# Growth among eastern US cities



## ilovecoffee (Jul 9, 2013)

Why are cites in the SE and mid Atlantic US growing and cities in the NE are stagnating or shrinking. Atlanta, charlotte, Miami and other big metros in that region are all growing at a considerable rate, so are Baltimore, Philly and DC. While in the NE NY is stagnating in growth and Boston, is loosing population. Other New England metros like providence and Worcester are growing a meager rate.

Is it because the NE is relatively overpopulated compared any other region? 

Does it have to do with business practices or natural resources?


----------



## weava (Sep 8, 2007)

people move south(especially when they retire) because of the better weather. Jobs move south because of the cheaper land/labor.


----------



## ilovecoffee (Jul 9, 2013)

Those are 2 good explanation's; Lower business cost combined with the uneven senior population.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

I don't think they are growing slowly at all. After a problematic 1970's, they're all posting healthy growth. Actually, compared to the country's average, they might be enjoying the best results in a century.

_Yearly Growth 2010-2012 (appr.)_ 

Boston CSA ------------------- 0.62%
New York CSA ----------------- 0.62%
Philadelphia CSA --------------- 0.43%
Washington-Baltimore CSA ----- 1.54%

Washington-Baltimore growing way above the national average while Boston and New York are just below it.


----------



## ilovecoffee (Jul 9, 2013)

Still, I was more talking tri-state

Atlanta 6.6% (growth from 2000-2012)
Charlotte 43 %
Raleigh 53 %
Greensboro 23%
Miami 14%

New York 4.1%


----------



## gooseberry (Nov 3, 2009)

Those cities are cheaper to build and live in and have room to build sprawling suburbs. I can say Boston is seeing a lot of residential in-fill in the city itself, vs adding sprawl to the suburbs. I'd rather live in a city with that type of growth.


----------



## AmoreUrbs (Mar 6, 2013)

I just hope they don't become a sprawling mess like in Southern California, although the way suburbs are build is very similar throughout all the country; quite wasteful and not innovative ways I would say


----------



## Treka (Jan 26, 2013)

Yuri S Andrade said:


> I don't think they are growing slowly at all. After a problematic 1970's, they're all posting healthy growth. Actually, compared to the country's average, they might be enjoying the best results in a century.
> 
> _Yearly Growth 2010-2012 (appr.)_
> 
> ...


Most of this growth in the Northeast is either in the gentrifying city centers or the far flung exurbs. Mostly not healthy, sustainable growth.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

^^
I meant healthy as strong. And to me population growth, specially in a country like the US where people move around a lot, means the place is doing very well. And that's the case of Northeast at the moment. Nevertheless, I have nothing against exurbs.




AmoreUrbs said:


> I just hope they don't become a sprawling mess like in Southern California, although the way suburbs are build is very similar throughout all the country; quite wasteful and not innovative ways I would say


Actually, the Northeast is much more a "sprawling mess" than Southern California. Los Angeles urban area is the densest of the US, by far. Just go to the Google Maps and you'll see the suburbs in Northeast are way less dense.


----------



## CNB30 (Jun 4, 2012)

I think it is important to note that the northeastern Megalopolis actually gained 2 million people between 2000, and 2010, therefore how is adding 2 million people a Shrink???


1 New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA 22,085,649....21,361,797 +3.39%
4 Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-VA-WV CSA 8,572,971....7,572,647 +13.21%
5 Boston-Worcester-Manchester, MA-RI-NH CSA 7,559,060....7,298,695 +3.57%
8 Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland, PA-NJ-DE-MD CSA 6,533,683....6,207,223 +5.26%
Total 44,751,363 42,440,362 +5.45%


----------



## bayviews (Mar 3, 2006)

ilovecoffee said:


> Why are cites in the SE and mid Atlantic US growing and cities in the NE are stagnating or shrinking. Atlanta, charlotte, Miami and other big metros in that region are all growing at a considerable rate, so are Baltimore, Philly and DC. While in the NE NY is stagnating in growth and Boston, is loosing population. Other New England metros like providence and Worcester are growing a meager rate.
> 
> Is it because the NE is relatively overpopulated compared any other region?
> 
> Does it have to do with business practices or natural resources?


Many cities in New England and the eastern end of the Mid Atlantic states have been seeing slow but steady re-growth over the past few decades. These places have welcomed significant numbers of new immigrants in recent decades, thus their regrowth. 

By contrast, the cities that keep declining are located mostly in the western end of upstate NY and Pennsylvania. These places haven't been very open to new immigrants, thus their continued decline.


----------



## 009 (Nov 28, 2007)

Yuri S Andrade said:


> ^^
> Actually, the Northeast is much more a "sprawling mess" than Southern California. Los Angeles urban area is the densest of the US, by far. Just go to the Google Maps and you'll see the suburbs in Northeast are way less dense.



Not sure if serious

http://agbeat.com/economic-news/americas-top-50-most-population-dense-cities/

The New York Urban area is more than 2.5 times as dense as LA


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

^^
Struggling with the most basic concepts: weighted density is completely different from density.

*------------------ Inh. 2010 --- Area --- Density*
New York -------- 18,351,295 --- 8,936.0 km² --- 2,053.6 inh/km²
Los Angeles ------ 12,150,996 --- 4,496.3 km² --- 2,702.5 inh/km²

Including Bridgeport (NY) and San Bernardino (LA), contiguous urban areas:

New York -------- 19,274,606 --- 10,144 km² --- 1,900 inh/km²
Los Angeles ------ 14,083,662 ---- 5,908 km² --- 2,384 inh/km²

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_urban_areas

Not that's a big surprise. Just check the Google Earth, and you'll see New York suburbs have extreme low density, looking like a forest with some houses scattered around. Los Angeles suburbs, on the other hand, are quite dense. You can clearly see where the city ends and the desert begins.


----------



## 009 (Nov 28, 2007)

Yuri S Andrade said:


> ^^
> Struggling with the most basic concepts: weighted density is completely different from density.
> 
> *------------------ Inh. 2010 --- Area --- Density*
> ...


Actually weighted density is the perfect way to measure sprawl because it eliminates large empty spaces. Don't discredit something just because you don't understand it.


----------



## 009 (Nov 28, 2007)

Here is a comprehensive study done on sprawl in major American metro areas
http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/MeasuringSprawlTechnical.pdf

As you can see the New York metro area ranks first with the lowest urban sprawl index, LA comes in 39th place


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

009 said:


> Actually weighted density is the perfect way to measure sprawl because it eliminates large empty spaces. Don't discredit something just because you don't understand it.


The presence of empty spaces is precisely what makes sprawl worse. New York urban area has 10,144 km² while Los Angeles' is on 5,908 km², smaller than Atlanta's. 

New York urban area is less dense than Los Angeles. You can't argue with numbers.


----------



## 009 (Nov 28, 2007)

Yuri S Andrade said:


> The presence of empty spaces is precisely what makes sprawl worse. New York urban area has 10,144 km² while Los Angeles' is on 5,908 km², smaller than Atlanta's.
> 
> New York urban area is less dense than Los Angeles. You can't argue with numbers.


I don't think you understand what sprawl is, type urban sprawl in google images and you should have a better understanding


----------



## Chicagoago (Dec 2, 2005)

ilovecoffee said:


> Why are cites in the SE and mid Atlantic US growing and cities in the NE are stagnating or shrinking. Atlanta, charlotte, Miami and *other big metros in that region are all growing at a considerable rate, so are Baltimore, Philly and DC.* While in the NE *NY is stagnating in growth and Boston, is loosing population*. Other New England metros like providence and Worcester are growing a meager rate.
> 
> Is it because the NE is relatively overpopulated compared any other region?
> 
> Does it have to do with business practices or natural resources?


?? Boston has been growing for decades now while its metro has always been growing. NYC has been growing by hundreds of thousands starting in the 1990's and the metro grows a decent amount. Philly and Baltimore are stagnant or shrinking with fairly slow growing metros.

DC grows a ton because of the white collar government focused economy (government has been growing a TON since around 2000).

Atlanta, Charlotte and Miami are all warmer cities, and the warmer cities are growing a lot because people like the weather. Before air conditioning was common the past 50 years they were all quite small places. Low taxes, newer cities, low cost of living, etc.


----------



## Chicagoago (Dec 2, 2005)

Yuri S Andrade said:


> ^^
> Struggling with the most basic concepts: weighted density is completely different from density.
> 
> *------------------ Inh. 2010 --- Area --- Density*
> ...


A lot of the sprawl around LA happens in very dry climates with no other development or infrastructure around - and the area was almost entirely void of human development (at least the areas growing the past few decades, the valley had development).

excet for the mountains the land is fairly "open" and there aren't natural energy, road or water connections. Because of this development tends to be more binding to already installed development and it's fairly compact.

Compare that to the northeast with ample water, infrastructure and development for hundreds of years. There are also tons of farms and forests/trees in the area. You can't just go in and plow over the land and everything on it and build tight connected development like in the southwestern USA. That's why the areas outside NYC and other eastern cities see so much "sprawl". It's not really Houston, Phoenix or Dallas type sprawl, it's more low density subdivisions and housing here and there that conforms to development that's been there for hundreds of years and the trees, land, infrastructure.

Suburban Boston for example seems much more at one with nature and peaceful than suburban Houston.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

009 said:


> I don't think you understand what sprawl is, type urban sprawl in google images and you should have a better understanding


No, you don't understand what urban sprawl is. 

Let's try to make things even simpler: New York urban area eats 10,144 km² of land that could be otherwise used for farming or retreat to the nature. Los Angeles uses only 5,908 km² of land.

In New York urban area there are 1,900 people for each km². In Los Angeles, 2,384 people for the same km². I don't think it's that challenging.


----------



## 009 (Nov 28, 2007)

Yuri S Andrade said:


> No, you don't understand what urban sprawl is.
> 
> Let's try to make things even simpler: New York urban area eats 10,144 km² of land that could be otherwise used for farming or retreat to the nature. Los Angeles uses only 5,908 km² of land.
> 
> In New York urban area there are 1,900 people for each km². In Los Angeles, 2,384 people for the same km². I don't think it's that challenging.


Educate yourself.......
Here is a comprehensive study done on sprawl in major American metro areas
http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/MeasuringSprawlTechnical.pdf

As you can see the New York metro area ranks first with the lowest urban sprawl index, LA comes in 39th place



Here is some information about the study since I doubt you will read it: 

Smart Growth America (SGA) has sponsored this groundbreaking
research by Rutgers University Professor Reid Ewing and Cornell University Professor Rolf
Pendall. It represents a rigorous effort to measure the characteristics of sprawl and their impacts
on quality of life. In this study, sprawl is defined as low-density development with residential,
shopping and office areas that are rigidly segregated; a lack of thriving activity centers; and
limited choices in travel routes. These features constitute
four factors that can then be measured and analyzed: 1) Residential density; 2) Neighborhood mix of homes, jobs, and services; 3)
Strength of centers, such as business districts; and 4) Accessibility via the street network. All of
these are well-established descriptors of urban sprawl in the relevant academic literature, but this
study represents the first effort to attempt to measure sprawl in all of these dimensions.


I think I'll take their word over a random brazilian guy using google maps lol


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

Chicagoago said:


> A lot of the sprawl around LA happens in very dry climates with no other development or infrastructure around - and the area was almost entirely void of human development (at least the areas growing the past few decades, the valley had development).
> 
> excet for the mountains the land is fairly "open" and there aren't natural energy, road or water connections. Because of this development tends to be more binding to already installed development and it's fairly compact.
> 
> ...


Yes, I understand there are many reasons explaining why eastern cities are more sprawling while the western are more compact. I, however, have no opinion on which urban layout is superior.


----------



## tocoto (Jan 18, 2003)

^^^ All you have to do to form an opinion is to live in LA and NYC for six months each - without a car. Then you will know which sprawls more.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

009 said:


> Actually weighted density is the perfect way to measure sprawl because it eliminates large empty spaces. Don't discredit something just because you don't understand it.


These figures just show that within the built up area of LA, the population is more evenly distributed. In New York you have half of the population living very dense and the other half living in super sprawly developments that eat up a lot of land.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

009 said:


> Educate yourself.......
> Here is a comprehensive study done on sprawl in major American metro areas
> http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/MeasuringSprawlTechnical.pdf
> 
> ...


So for you it's more sprawl if 18,000 people live evenly on 18 km² than if 10,000 people live on 1 km² and another 10,000 on 30km²? :lol:


----------

