprawl within the city limits.

I have to agree about Chicago. There are more suburbs west of Elgin(about50-60 miles NW of chicago). 50-60 miles NW of chicago on I-90, with new suburbs.

Also Kendall County, IL(the 2nd highest growth county in the US)!

I love the wide street and freeways of Phoenix. and the well planned communities in Maricopa county.
So long live sprawled and I am sure millions are with me on this.

You can have it ... I'll keep my bicycle and subway pass in Chicago, and no I'm not I'm not a teenager, I'm in my 30's.

I don't mind sprawl to an extent, b/c it provides choices of lifestyles for people in a relatively close by area to things, but when it's too much, it's too much IMO. There are environmental and budget issues too that have to be dealt with when dealing with sprawl too.

And pw, just b/c it's a part of the metro, doesn't mean the sprawl is endless, it's not endless to hagerstown and harpers ferry, that's just insane, and really a flat out dumb thing to say. Fauquier is getting worse, but it's not there yet to be bad. DC is top 5, but not the absolute worst, I really don't know why you hate DC so much, obviously the 60s - early 90s it wasn't good, but it's a lot better now.

And I agree with fredcalif somewhat, every city does sprawl, Chicago, LA and NYC both have insane sprawl, absolute worst now is probably between phoenix and atl IMO.

And I agree with fredcalif somewhat, every city does sprawl, Chicago, LA and NYC both have insane sprawl, absolute worst now is probably between phoenix and atl IMO.

Very true. I don't think any large metro area is exempt. The sprawl here is insane.

Despite being the 4th largest metro in the country, DC-Baltimore has done a pretty good job of controlling sprawl. Both Washington and Baltimore are doing heavy redevelopment within their respective city propers in an effort to avoid urban sprawl.

Atlanta is in my opinion a textbook example of what NOT to do in a city. LA is bad, Dallas, Phoenix and Houston are bad too, from what I hear.

What about Denver, for some reason it seems like Denver metro would be sprawling.

I don't mind sprawl to an extent, b/c it provides choices of lifestyles for people in a relatively close by area to things, but when it's too much, it's too much IMO. There are environmental and budget issues too that have to be dealt with when dealing with sprawl too.

And pw, just b/c it's a part of the metro, doesn't mean the sprawl is endless, it's not endless to hagerstown and harpers ferry, that's just insane, and really a flat out dumb thing to say. Fauquier is getting worse, but it's not there yet to be bad. DC is top 5, but not the absolute worst, I really don't know why you hate DC so much, obviously the 60s - early 90s it wasn't good, but it's a lot better now.

And I agree with fredcalif somewhat, every city does sprawl, Chicago, LA and NYC both have insane sprawl, absolute worst now is probably between phoenix and atl IMO.

First of all 70s - late 90's. Did I ever say I hated D.C.? I had my good times there. I went to school there, college, worked everywhere from Capitol Hill to Germantown to Tyson's Corner. Why are you so offended anyway? If someone mentioned Seattle is the worst I could care less. That's their opinion.

I hope fredcalif is not breeding.....a textbook case for mandatory sterilization.

Like most have said, everywhere is sprawling. There is not one urbanized area in the country that is gaining density. At one point, there was a US News & World Report article that stated Gwinett Co. (metro Atlanta) was experiencing the single largest in-migration in the history of the world.....I'm not sure if this was a hyperbole, or if any research went into this statement. None the less, Atlanta is sprawling, though I think it is much more noticeable in places like Las Vegas, Phoenix, and Denver where there is little vegatation or terrain to block your view of miles of vinyl.

Despite being the 4th largest metro in the country, DC-Baltimore has done a pretty good job of controlling sprawl. Both Washington and Baltimore are doing heavy redevelopment within their respective city propers in an effort to avoid urban sprawl.

Atlanta is in my opinion a textbook example of what NOT to do in a city. LA is bad, Dallas, Phoenix and Houston are bad too, from what I hear.

What about Denver, for some reason it seems like Denver metro would be sprawling.

Urban Sprawl? What these cities are doing has nothing to do with what is going on outside the city limits.

Every city has sprawled.
Phoenix was named one of the best planned cities in the World.
If you think Phoenix has sprawl, you should come to the South. Florida, Georgia, North Carolina.

Sprawled is not bad, I rather live in a big house than in high rise in New York.
I have four cars and I love them. in NY I would not be able to afford four cars. I have a big house in Arizona, and one here in North Carolina. I feel like a rich person living in Both Arizona and North CArolina.

I love the wide street and freeways of Phoenix. and the well planned communities in Maricopa county.
So long live sprawled and I am sure millions are with me on this.

If that is what you think, you're probably on the wrong forum. I doubt many of the people on this forum are with you on that.

Phoenix is as bad as any city in Florida, North Carolina or Georgia in terms of sprawl. The city is highly suburban in nature, and has absolutley no trace of public transportation. You fly into Sky Harbor Airport and if you don't rent a car or have a friend pick you up, you are stranded. End of story.

Along that note, in terms of being able to walk around and explore the city, for the most part, forget it. Walking around in Phoenix means sprinting across a highway. If you are walking around outside, you're probably homeless.

So that is one of the best planned cities in the world? For who?

Beside the ones posted above. SOme cities such as Kansas City feels like sprawl within the city limits.

I have to agree about Chicago. There are more suburbs west of Elgin(about50-60 miles NW of chicago). 50-60 miles NW of chicago on I-90, with new suburbs.

Also Kendall County, IL(the 2nd highest growth county in the US)!

Kansas City feels like it sprawls in the city limits because the city limits are a whopping 311 square miles with only 440,000 people. Head to areas in the southern parts of the city limits (120th street on) and you are likely to see open fields and suburban style development.

Chicago has terrible sprawl to the west. The difference is that it is balanced by a highly centralized, booming urban core on a scale not found in many other cities plagued by the same kind of sprawl.

In the west, Phoenix. In the east, Atlanta.

San Bernardino, Raleigh Durham, and Atlanta top the lists of every source I've looked at.

Atlanta is the worst in my mind, not because of the amount of sprawl but because of the way it's organized. As much as I love some aspects of Atlanta, every time I go there I find myself cursing the haphazard way things have popped up.

I'd say Phoenix or Atlanta. They have close populations, but I think Phoenix covers more land... LA's sprawled, but it also has a gigantic population, so I think per square mile, it's more dense than Phoenix, Atlanta, or even Houston or Dallas?

Pw, I'm offended, b/c it seems as if many of your posts, regarding DC, there is some sort of negative connotation. It's "I lived there, I never want to go back" or "by far the worst sprawl" or "people are so rude" that's just wrong, plain and simple, or just a totally random set of events that took place where you lived. And IMO, I think the city has a bad enough reputation, it's sprawl is bad, but not "definitely" the worst like you think. "Endless sprawl to Hagerstown and Harpers Ferry" - BULL, just b/c it's part of the metro, doesn't make it sprawl in this case. I don't care that people bash it, and really I'm not that offended.

And the late 90s in DC wasn't so bad, I was referring to more of the cities problems in general, not the sprawl problems.

IMO, sprawl is bad in DC, but from being in many places, it's not as bad as I thought it was, being important as the place is, I think it's bad, but not on the level of some towns.

America as in the US, or in North + South America. Anyhow, Toronto have a huge sprawl, not a mess, but its like urban sprawl. I heard Mexico city is quite sprawl.

Don't forget Seattle/Tacoma/Everett, Denver/Boulder/Greeley/Ft Collins, OKC, San Diego, and Columbus, OH. These cities are pretty bad. As for smaller and midsize cities, Colorado Springs, Pueblo, Albuquerque, Tucson, Palm Springs, Salt Lake, and Little Rock are getting bad as well.

Most sprawled mess? Honestly Dallas/Ft Worth.

Since you've got two cities you've got double the sprawl. At least Atlanta and Houston have one center, DFW is so multipolar. And at least Phoenix has mountains and Indian Reservations to block off the endless stucco. Even though D/FW has some rolling hills its pretty much unbounded. The two cities sprawl into each other and then into every other direction.

Atlanta-Where's the core?
Phoenix-Ditto.
Houston-Comically large city limites and sprawl.
Dallas-Looks like Atlanta from an airplane.

Phoenix or Houston.

Most of the cities that we are talking about such as Atlanta and Phoenix have absolutely no dense urban core. They are totally suburban even in the middle of the city. I think that is sickening. Even though NYC, Chicago, and LA sprawl a lot at least they have dense urban cores to them which make them unique and have character.

What is America's worst sprawled mess?

My in-laws. Does this count?

Sprawl is define as To grow or spread in a disorderly or planless fashion.

Maybe terminates and lice is the Americas worst sprawled mess, thats not a metro..

Major Cities:
Dallas- the suburbs never end..........................
Atlanta- were is the city?

Large Cities:
Nashville- OK build a beltway 35+ something miles from the core city= sprawl duh!
Charlotte- nice city but just not that dense.

Sprawl could be any city with a "beltway" or a long spur(like Boston)!!

Take your largest metros. That's your list. Such a small percentage of a metro's population comes from the core city nowadays that you can really just go straight down the list of metro population to get a feel for which cities sprawl the most.

Almost universally agreed... Picking the worst is like splitting hairs among the nations 25 largest metros.


My votes/guesses go to

Atlanta, Detroit, Phoenix, LA, Chicago, DC, Boston... Nashville easily gets my vote from the smaller metros.

Most of the cities that we are talking about such as Atlanta and Phoenix have absolutely no dense urban core. They are totally suburban even in the middle of the city. I think that is sickening.

I don't think I'd go that far. Atlanta IS a sprawled mess (see my post below) but calling Midtown "suburban" is a huge exaggeration. There's definitely an urban core to the city, it's just disproportionately small compared to the size of the metro.

dallas -fort worth ull give yu a run for yur money

Sprawl doesn't even exist. The world's population is growing so fast, it needs some place to go. If the type of sprawl we see in American cities today took place on a timeline based on centuries rather than decades, we wouldn't b e looking at it as sprawl.

LA, Phoenix, Las Vegas, all Texas and Florida cities, Nashville, Atlanta, Washington D.C, Chicago etc. The satelitte pics of those cities makes me want to nuke them.

Of the big metros above 4 million or so... I hate to say this and it's the one closest to me, but Atlanta is without a doubt the worst one. Atlanta has some VERY nice inner city pre-war suburban neighborhoods and even some nice post-war suburbs, but what makes Atlanta's sprawl more ridiculous than the rest is how low density it is and how there is very little zoning regulation. That and there is absolutely NO uniform grid, even within subdivisions. It's 90% culdesacs with all traffic forced through just one entrance in and out. Top that with the fact that many of the surface roads carry far more traffic than they're designed to carry. That's why many of Atlanta's surface roads are congested beyond belief. Compared to other metros, the freeways aren't really that bad outside rush hour and are pretty predictable. It's the surface roads that are horrendous.

Typically, zoning and urban development is regulated by the county, not any municipalities or the state, and counties in Georgia are powerful. They're very eager simply to attract businesses and residents and nothing more. The state is the one that has to play catchup and build roads after county governments and developers attract Wal-Marts and the like, put them on 2-lane highways, then beg the state to expand it to 4 or 6 lanes. Everything is uncoordinated and done in the wrong order.

Most of the cities that we are talking about such as Atlanta and Phoenix have absolutely no dense urban core. They are totally suburban even in the middle of the city. I think that is sickening. Even though NYC, Chicago, and LA sprawl a lot at least they have dense urban cores to them which make them unique and have character.

Hmm the cities you mentioned are also 3 times the size of either Atlanta or Phoenix or Dallas or Houston or any of the other Sunbelt sprawlers. Those cties are also landlocked by either water or Mountains. In the South you have room to spread, for miles and miles and miles....unfortunately!

On that note Id say Atlanta is the most sprawled city in the country. There was an article in todays AJC talking about the hundreds of new homes going up in areas 60 MILES from Downtown Atlanta, and how the big-boxes and chain stores are next. Now that is just getting ridiculous...especially from a city with only 5 million metro.

^ But how can you argue someone so rational that suggests that Atlanta & Phoenix have absolutely no dense urban core and are suburban in the middle of the city? ;)

^ But how can you argue someone so rational that suggests that Atlanta & Phoenix have absolutely no dense urban core and are suburban in the middle of the city? ;)

I don't want to sound like to many people on this board, but the only difference is, when I see it and have proof, I'll believe it. I agree that ATL has a dense urban core, but have you been to Phoenix?

can anyone post pics of Phoenix's urban parts??

I know Phoenix is Sprawl.. but even its downtown??

Phoenix isn't THAT bad... Jeez people.

Phoenix is a much better city than you guys give credit.

Houston, Dallas and Atlanta are too. If they weren't then why are all of you northerners moving down south. Its because you like it!
Downtown Phoenix
http://localphototours.metroshot.com/photos/phoenix_arizona_usa_metroshot_4456.jpg

i'll have to say that the most sprawly thing is have ever seen in my entire life is the Raleigh/Triad/Charlotte megalopolis. It is only about 140 miles between Chapel Hill and Charlotte and their is constant sprawl and small towns all over the area.

Here's why:

1. For the Triangle and Triad, you don't even have a real center to these areas, they are each split up into 3 competing towns.
2. There are towns such as Burlington, NC and Kannapolis that dot the areas between the metros and serve to connect them.
3. There are 6 million people in the Triangle/Triad/Charlotte megasprawl.

How far exactly does Atlanta sprawl out?

Phoenix is the most notorious example I can think of when it comes to having a suburban feel in the "inner core."

Phoenix is a much better city than you guys give credit.

Houston, Dallas and Atlanta are too. If they weren't then why are all of you northerners moving down south. Its because you like it!
Downtown Phoenix
http://localphototours.metroshot.com/photos/phoenix_arizona_usa_metroshot_4456.jpg

Many northerners who move down south are 65 years old and move there for the low cost of living and so they can play golf all day. Many of those people don't live in or care much for cities anyways, which is why they buy enormous houses 40 miles outside of Dallas and eat at Applebee's everyday.

That image of Phoenix does little to validate its stature as a city with a great urban core. If anything, it supports what many people on this forum feel: That Phoenix, even in the downtown area, resembles a suburb. That skyline photo could be confused with some of the larger suburbs of many northern cities.

Phoenix does have the disability of a height restriction which adds to the suburban appearance of its downtown.

Sounds like the most sprawled metros have also been the fastest growing metros during the last 30 years.

I don't understand. If so many people hate living in sprawl, why are the most sprawled metros still gaining the most people?

I don't understand. If so many people hate living in sprawl, why are the most sprawled metros still gaining the most people?

For one thing, I think it's a bit of an illusion that the "most" sprawled metros are growing the fastest. It's more a matter of sprawl being the current trend in suburban development, so whatever area grows the fastest is going to be sprawling rapidly.

For another, I think the fact is that most people don't really "hate" living in sprawl. The age demographic and specific interest of this forum slants it pretty heavily against suburbs, but the general population doesn't seem to have much of a problem with them.

For one thing, I think it's a bit of an illusion that the "most" sprawled metros are growing the fastest. It's more a matter of sprawl being the current trend in suburban development, so whatever area grows the fastest is going to be sprawling rapidly.

For another, I think the fact is that most people don't really "hate" living in sprawl. The age demographic and specific interest of this forum slants it pretty heavily against suburbs, but the general population doesn't seem to have much of a problem with them.

Very good point. And I would go as far as to say that MOST people don't mind living in sprawl. You will get a very tainted viewpoint on this forum, which unfortunately reflects only a subset of the American population.

Most of us on this forum would hate living in sprawl. That doesn't mean everyone does (even though I wish they would). My entire family aside from myself lives in a tsunami of sprawl in the far Northwest Suburbs of Chicago. They love the city, but are so used to the suburbs that they couldn't possibly fathom altering their lifestyle to live there. Its really too bad when things like space, cars, and riding mowers are valued higher than culture, diversity, and prime location.

For a lot of people, the dream isn't to live in the city on the lakefront, by the ballpark, or in the middle of a walkable urban neighborhood flooded with ethnic restaurants. Their dream is to have as big of a house as possible, for as cheap as possible. The end result is sprawl.

Tie between Houston, Atlanta and Phoenix. Pretty much every major metro suffers from mindnumbing sprawl, but these three cities don't really have a centralized urban core to offset the blandness. Downtowns yes, but they lack truly urban neighborhoods outside of downtown.
um houston has no urban neighboorhoods outside of downtown?????

texas medical center
http://stockyard.com/gallery2/v/Medical/Texas-Medical-Center/METM1012.jpg.html

midtown

and
http://stockyard.com/gallery2/v/Skylines/Galleria/SKGA1001.jpg.html
uptown

Many northerners who move down south are 65 years old and move there for the low cost of living and so they can play golf all day. Many of those people don't live in or care much for cities anyways, which is why they buy enormous houses 40 miles outside of Dallas and eat at Applebee's everyday.

That image of Phoenix does little to validate its stature as a city with a great urban core. If anything, it supports what many people on this forum feel: That Phoenix, even in the downtown area, resembles a suburb. That skyline photo could be confused with some of the larger suburbs of many northern cities.
You know, from the picture one could infer the misconception that Phoenix actually had a skyline...

um houston has no urban neighboorhoods outside of downtown?????

texas medical center
http://stockyard.com/gallery2/v/Medical/Texas-Medical-Center/METM1012.jpg.html

midtown

and
http://stockyard.com/gallery2/v/Skylines/Galleria/SKGA1001.jpg.html
uptown

Ha. No you did not post a picture of uptown.

Sometimes it seems like JivecitySTL doesn't search things for himself and just goes with what everyone else says, but showing skylines as proof does not say anything. Houston is not packed with rowhomes and multi story commercial streets, but to say it has no urban neighborhoods outside downtown was just a little too much jump on the bandwagon for me. Same for his claim about Atlanta since I have lived in both. ATL temporarily

If that is what you think, you're probably on the wrong forum. I doubt many of the people on this forum are with you on that.

Phoenix is as bad as any city in Florida, North Carolina or Georgia in terms of sprawl. The city is highly suburban in nature, and has absolutley no trace of public transportation. You fly into Sky Harbor Airport and if you don't rent a car or have a friend pick you up, you are stranded. End of story.

Along that note, in terms of being able to walk around and explore the city, for the most part, forget it. Walking around in Phoenix means sprinting across a highway. If you are walking around outside, you're probably homeless.

So that is one of the best planned cities in the world? For who?

For people who think as fredcalif does. It is ridiculous sprawl that is very easy to navigate so long as you have a car. I've lived in Phoenix for the better part of 19 years (basically my entire life) and all I can say is, "Here I come, New York!". This place sucks, and I'm just relieved that when you're filling out your profile on here below the location/city option, it says "which city do you represent?" -- That sure is hell ain't Phoenix to me and in my heart, I'm already in New York.

...too much jump on the bandwagon for me.

^^The understatement of the day.

Houston's sprawl is bad, but by no means the worst.

When I drive from Austin to Houston, I will spend about 20 minutes going through the suburban part.

When I fly from Austin to Los Angeles, I will spend about 20 minutes going through the suburban part.

Atlanta is the most sprawled metro in the world (by density).

Every American city sprawls in a suburban way outside downtown. It seems alot of people hate on the south but the north is not innocent itself they have huge lots compared to down south, my county pinellas county has houses on fairly small lots depending on how much $$$ you have and not to mention that the county has almost 1 million people and just look at the county compared to other counties around it its small but yet dense but contains mostly single family homes with a growing urban core.

I prefer a single family home over an apartment or condo anyday its alot better and i have lived in both a middle class town house and a housing project and i didnt like the housing project and the townhouse was ok but after living in a house i like it better than anything else. No noise from the neighbors, a garage, backyard, and having palms trees outside my window in my yard is nice. The real only disadantages of living in a single family home is yard work and and most likely with a car youre screwed besides that i dont see any big disadvantages.

And i dont see whats so great about public transportation buses are slow, noisy, and not efficient. Rail on the other hand could be ok but with that if the stop isnt near your destination youre stuck walking or using a bus. I use a bus everyday because i have to use it to get to school and if i had a car i could just take a highway and get on to a boulevard and get to school in about 20 mins but with the bus its takes longer as it pointlessly circles through neighborhoods and i get there in about 40-50 mins. The car is a better choice and i cant wait till i get my license in the summer.

But i believe any city thats big enough to have an urban core should have a decent one to satisfy the tastes of both worlds so people have choices because hate it or love it some people will always like the single family home life and some will like a condo in downtown life. I love going to my downtown its nice and constantly changing but i wouldnt trade in a house for a condo to live there. I do think box stores should be forced to build multistory stores instead of one giant one story building.

Please dont flame this is a discussion if you disagree with my opinion than you can say so but not in a rude way like i said different tastes in life.

Atlanta, Phoenix, and Houston come to mind.

But, compared even to these three, Hartford's metro is also a sprawled mess. The county has around 1,200 ppsm, and few areas (except Hartford) are above 5,000. The sprawl goes as far as 30 miles away. This is large for a city with 121k and a metro of 1.2 million.

Sprawl isn't only regulated to the Sunbelt, it's even here in the Northeast. And Hartford is probably the most sprawled out and suburban metro in the region.

Los Angeles. UCLA only when the wind blows.

I read once that Detroit was the "flattest" metro population distribution in the US, i.e. highest suburb:city density ratio. Anybody have any actual numbers proving/disproving this? I don't think it was quite as high a ratio as say Hartford (~10:1), but maybe the cutoff was Detroit itself being a much larger city.

Buffalo is fairly sprawled (hence the major cause of downfall of the city as with Detroit), but the ratio is only about 4:1, and when you look at a map, it pales in comparison to the Atlantas and Houstons of the US. But it's all relative, I suppose.

Phoenix is bad from what I've seen, but a lot of southern cities tend to be worse. Southern California is probably the birthplace though...

East San Fernando Valley and Inland Empire

Atlanta Metro is nearly ten times larger than its city proper.

Atlanta Metro is nearly ten times larger than its city proper.

small city limits my friend, small city limits.

Atlanta is in my opinion a textbook example of what NOT to do in a city.

You got it. But even if the suburbanites love this kind of "development", the other part of Atlanta is starting to get pretty pissed off lately at the wealthy "developers" and their political henchmen.
Alas, that's the best thing I can say about the situation as of yet.

Whoever said that we didn't have any urban neighborhoods outside of downtown was flat wrong, though. Rowhouses may not be so common, granted, but the layout of the whole bit isn't so unusual. Detatched houses on something of a street grid-thing. Lots of trees. Plenty of independent restaurants/shops (one of my favorite ones to photograph is "Afrocentric" in West End :D ).
You ever been here? If not, I suggest you cut it out.

I don't think you can really measure, which city is the most sprawled in the country, because they all have sprawl. Even some data can be presented in a way that's misrepresentative. How many people have to reside in an area for it to be considered urban? Should we use the number of single family homes vs. apartments/condos? There is no one all answer or single data source to say which city sprawls the most.

Another issue to account for is overall growth numbers. So of course, a city like Phoenix or Atlanta would sprawl, more so than a Philadelphia or Hartford, because of the difference in growth rates, but who's to say that if the northeast had the same growth levels as sunbelt cities, that we wouldn't see as much growth at the periphery of these cities as well. Even with many growth restrictions that many municipalities have put in place in northern cities, who's to say that, with the right kind of pressure that a developer or the general public could get measures overturned?

Tie between Houston, Atlanta and Phoenix. Pretty much every major metro suffers from mindnumbing sprawl, but these three cities don't really have a centralized urban core to offset the blandness. Downtowns yes, but they lack truly urban neighborhoods outside of downtown.
Right... I'm guessing you've never been here?

i would say dallas/ft.worth for sure, it is nearly 90 miles from east to west, rockwall(eastern side of dallas) to weatherford(western side of ft. worth) and almost 75 miles from the north to south, denton(northern tip of dallas) to waxahachie(southern tip of dallas)! the suburbs here go forever, i love it here, but coming from portland where its only 10 miles to the country from downtown, dallas was a suprise on how massive it is!

I definitely agree DFW is up there but all our sprawl isn't just tract housing, The dart rail has added alot of TODs in North Dallas

here is DT Plano
http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/3748/aerialdowntown3lr.th.jpg (http://img215.imageshack.us/my.php?image=aerialdowntown3lr.jpg)

I'd say Houston, Atlanta, and Phoenix.

However, I am amazed this thread is on page 5 and nobody has mentioned Orlando.

If you want a small city that sprawls, look at Nashua NH