Which midwest city suffered the most from sprawl within the last 50 years?

Detroit's suburbs are nothing more than the city itself not growing but thinly spreading all its inhabitants in a formation surrounding the city and continuing to get thinner and thinner. Pretty soon we'll have strained out all the spaghetti! ;)

Chicago has the most sprawl, but there really isn't a major midwest city that doesn't have sprawl.

Chicago has the most sprawl, but there really isn't a major midwest city that doesn't have sprawl.

I think I would agree with your assesment.

There are varying degrees of suburbanization.

In the Milwaukee metro area, about half the residents live in the city, and half live in the suburbs. The city is about 600,000 and the metro is about 1.25 million (some maintain that Racine is part of the metro area, which kicks it up to 1.5 million, but either way I don't think anyone would call compact little Racine "sprawl").

In the Twin Cities, you have both central cities weighing in at about 600,000, in a metro area of over 3 million. So that means that only about one fifth of the population in the Twin Cities area lives in the central cities of Mpls or St. Paul.

Chicagoland sprawls like crazy, with surbanization stretching far into Indiana, and even now far southern Wisconsin. But the existance of the very large central city (3 million) means that the proportion of suburban residents to the whole (8 million) is not as pronounced as, say, the Twin Cities.

^^Interesting evaluation of sprawling. I live in Indiana and have been to areas like Gary and Hammond and I would say they are Chicago spilling over the state line.

Personally, I think Chicago had some severe sprawl problems, for example. I think that more people should renew interest in their cities instead of the suburbs. After all, without a city to sponge off of, suburbs wouldnt exist. It sickens me that cities like St. Louis and Detroit have lost 60% of their peak population. And what's worse, people dont care. If they did, they wouldn't move farther and farther out to the suburbs. Even when reasonable housing
already exists. Inner-city housing doesn't always mean "ghetto". I know for a fact inner-city Chicago, Detroit, Minneapolis, Indianapolis, and St. Louis all have some pretty nice condos! There's a stigma attached to living in the city, and it needs to be removed. But that's my opinion, though.

i think detroit has suffered the most because of its sprawl, so much that downtown isn't the major employment center in the region any more (its in southfield geographically)

When keeping with the population of the city itself and the metro, cincinnati is really bad. And its keeps getting worse.

I don't know but i know Chicago covers the largest area of sprawl. But for the meaning of sprawl I would say Cincinnati. I mean if it had the population of Chicago It would sprawl to Indy, Columbus, Indianapolis, etc.

St Louis is pretty bad too.

Chicago is definitely the most sprawled, but it's central city is also the most dense. It's two extremes. Detroit sprawls bad as well, but I'd put Indy and a few others up there before it.

They are all pretty bad. Of course Chicago, Detroit, and through experience I think Cincinnati is pretty sprawled out. Then the newer "Pheonixes" of the midwest Columbus/Indy are not very great in the sprawl department either.

Chicago is definitely the most sprawled, but it's central city is also the most dense. It's two extremes. Detroit sprawls bad as well, but I'd put Indy and a few others up there before it.

Well put,

I think Detroit and St. Louis pound for pound are sprawling more than any other midwest city(not sure of Cincinnati.). Chicago is in a different category. The city is about stable at 2.8 to 2.9 million, will the suburbs (especially the outer ring) are growing at rates comparable to sunbelt cities (Aurora and Joliet for example). The entire metro will probably add an addition 800,000 people by 2010 from the 2000 census pushing the greater metro population to over 10 million. Sprawl is headed in all directions (especially west/southwest). In 25 years Milwaukee/Racine, and Rockford will most likely be combined with Chicago because of sprawl.

There are varying degrees of suburbanization.

In the Milwaukee metro area, about half the residents live in the city, and half live in the suburbs. The city is about 600,000 and the metro is about 1.25 million (some maintain that Racine is part of the metro area, which kicks it up to 1.5 million, but either way I don't think anyone would call compact little Racine "sprawl").

In the Twin Cities, you have both central cities weighing in at about 600,000, in a metro area of over 3 million. So that means that only about one fifth of the population in the Twin Cities area lives in the central cities of Mpls or St. Paul.

Chicagoland sprawls like crazy, with surbanization stretching far into Indiana, and even now far southern Wisconsin. But the existance of the very large central city (3 million) means that the proportion of suburban residents to the whole (8 million) is not as pronounced as, say, the Twin Cities.
your evaluation misses many factors, central city size is determined by arbitrary borders... many "central cities" contain sprawl themselves, it just depends when a city stopped annexing, Minneapolis would look much better in your view if it simply started annexing suburbs, doing so wouldn't change anything about the dynamic of the metro but would make it look different on paper.

look at these "suburbs" of Minneapolis and St. Paul
http://www.us-mapsite.com/maps/us_mn_richfield.gif
http://www.tcmfd.com/stlouispark/dist.jpg
http://www.us-mapsite.com/maps/us_mn_south_st_paul.gif
http://www.us-mapsite.com/maps/us_mn_columbia_heights.gif
http://www.us-mapsite.com/maps/us_mn_robbinsdale.gif

There are varying degrees of suburbanization.

In the Milwaukee metro area, about half the residents live in the city, and half live in the suburbs. The city is about 600,000 and the metro is about 1.25 million (some maintain that Racine is part of the metro area, which kicks it up to 1.5 million, but either way I don't think anyone would call compact little Racine "sprawl").

In the Twin Cities, you have both central cities weighing in at about 600,000, in a metro area of over 3 million. So that means that only about one fifth of the population in the Twin Cities area lives in the central cities of Mpls or St. Paul.

Chicagoland sprawls like crazy, with surbanization stretching far into Indiana, and even now far southern Wisconsin. But the existance of the very large central city (3 million) means that the proportion of suburban residents to the whole (8 million) is not as pronounced as, say, the Twin Cities.


Fair enough, but i have to say that your use of city proper population figures is totally arbitrary. Boundaries are just lines on a map, and neither Minneapolis or St. Paul have added to their size significantly since around the first quarter of the last century, while Milwaukee annexed up until at least the 1960's. I think i did the math a while ago, and Minneapolis and St. Paul combined have a higher population contained in less area over all. Oh, the Twin Cities definately have worse sprawl than Milwaukee, no doubt, but i think your 1/2 versus 1/5 ratios are misleading.

I would say, from my somewhat limited knowledge of midwestern cities, that Detroit, Chicago and the Twin Cities sprawl the worst. As to the original question, what city suffered the most from sprawl, i would say Detroit, without a doubt.

EDIT: Yeah, what Toggie said :)

America's most Sprawl-Threatened Cities.

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

^ Please explain what this map means...with the symbols and numbers--with much clarification might do this thread some justice.

Red: Large metro's.
Green: Mid sized metro's.
Yellow: Small metro's
Star: Poster child? lol

Chicago has the most sprawl, but there really isn't a major midwest city that doesn't have sprawl.

I'd agree, but I'd say it just isn't limited to major midwestern cities. I moved from La Crosse to Holmen a few years ago. Since the state expansion of Hwy 53 to 4 lanes was completed in 1990, Holmen has gone from 3,000 residents to about 7,000. Suburban spawl, just on a smaller scale.

From 1987 to 1997 La Crosse County lost close to 25,000 acres of farmland to development. Eau Claire County lost the same amount.

http://www.city-data.com/city/maps2/cm5221.gif

3 million residents of Detroit live within a 600 sq. mi. core. The other 1 million are sprawled throughout an area of about 1400 sq. mi.

I would say that cities with a belt-way would tend to sprawl the least. Now, before you all think I am crazy...think about it. Certainly, when they were first constructed, yes, the contributed to spawl; however they also provided a "core" (so to speak) to contain the growth within the boundaries. Cities that don't have a belt-way, tend to sprawl along the highway corridors unabated. Granted, many cities ( ie. Indy) have grown past their belt-ways, but they have helped to keep the urban flight somewhat contained.

Thoughts?

It's hard to measure a thing like sprawl by just looking at the core cities. For instance, I live in Edina...although it is a suburb (a nice suburb that is) parts of it are fairly urban. Parts of Edina are indistingusible from Minneapolis. We certainly have sprawl in areas farther away from the city but the first ring suburbs-like Edina, Bloomington, Richfield, St. Louis Park and many more are really part of the city because they are pretty urban.

Also, I am hoping sprawl will die down in Minneapolis because anybody who lives there can tell you there is a major surge of housing in the city. Living in the city is now the best place to live, and the facination for city living is growing throughout the Twin Cities. The inner-city stigma that existed with city living has fallen apart and it is increasingly becoming a ritzy place to live. Downtown Minneapolis is expected to get three new grocery stores! That's a true sign of urban renewal if you ask me!

I would say that cities with a belt-way would tend to sprawl the least. Now, before you all think I am crazy...think about it. Certainly, when they were first constructed, yes, the contributed to spawl; however they also provided a "core" (so to speak) to contain the growth within the boundaries. Cities that don't have a belt-way, tend to sprawl along the highway corridors unabated. Granted, many cities ( ie. Indy) have grown past their belt-ways, but they have helped to keep the urban flight somewhat contained.

Thoughts?


Yup yup
It will take a long time before Louisville ever starts to grow majorly outside of the Gene snyder. Luckily, Louisville is contained between an outer beltway and the Ohio river, and until we start busting at the seems, we will be sure to develop along the Gene snyder and Watterson expressways because that is where business will prosper. Also, when the Gene snyder is extended into Indiana, it will help even more to keep clarksville and Jeffersonville contained and start to dense up that side of the river.

chicagoland obviously has more sprawl than any other midwest metro. it's two times bigger than any of the others, so this should be self-evident.

however, i beleive that metro detroit's sprawl has been far more detrimental to the core city, than chicagoland's sprawl has been to chicago.

I believe this is true as well. Chicago could sprawl to the Iowa state line and it's suburbs would still feel that suburban connection to Chicago. Detroit can't sprawl past 696 (roughly 11 Mile) and people start disassociating themselves with the city.

It's almost subconsciously thinking, "Detroit's sprawl to 11 Mile is equivalent to Chicago's sprawl to Iowa." Thought that's an extreme example, it makes you think what it might be in actuality...

While all of that is true, we must all think of how sprawl not only effects a particular central city, but the state it's in. I don't care if it's Chicago, NYC, Los Angeles...it doesn't matter, every city has a sprawl threshold.

All of the Midwest is sprawl...in 25 years much of it will be tiled with CSAs and MSAs:

http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/3329/midwest20309ou.png

OMG!

Jesus tapdancing CHRIST! Where did you find this map?

Look at the Twin Cities -- sprawl all the way down to Rochester and as far east as Eau Claire?! Totally inconceivable. That is an immensely vast swath of undeveloped land. I find it hard to see this as a reality in 25 years.

Okay...maybe 2050 ;)

Where did you find that map?

I made it...

awesome map!!!! Chicago will just be one metro away from Cincy,Minneapolis and Detriot... Imagine the traffic on I-94, I-65, and I-75!

I think I would pick Detriot.

Now I am curious and want to see the whole thing, that is awesome!

Here's the same area today:

http://img102.imageshack.us/img102/1323/20005ga.png

I made it...

Oh. I figured it had been professionally done by some organization. Nice work!

But in my opinion, sprawl on this kind of scale will never, ever happen. There comes to be a point when commute times are just too great. And what happens to all that farmland?

By the time we are technologically advanced enough to have high-speed transportation to and from "suburbs" over 100 miles away, our cities will surely have implemented some sort of sprawl limitations, don't you think?

The growth does follow interstates if you look closely ;)

As for the maps themselves...anyone with MapPoint can make maps like these :)

And every inch of land in a county doesn't have to be urban to become metropolitan...only a commute factor is really required. Most of the Chicago metro today is still farmland, especially in the outer counties.

Gaviide, you must realize that sprawl also sprawls jobs, as well. Many people don't have to commute to the centre city. Many commute from suburb to suburb. Sprawl could theoretically go on forever and ever.

In 25 years the Greater Cincinnati Dayton metros will merge with some spill over to Columbus's metro. Greater Cincinnati, Dayton, Columbus will look like nearly one contiguous area and the southern tip of Greater Cincinnati will only be a county or two from Greater Louisville.

The southern tip of Cincinnati's CSA is already only one county from Louisville's CSA I believe.

Now it looks like places like Columbus and Indy are sprawling bad, before I would say that Detroit and Clevland took that title.

In 25 years the Greater Cincinnati Dayton metros will merge with some spill over to Columbus's metro. Greater Cincinnati, Dayton, Columbus will look like nearly one contiguous area and the southern tip of Greater Cincinnati will only be a county or two from Greater Louisville.

This is true. The reason I didn't indicate it on the map is that, unlike most metros, Dayton's current area may not join another one "whole". Its current counties would probably split between Cincinnati and Columbus.

This is true. The reason I didn't indicate it on the map is that, unlike most metros, Dayton's current area may not join another one "whole". Its current counties would probably split between Cincinnati and Columbus.


Don't foreget Indy's...

Hey Marathon, do you have the rest of that map for the all states? I would be very interested in seeing the whole thing sometime.

Don't foreget Indy's...

I'm not sure there are any Ohio counties that would be more likely to go to Indy than to Cincy or Columbus...

Hey Marathon, do you have the rest of that map for the all states? I would be very interested in seeing the whole thing sometime.

Of the future forecasts? I can tell you that the metros from Portland ME to Richmond VA all become one, which I called Greater NYC-MidAtlantica :master:

I'm not sure there are any Ohio counties that would be more likely to go to Indy than to Cincy or Columbus...


I am talking about the county where Richmond, IN is located, which is on the Ohio-Indiana border. Isn't Dayton just one county from that?

I am talking about the county where Richmond, IN is located, which is on the Ohio-Indiana border. Isn't Dayton just one county from that?

Yeah...I already assigned Wayne County to Indy on my forecast map.

Preble and Darke Counties in Ohio lie between Dayton/Montgomery County and the state line. Those are Dayton's. They're a bit of a reach for Indy and Columbus, or even Cincinnati...part of the reason I preserved Dayton until the latter timeframe...

^there's three major population centers, each reasonably distinct (not talking about overgrown suburbs)

cleveland: 458k
Akron: 212k
Canton: 80k

(city propers)