# Most suburban city in Europe?



## Spookvlieger (Jul 10, 2009)

*It's wel known that Toulouse in France has one of the most Amercian like suburbs on the European continent. But wich other city has?*
*Toulose:*

Taken from the tread: Suburbs Toulouse, Amercian or European?


1.









2.









3. This huge shopping mall, where I shopped once, is actually quite pleasant at ground level.









4.









5. The Roman atrium still lives on in the suburban villas of Toulouse (at one time the fourth-largest city in the Western Roman Empire).









6.









7. And the building boom continues... Got to accomodate 20,000 new people every year in the metro area.









8.









9.









10. This one is actually officially the largest hypermarket in France, perhaps also in Europe, I don't know. I went there once, it's BIG.









11.









12.









13.









14.









15.









16.









17. Airbus-land.









18.









19. A380, baby! :rock:









20.









21.









22.









23.







[/QUOTE]


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

I think you need to show what central Toulouse looks like too - its very different from its US counterparts.


----------



## Filipe_Teixeira (Dec 19, 2005)

edit


----------



## Tubeman (Sep 12, 2002)

Depends how you define it, but British 'New towns' like Milton Keynes are basically entirely suburbs.

The city of Milton Keynes (pop. approx 250,000) is nothing but low-rise housing estates of cul-de-sacs with large shopping malls.


----------



## Spookvlieger (Jul 10, 2009)

the spliff fairy said:


> I think you need to show what central Toulouse looks like too - its very different from its US counterparts.
> QUOTE]
> 
> Yeah I already knew that, but I needed an example


----------



## TohrAlkimista (Dec 18, 2006)

Milton Keynes is probably one of the worst spot I've ever seen in UK.


----------



## Spookvlieger (Jul 10, 2009)

Tubeman said:


> Depends how you define it, but British 'New towns' like Milton Keynes are basically entirely suburbs.
> 
> The city of Milton Keynes (pop. approx 250,000) is nothing but low-rise housing estates of cul-de-sacs with large shopping malls.


That's quite big..., I really didn't knew that... I always thought that new towns garden towns wher relatively dense!


----------



## BearCave (Feb 2, 2007)

Why do all houses in Toulose have the same roof and wall colours? Is it the regulation?


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

BearCave said:


> Why do all houses in Toulouse have the same roof and wall colours? Is it the regulation?


Yes, it's the local style. In France you have to respect the local styles. You can't built Swiss chalets on the French Riviera, or Provençal villas in Brittany.


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

Some street views of the Toulouse suburbs. The population in the Toulouse metropolitan area is growing by almost 2% every year, which is the highest population growth of any European metropolitan area. In terms of absolute numbers it's about +20,000 new people every year. That means about 8,000 or 9,000 new dwellings need to be built every year. I'm posting essentially pictures of new suburbs under construction here.






















































































































*This picture was taken approximately 20 km from downtown Toulouse:*


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

From what I read and seen in SSC, Copenhagen and Toulouse are the most suburban cities in Europe. Maybe Helsinki too.


----------



## NCT (Aug 14, 2009)

TohrAlkimista said:


> Milton Keynes is probably one of the worst spot I've ever seen in UK.


+1.


----------



## samba_man (Dec 26, 2004)

Looks somehow with Barra da Tijuca neibor in Rio.


----------



## Tubeman (Sep 12, 2002)

TohrAlkimista said:


> Milton Keynes is probably one of the worst spot I've ever seen in UK.


It's pretty shit, yes... Got some friends there, living in a more upmarket area adjacent to the original Milton Keynes village (Middleton)... The estates vary from quadrant to quadrant in terms of income bracket. To be fair, they have a lovely house with a big garden... But the concept of having to get in your car just to buy a pint of milk is totally alien to me, and a city whose centre you can drive through without even realising it freaks me out.

For a country with so many enchanting historic city centres, MK is total urban fail.


----------



## niterider (Nov 3, 2009)

Tubeman said:


> It's pretty shit, yes... Got some friends there, living in a more upmarket area adjacent to the original Milton Keynes village (Middleton)... The estates vary from quadrant to quadrant in terms of income bracket. To be fair, they have a lovely house with a big garden... But the concept of having to get in your car just to buy a pint of milk is totally alien to me, and a city whose centre you can drive through without even realising it freaks me out.
> 
> For a country with so many enchanting historic city centres, MK is total urban fail.


Some people like the space and the fact that it's easier to find houses with gardens there at an affordable price than paying more elsewhere or the same for run down areas like those in luton. It's becoming a successful city and yes it has its problems but I wouldn't class it as one of the worst examples of new towns by any means. 

People need to drive in much of suburbia in the UK to get to local shops but most parts of the UK have nowhere near the level of successful cycle/foot-path penetration that MK has- just look at it on google maps to see. Nowadays I'd imagine such quadrants would be designed with the roadways less 'direct' with the cycle/foot-paths providing the most direct and convenient routes, but nonetheless they p*ss over non-car infrastructure of cities elsewhere the UK.


----------



## Republica (Jun 30, 2005)

Milton Keynes could be re jigged a bit and made to be nice by densifying it.


----------



## niterider (Nov 3, 2009)

The centre yes....but the current densities are part of the pull for some. Like I said - less congestion and more green space and room compared to many other places. The houses themselves aren't huge but the proportion of green spaces etc is higher than the norm


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

Milton keynes, ah, for all its leafy wonders and fake cows, big spaces and double garages, anyone with half a brain in the country still regards it as the gates of Hell.

The name is synonymous with wrist-slittingly spotless banality, suburban window twitching, wife swapping and ornamental conifers:


----------



## Sonrise (Oct 20, 2009)

Keep in mind, not everyone wants to live like a sardine; some people may want a house with a yard. To each his own. 



the spliff fairy said:


> Milton keynes, ah, for all its leafy wonders and fake cows, big spaces and double garages, anyone with half a brain in the country still regards it as the gates of Hell.
> 
> The name is synonymous with wrist-slittingly spotless banality, suburban window twitching, wife swapping and ornamental conifers:


----------



## Sonrise (Oct 20, 2009)

NCT said:


> +1.


-1, I'll take green leafy suburbs over gray concrete jungles anytime.


----------



## city3456789 (Aug 4, 2009)

For what's its worth, MK looks nothing like American suburbia. It looks like your typical "Number Four, Privet Drive," British suburbia


----------



## dösanhoro (Jun 24, 2006)

LtBk said:


> From what I read and seen in SSC, Copenhagen and Toulouse are the most suburban cities in Europe. Maybe Helsinki too.


I don't know much about Tolouse. Yes. Copenhagen still has a decent density in and around it's suburbs. Much so than some other suburbs. Maybe the members from CPH on the forum can elaborate further.

Now to Helsinki. I show some photos . 
From Bing.com bird view.
Suburb and Suburbia is understood in many different ways by different people. Different style of buildings , different style of locations. So I mean all of these.









50 to 60s north Helsinki neighbourhood.









More centrally located. The bird view does not do the houses justice which are often coloured in bright yellow.









A suburb in Vantaa, not inside Helsinki. Helsinki area consists also of the 'cities' Vantaa and Espoo and then of course Helsinki itself. The 60s and 70s brought a new style of building things. Somewhat related to the earlier style. Often far more sprawled out than before. Commieblocks. think the houses are one of the more uglier ones in the whole region. Denser than typical for this style.









Another place. You can see what I mean. Note the more suburban housing to the sides. Plenty of land area left unused. 










Of course this kind of suburbia exists too. There are some major parts with a grid pattern. But usually the roads are more organic. No cul de sacs usually. Like in the photo before you can see how places are located next to commie blocks in some way. This is also different than most suburbs of this that is not done by one developer but is people building into what must have been backyards of people before. Denser than most suburbs of this type. 









Now where this is going. You can see a return to more urban building styles over the time in general. There are some exceptions like not everything done in the past decades was entirely suburban oriented. One can't see the location of this but this is not entirely in the middle of nowhere like the 60 and 70s developments were. This is built in the 90s up to the early 00s. It has been zoned and planned way earlier than that so you can see still older influences in this. Last I looked there were some buildings still being built there.









Newer. Built in the 00s. Look at the amount of parking. Houses have spaces between them basically for the cranes of the builders.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

>


Looks like the quintessential Canadian suburb with some minor differences.


----------



## Republica (Jun 30, 2005)

Thinking about it, there are very few areas of great sprawl in the UK really.

Maybe there are some places in the south east that are a bit suburban in the manner the thread starter was thinking.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

Sonrise said:


> Keep in mind, not everyone wants to live like a sardine; some people may want a house with a yard. To each his own.


But you don't have to live in Milton Keynes to have a house with a yard, pretty much every UK town and city has suburban development similar to MK, they just aren't ENTIRELY made up of such housing development. There is more choice and variety of lifestyles in other places.

The most unattractive feature of such new towns though imo, Telford being the example I know best, is the town centres, often not much more than a shopping mall and some offices with no residents so it has no real life of its own unlike a mixed-use traditional town centre. I've only been to MK a couple of times and frankly I see no reason to go again, even if I wanted a suburban, car-dependent lifestyle I can think of much more attractive and appealing places to live.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

Sonrise said:


> -1, I'll take green leafy suburbs over gray concrete jungles anytime.


But if you look at spliffairy's pictures, you notice that MK centre has vast empty areas of gray concrete plazas, car parks etc, far more so than most town centres.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

Republica said:


> Thinking about it, there are very few areas of great sprawl in the UK really.
> 
> Maybe there are some places in the south east that are a bit suburban in the manner the thread starter was thinking.


We have very little low density, unplanned sprawl but we have oodles and oodles of planned, mid-density suburbia.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Jonesy55 said:


> We have very little low density, unplanned sprawl but we have oodles and oodles of planned, mid-density suburbia.


Basically the whole of Manchester, except for the central area is a low-mid density sprawl...

There is also Birchwood (Warrington) that has quite a bit of sprawl, evening with its own country club :lol:


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

^^ that's what I mean by planned suburbia, a housing development then open fields with a pretty clear cutoff, its not like one house then an empty plot, then another house then 50m of nothing then a couple of houses.


----------



## TohrAlkimista (Dec 18, 2006)

When I lived in Winchester (Hampshire), I was told by 'my english family' about this huge development in MK.
That was supposed to be an innovative attempt for a modern suburban living, but "it turned to be quite a failure".

When I had to leave from Luton Airport and I had an afternoon to waste, I went there to have a look...damn, quite depressing indeed. 
Too much concrete, too few people around.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

TohrAlkimista said:


> .damn, quite depressing indeed.
> Too much concrete, too few people around.


There are some awful parts of MK, but if you drive further out into the newer places its quite decent...










Some newer places seem to go for a more English village look










Same town different street...im sure this must have been where u went


----------



## Harry (Nov 8, 2002)

No - not convinced! I have rarely visited anywhere so utterly devoid of urban charm or character than Milton Keynes. I would sooner drink the bottle of bleach sitting under my kitchen sink than live there for more than a day. Far too much plastic and concrete in one place.

The 'city' (don't get me started: residents, bizarrely, insist on calling Milton Keynes a city) is a horrifying 1960s planning accident. And as if to compound the mistake, government has insisted on expanding it instead of humanely putting it out of its misery.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Harry said:


> No - not convinced! I have rarely visited anywhere so utterly devoid of urban charm or character than Milton Keynes. I would sooner drink the bottle of bleach sitting under my kitchen sink than live there for more than a day. Far too much plastic and concrete in one place.
> 
> The 'city' (don't get me started: residents, bizarrely, insist on calling Milton Keynes a city) is a horrifying 1960s planning accident. And as if to compound the mistake, government has insisted on expanding it instead of humanely putting it out of its misery.


....LOL

Its sure aint that bad haha

Its car orientated and doesn't follow old styles, thats about it.

I personally wouldn't want to live there as its not convenient for much.


----------



## RawLee (Jul 9, 2007)

Might not be the biggest in Europe, but it is sure big - Érd, just south of Budapest, is a ~64000 county seat over a ~60,5 km2 area.










Google Maps


----------



## Cherguevara (Apr 13, 2005)

poshbakerloo said:


> Basically the whole of Manchester, except for the central area is a low-mid density sprawl...
> 
> There is also Birchwood (Warrington) that has quite a bit of sprawl, evening with its own country club :lol:


I think calling it sprawl is a bit misleading. It's sprawl in the same sense that outler London is sprawl, which is really just traditional British mid-density suburban semi-detached housing rather than in the sense that American cities (or those pictures of Toulouse are sprawling). 

The other interesting think about the big English cities is that this suburbia is infill between areas of dense but dispersed suburbs which grew up around early railway stations in the Victorian era. So while Manchester (and Leeds, Liverpool, Birmingham etc.) has a lot of mid-density suburban housing it also has many denser urban villages or small suburban towns (Chorlton, Didsbury, Withington, Sale, Altrincham, the Heatons) that the 'sprawl' has grown around.


----------



## Sonrise (Oct 20, 2009)

Jonesy55 said:


> But if you look at spliffairy's pictures, you notice that MK centre has vast empty areas of gray concrete plazas, car parks etc, far more so than most town centres.


yeah, I do agree with you guys on that part. Why not replace the concrete plazas and parking lots with parks and recreational areas?


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

Sonrise said:


> yeah, I do agree with you guys on that part. Why not replace the concrete plazas and parking lots with parks and recreational areas?


To be fair MK does have some decent parks I think. I don't know what can be done about the huge car parks though, if a city is designed to revolve around the car then its going to need loads of parking and car parks are pretty much always ugly whether they are surface level or multi-storey. You could put them underground I suppose.


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

poshbakerloo said:


> There are some awful parts of MK, but if you drive further out into the newer places its quite decent...


It does actually have older parts. Bletchley, for example, home of Station X and the WWII codebreakers, is an old village surrounded by the "city". 


MK's (and new towns in general) draw a huge amount of criticism because subarban housing represents "middle class", and the middle class, along with Americans and ginger haired people, are the last three groups you are allowed criticise with impunity.

They also draw a lot of criticism for being "soulless" and terrible places to live, mainly by people who have never lived in such places, and somehow refuse to accept a typical close can have just as much community spirit as a "normal" street.

The one are criticism is spot on though, is the town centres of these places. For shopping they are probably no worse than any other town of similar size, as every town in the UK has exactly the same shops anyway. Where they fail absolutely is after 5.30, when they are completely devoid of life.

Sometimes you can take a step back, and you can actually see what the architecht was thinking. I know Bracknell pretty well, and the original 1960s development was based around a central square. Clearly the architecht was imagining a modern piazza, where people would sip coffees and have a meal in the evening, before moving on to a bar.

Now, that concept is fine if the square is full of cafes and bars etc. It doesn't tend to work when the square is surrounded by jewellers, shoe shops, branches of Dixons or Rymans the Stationer. The metal shutters come down at 5.30, and there's no reason to stay in the area, and nothing to do or see in the area even if you wanted to stay.

Some concepts of new town planning, such as the separation of industry and housing, and even the suburban feel of space with plenty of green space, and the planning for the location of schools and other public amentities, actually works quite well. Where planning falls down is provision for people to have a social life, and do things other than be at home, go to work/school or shop.


On topic, there's very little American style suburbia here because there isn't the room. Areas of large houses do exist (take the area round Ascot/Sunningdale, for example, where if you threw a dart blindfold, you'd probably hit an ageing 70s rock star) but they are all one-off developments.


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

isaidso said:


> Looks like the quintessential Canadian suburb with some minor differences.


Swimming pools, Mediterranean plants and Roman tiles in the Canadian suburbs?


----------



## brisavoine (Mar 19, 2006)

Sonrise said:


> Keep in mind, not everyone wants to live like a sardine; some people may want a house with a yard. To each his own.


If anyone is interested, I'm selling the house of my grandparents. 1.77 hectares (4.38 acres) of land at the exact confluence of two rivers, only 35 miles from Toulouse.


----------



## FREKI (Sep 27, 2005)

dösanhoro said:


> I was pointing out really population density of around 600 something number came out of similar but different definition


I would expect a person on a scraper forum in a thread about suburbs to know the difference between urban and metro areas...


And adding Region does as Spikespiegel points not make any sense...


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

The people of SF Bay Area in general are opposed to new developments, especially those of new urbanist designs. From what I read a while ago most of new urban developments are in San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, and few other other places.


----------



## dösanhoro (Jun 24, 2006)

FREKI said:


> I would expect a person on a scraper forum in a thread about suburbs to know the difference between urban and metro areas...
> 
> 
> And adding Region does as Spikespiegel points not make any sense...


I know the difference between metros and urban areas. I used the region definition because I couldn't find the metro density at the moment ouf of wikipedia. I switched around between different language wikipedia articles on CPH. But the point I was making was the metro definition produced an equally low density like that administrative region with the island in it. Serious academics came up with that ridiculous blue banana stuff . The whole definitions surrounding this have been discussed to death on this forum.

I don't particularily care about metros. Car dealerships , big box stores and motorways and villages with people who probably barely know they are in the metro of something bigger they rarely if ever visit? That has very little to do with urbanity for me. 

Still the question about CPH being the most suburban city in europe is unanswered. On it's ratio between suburban and more urban city perhaps it is possible. But probably not just because of it overall average density. 

Another interesting place to mention would be Stockholm with all it's small municipalities.


----------



## Anderson Geimz (Mar 29, 2008)

FREKI said:


> Maybe you should look at reality mate :|
> 
> 
> Copenhagen has a metro density of 650.6/km2 ( 1,9mil/2.923 km2 )
> ...


You are the one who should look at reality, but as everyone on this forum knows this is not your strong side. Even relatively unsprawly metros like New Orleans take up 3 times the area that Copenhagen takes up. And urban area wise NO still is twice the size of urban Copenhagen (_and_ has a lower population). Lets not even begin at comparing the more sprawlier US cities...

Don't juggle numbers at us, you're not dealing with a bunch of amateurs...


----------



## FREKI (Sep 27, 2005)

dösanhoro said:


> I know the difference between metros and urban areas


Then why mix them? :?



dösanhoro said:


> used the region definition because I couldn't find the metro density at the moment ouf of wikipedia


It says so right at the right side under Copenhagen's page...



dösanhoro said:


> don't particularily care about metros. Car dealerships , big box stores and motorways and villages with people who probably barely know they are in the metro of something bigger they rarely if ever visit? That has very little to do with urbanity for me


Neither do I, but that is the thread topic..




dösanhoro said:


> the question about CPH being the most suburban city in europe is unanswered


No one has ever made that claim have they?

The historic core probable prevents this, but it is up there, especially for larger European cities..


----------



## FREKI (Sep 27, 2005)

Anderson Geimz said:


> You are the one who should look at reality, but as everyone on this forum knows this is not your strong side. Even relatively unsprawly metros like New Orleans take up 3 times the area that Copenhagen takes up


So a depopulated post catastrophe city is the only comparable city you could find? :| 

( btw since when has Baton Rouge been part of New Orleans metro? )


Anderson Geimz said:


> Don't juggle numbers at us, you're not dealing with a bunch of amateurs...


It sounds that way mate when you can't even tell what number is lower 1024 or 650 ( LA vs CPH ) in fact go an claim the complete opposite... :|

And what numbers are being juggled by comparing metro density to metro density :| ( apples to apples, oranges to oranges mate )



Anyways no point in arguing.. reality remains the same and reality is there if you bothered taking a look..

Bing Maps: http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=55.6990333128431~12.489228837285964&lvl=19&sty=a

Google Streetview: http://maps.google.dk/?ie=UTF8&ll=5...=RZWUGGYyeplKtMgZyuvcng&cbp=12,283.67,,0,6.35

And if that is too much to ask for here's a couple mood shots..





































So with the numbers posted - multiple map sites that cover every street right down to the single flowers in the front yards and a couple views from above I think I can rest my case here...

Copenhagen certainly isn't the most sprawly place on the planet, but by both European as well as North American standards it's a pretty sprawly place.. and while this may not be political correct for our European members here on this forum it remains reality that can not be hidden...
And why should it, people like single story homes, cars and convenient retail solutions and nature and if they have the funds to live like that let them..


----------



## dj4life (Oct 22, 2009)

dösanhoro said:


> Another interesting place to mention would be Stockholm with all it's small municipalities.


I live in the northernmost sububurb of Stockholm, which is halfway to Uppsala. Even if it is a small town, the connection with the city center is very good and it doesn't feel that i am in a sepparate town too much. I think that the main difference between Stockholm and Copenhagen is that Stockholm is more developed like a metropolis (which is still growing), where metro and commuter trains mean pretty much for people, who go to job and etc. in the Inner city.


----------



## Anderson Geimz (Mar 29, 2008)

LOL, juggeling numbers doesn't work so FREKI pulls out the Google sat pics...:lol:

OK, some other US cities close in population to CPH then...

*Metro:*
Copenhagen 1,9 million on 1,900 km2

Portland 2,2 million on 17,600 km2
Cleveland 2,1 million on 10,200 km2
San Antonio 2,0 million on 19,100 km2
Kansas City 2,0 million on 20,600 km2
Las Vegas 1,9 million on 21,000 km2
Columbus 1,8 million on 8,200 km2
Charlotte 1,7 million on 6,800 km2
Indianapolis 1,7 million on 8,200 km2
Austin 1,7 million on 11,100 km2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas

*Urban*
Copenhagen 1,181,239 on 500 km2

Cincinnati 1,503,262 on 1740 km2
Sacramento 1,393,498 on 956 km2
Kansas City 1,361,744 on 1514 km2
San Antonio 1,327,554 on 1056 km2
Milwaukee 1,308,913 on 1261 km2
Indianapolis 1,218,919 on 1432 km2
Providence 1,174,548 on 1304 km2
Orlando 1,157,431 on 1174 km2
Columbus 1,133,193 on 1030 km2

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


----------



## FREKI (Sep 27, 2005)

^:lol:

What a load of Bull mate!


First of all how about you provide real links :| 

In reality your "Portland" is actually the "Oregon-Washington Metropolitan Statistical Area" aka the "Or-WA-MSA" areas spanning two states and 30+ cities... 

( if that's the level you are interested in all you need to do is look up Øresund Region that Copenhagen is the backbone of )


Øresund Region: 3,5mil - 20.869 km² - pop density: 171.7/km²


And since when has Las Vegas been half the size of Denmark :lol:

You're so full of BS mate! In the real world it's less than 1,600 km2 compared to your 21.000 km2 and the population is 2.282.708 :lol: ( that would mean a significantly higher pop density than CPH mate :| )


Second exactly what does 20 US cities have to do with Europe?


Third I never said CPH had a lower density than all US cities, but it does famous sprawly ones such as Los Angeles.. and you pulling these fake examples our of your arse only shows you have some sort of agenda... how about you just accept that Europe too have sprawly, suburban, car loving cities - *it's reality so you might as well accept it!*


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

brisavoine said:


> In the Silicon Valley the local residents clearly oppose any densification of the area. There's currently a battle between the city planners and the long-term thinkers who realize the Bay Area cannot expand outwards for ever and needs to densify, and the local residents who would like to keep the luxury of living in one of the most desireable stretch of urban land in the world while enjoying the density of a small city in the Middle West. You can't have it both ways people!
> 
> The local residents already managed to successfully block the extension of the BART underground mass transit towards the Silicon Valley, but in recent years more and more densification has been going on, with individual houses being replaced by tall apartment buildings. I think it's a test case for the US as whole. It will be interesting to see if they manage to turn it into an urban area with densities comparable to Europe.


San Jose has worked hard to develop dense, transit oriented neighborhoods in the city's downtown but zoning codes restrict heights and their quantities aren't enough to house all the people who want to live nearer to their jobs. All over the West, NIMBY residents who regard view-disrupting 3 and 4 story buildings as "skyscrapers" have obstructed dense developments and they are a big reason why so few large cities out here have many tall buildings. And they are almost always championed by slimy politicians that appease these community groups with obstructionist rhetoric and who get much of their money from big developers that want rules to remain unchanged so they can continue building single family homes with a garage for a front door and a tiny landscaped patch for a yard. (or in the case of Silicon Valley, developers who gave up on housing a long time ago and just want zero resistance to their 2 million sq. ft. low-rise corporate office campuses)



LtBk said:


> The people of SF Bay Area in general are opposed to new developments, especially those of new urbanist designs. From what I read a while ago most of new urban developments are in San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, and few other other places.


'New Urbanist' developments require large tracts of open land. In the suburbs, that land is kept from any development by designation as a protected area or by donation to organizations like The Wilderness Conservancy. So much of that open space is simply off limits. The only alternative is brownfields and redeveloped lots such as Hunters Point and Treasure Island in San Francisco. Smaller urban infill is actually much harder to redevelop because of the pitched battles over views, traffic, and design. In San Francisco, battling developers is a blood sport. In some places, old malls and shopping centers have been ripe opportunities for dense residential developments that can make it past the NIMBY fortifications.


----------



## Anderson Geimz (Mar 29, 2008)

FREKI said:


> ^:lol:
> 
> What a load of Bull mate!
> 
> ...


Real links?! Those are official US Census numbers. :bash:

Why don't you comment on this list? (the answer is because it proves you wrong...)

Copenhagen 1,181,239 on 500 km2

Cincinnati 1,503,262 on 1740 km2
Sacramento 1,393,498 on 956 km2
Kansas City 1,361,744 on 1514 km2
San Antonio 1,327,554 on 1056 km2
Milwaukee 1,308,913 on 1261 km2
Indianapolis 1,218,919 on 1432 km2
Providence 1,174,548 on 1304 km2
Orlando 1,157,431 on 1174 km2
Columbus 1,133,193 on 1030 km2

Not some 20 random cities, but the cities closest in population to Copenhagen and all take up 2 to 3 times more area! (this is urban area, not city limits or metro area and it proves you are WRONG!)

Your statement that Copenhagen is more sprawled or suburban than US cities is hereby proven to be bullshit.



(and because you appearantly are so clueless...The Øresund Region would be an equivalent of a US CSA, not a MSA.)


----------



## ThatDarnSacramentan (Oct 26, 2008)

Anderson Geimz said:


> Real links?! Those are official US Census numbers. :bash:
> 
> Why don't you comment on this list? (the answer is because it proves you wrong...)
> 
> ...


Yeah. Just a quick question, but how the hell did Sacramento end up with those numbers? Last time I checked, there were only about 550,000 in the city, with the other two million people in the metro area being outside the central city.


----------



## FREKI (Sep 27, 2005)

Anderson Geimz said:


> Real links?! Those are official US Census numbers. :bash:


Then post the damn links instead of dead ends on Wiki with non eof the figure you post ( that when checked ends up utterly fake like I showed you with both Portland and Las Vegas :lol: )



Anderson Geimz said:


> Why don't you comment on this list?


Because we're talking Metro not urban ( is it really that hard to understand dear? :| )

And as you should know being a long time member on this forum the formular used to calculate urban differs greatly from nation to nation..

A rural field or other empty area will end urbanity in most nations, but that's not the case in the US hence you get overly inflated areas closer to metro than what anyone would consider Urban.. and that's why you get urban and metro numbers above 2mil for small cities of 200-300.000 people...

( if you really don't understand it why not read up on it instead of this off topic BS mate :| )



Anderson Geimz said:


> Your statement that Copenhagen is more sprawled or suburban than US cities is hereby proven to be bullshit.


Allow me to repeat myself... 

Los Angeles metropolitan area: 1024.7/km²
Copenhagen metropolitan area: 650.6/km²

So a significantly lower pop density than the premiere city of US Sprawl.. that is significantly sprawly for a European city like it or not..

And as I have already pointed out with the historic core here there will be many newer cities with lower density than CPH.. both in North America and Europe too..

Now how about we move on, accept reality and keep it to* the continent the thread is about* mate...


----------



## dösanhoro (Jun 24, 2006)

Why are you so sure using the metropolitan statistic is really a good measure for sprawl in general? for CPH? This is going in circles.


----------



## FREKI (Sep 27, 2005)

dösanhoro said:


> Why are you so sure using the metropolitan statistic is really a good measure for sprawl in general? for CPH? This is going in circles.


Because of the nature of what a metro area is..

In Denmark the average distance to ones job is 24km.. at my work that is smack in downtown Copenhagen we have people from as far away as Sweden, Funen and Lolland coming here daily - heck other than me and a hand full of others the vast majority lives many municipals away.. 

And it is that influence a city have that makes a metro area interesting and it's that sphere that generates the sprawl where there is room and economy for it to form..


----------



## Trabbuco (Aug 10, 2010)

joshsam said:


> I know Almere is quite a big suburb.... But that doesn’t take away that it’s an *urban *suburb and does not really look suburban, not even from the air, They have a 'garden' but I would call that a small square. Room enough for a table and some chairs en a few plants... Even the old (and new) Row homes in Belgian city centers have bigger gardens... Not to criticize the Dutch way of building because I know you guys have a strict policy and won't mind having bigger homes and gardens..... I admit that they are suburbs but suburban suburbs in The Netherlands are rare.. Or am I mistaken?


Maybe you can visit Almere and see how big the ''rowhomes'' really are, and how mutch detached houses there are/being build. And we have smaller homes because there is not enough space..


----------



## Anderson Geimz (Mar 29, 2008)

FREKI you are such a joke...:lol: Now we're talking metro areas again?!
Why are you comparing a 13 million city (MSA) to a 1,9 million one in the first place?

My list of urban areas of cities close in population to CPH is what should be compared and it utterly destroys your statement!
(and it is sourced you nincompoop! Scroll down to the bottom, do you think you are dealing with a bunch of idiots? Everyone here can read you know...:|
http://www.census.gov/geo/www/ua/ua2k.txt)


----------



## Anderson Geimz (Mar 29, 2008)

ThatDarnSacramentan said:


> Yeah. Just a quick question, but how the hell did Sacramento end up with those numbers? Last time I checked, there were only about 550,000 in the city, with the other two million people in the metro area being outside the central city.


_Urban area_...


----------



## ThatDarnSacramentan (Oct 26, 2008)

Anderson Geimz said:


> _Urban area_...


Okay, okay, geez. Don't have a fit about a simple question.


----------



## Anderson Geimz (Mar 29, 2008)

Who's having a fit? :dunno:


----------



## ThatDarnSacramentan (Oct 26, 2008)

I dunno, but FREKI was earlier. :laugh:


----------



## Anderson Geimz (Mar 29, 2008)

btw Los Angeles is not "king of sprawl"...It is by far the densest US urban area, that's why FREKI uses it to try to mislead us. Still, Copenhagen urban area is more dense, ergo there are no American cities more dense than CPH. Argument destroyed.


And these are the real numbers for both metro areas (MSA). As everyone can see CPH metro is more dense as well (though not by much).
Los Angeles MSA (Los Angeles and Orange Counties) 14,800 km2 12,8 million
Copenhagen metro area (Region Hovedstaden) 1,900 km2 1,6 million

EDIT: corrected population of Region Hovestaden, guess what, it's still more dense than LA MSA.


----------



## FREKI (Sep 27, 2005)

Anderson Geimz said:


> FREKI you are such a joke...:lol:


Thanks dear, you're always constructive when you're BS is called :lol:


Anderson Geimz said:


> Now we're talking metro areas again?!


That's what it has been about all the time ( having trouble reading do we :| )



Anderson Geimz said:


> Why are you comparing a 13 million city (MSA) to a 1,9 million one in the first place?


Because LA is a famous sign of suburban sprawl and when Copenhagen has a significantly lower pop density that shows that Copenhagen is one of the more sprawly cities on this planet - especially by European standards...

Now for the what.. 5th time.. how about accepting reality and move on... or at least make comparisons of European cities so we stay on topic..


----------



## FREKI (Sep 27, 2005)

Anderson Geimz said:


> And these are the real numbers for both metro areas (MSA). As everyone can see CPH metro is more dense as well (though not by much).
> Los Angeles MSA (Los Angeles and Orange Counties) 14,800 km2 12,8 million
> Copenhagen metro area (Region Hovedstaden) 1,900 km2 1,9 million


Ohhh more BS, lies and false numbers.. how surprising :|



Region Hovedstaden has nothing to do with Copenhagen Metro :lol: it's the administrative area covering Northern Zealand and Bornholm ( as have already been pointed out to you pages ago :| ) implemented when Denmark gave up the county system for Regions instead a few years ago..

And just to correct your lies Region Hovedstaden has 1,6mil - 2.561 km² - 649/km² and has it's "capital" in the City of Hillerød north of Copenhagen


Copenhagen City ( and thus metro ) is split between the two Regions covering the island of Zealand and neither are in any way any kind of metro they are administrative regions..


Now time for a reality check.. 


Los Angeles Metropolitan Area: 12.562 km² - 15,2mil - 1024/km²

Copenhagen Metropolitan Area: 2.923 km2 - 1,9mil - 650/km²


Now can we please move on or do you want to keep embarrassing yourself with all your lies trying to drag the thread off topic... :|


----------



## staff (Oct 23, 2004)

Both Stockholm and Oslo should be more suburban than Copenhagen, if we're talking Scandinavian cities.


----------



## Anderson Geimz (Mar 29, 2008)

I'm done with this bullshit..., you keep insisting on LA and metro areas because this is what comes closest to Copenhagen if you fudge the numbers enough.

You totally ignore the urban areas of similar sized (to CPH) American cities that are three times the size of Copenhagen, because it totally destroys your argument. Yes LA is as dense as Copenhagen, no other urban area in America however is!


----------



## FREKI (Sep 27, 2005)

staff said:


> Both Stockholm and Oslo should be more suburban than Copenhagen, if we're talking Scandinavian cities.


Oh ohhh you just arose the wrath of Anderson Geimz :lol:


But you are absolutely correct..

Stockholm metro is down to 309/km2 and Oslo 159/km2 only fractions of LA and other US cities such as New York and Chicago..

In fact if LA had the density of Oslo it would take up 25% of California :lol: 


Anderson Geimz said:


> I'm done with this bullshit...


Thank you!



Anderson Geimz said:


> You totally ignore the urban areas of similar sized


As we have already covered to use Urban area we need to use the same deffinition on each city and since that differs from nation to nation it's worthless here..


But if you can pick one of the definitions ( I've personally always liked the 200m rule ) I'll gladly compare cities..

Just keep in mind that a city expands greatly beyond the urban area - something especially Stockholm shows with all it's satellite cities and a fairly small core..




Anderson Geimz said:


> Yes LA is as dense as Copenhagen, no other urban area in America however is!


Actually LA is nearly twice as dense and as has already been pointed out to you by others too 650/km² is low even by US standards ( hint: look it up :| )


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

staff said:


> Both Stockholm and Oslo should be more suburban than Copenhagen, if we're talking Scandinavian cities.


Suburban in what way?


----------



## le calmar (Aug 10, 2008)

brisavoine said:


> Swimming pools, Mediterranean plants and Roman tiles in the Canadian suburbs?


The Canadian west coast has plenty of mediterranean plants. About the roman tiles, obviously not. As for the swimming pools, no such thing here of course:










(suburbs of Quebec City)

And the only thing similar to the american surburbia in the pics seen in this thread is the street grid, sometimes. The housing is definitely european. What's the point in trying to look like the american suburbs anyway? And the people in this thread seems to be bragging about the sprawl in their city, wtf?


----------



## Anderson Geimz (Mar 29, 2008)

No FREKI LA is not twice as dense even if we use metro area which is indeed not a good way to measure because it includes huge swaths of undeveloped land for both cities.

Metro LA does not have 15 million people and it takes up more area than you claim. Stop trying to mislead!

LA is by far the densest urban area in the US why do you insist on ignoring all those other cities that are closer in population to Copenhagen and take up three times the area both in urban area and in metro area. Your claim was that Copenhagen is more sprawled than American cities which has been thoroughly proven not to be the case! I've rarely seen someone who has his head in the sand as deep as you and the sorry thing is this is not the only subject where this is the case with you. You refuse to acknowledge reality. This is reality:

Copenhagen 1,181,239 on 500 km2

Cincinnati 1,503,262 on 1740 km2
Sacramento 1,393,498 on 956 km2
Kansas City 1,361,744 on 1514 km2
San Antonio 1,327,554 on 1056 km2
Milwaukee 1,308,913 on 1261 km2
Indianapolis 1,218,919 on 1432 km2
Providence 1,174,548 on 1304 km2
Orlando 1,157,431 on 1174 km2
Columbus 1,133,193 on 1030 km2

So we've established that LA and Copenhagen have similar densities both urban area wise and metro area wise. Now please comment on ALL other US cities besides LA that are 2 to 3 times less dense!


----------



## FREKI (Sep 27, 2005)

Anderson Geimz said:


> No FREKI LA is not twice as dense even if we use metro area


Not twice as dense, but pretty close..


Los Angeles Metropolitan Area: 12.562 km² - 15,2mil - 1024/km²

Copenhagen Metropolitan Area: 2.923 km2 - 1,9mil - 650/km²



Anderson Geimz said:


> which is indeed not a good way to measure because it includes huge swaths of undeveloped land for both cities.


You still don't even know what the thread is about do you? :lol:

Dear mate, metro is the sphere a large city creates in where it attracts and surstain the workers - to be technically correct I should add multiple islands as well as southern Sweden, but for your sake I think it's better we just stick to the official numbers:


Los Angeles Metropolitan Area: 12.562 km² - 15,2mil - 1024/km²

Copenhagen Metropolitan Area: 2.923 km2 - 1,9mil - 650/km²




Anderson Geimz said:


> Metro LA does not have 15 million people and it takes up more area than you claim. Stop trying to mislead!


Reality check..


Los Angeles Metropolitan Area: 12.562 km² - 15,2mil - 1024/km²




Anderson Geimz said:


> LA is by far the densest urban area in the US


Have you ever been to the US?  

Anywhoo it's still not about urban area and never has been - it's about suburbia and metro..


If you want to talk urbanity you need to deside wich one of the many difinitions we should use - as I mentioned earlier I suggest the 200m rule..



In the meanwhile while you learn to count and read and since the thread is *about Europe...*


Copenhagen Metropolitan Area: 2.923 km2 - 1,9mil - 650/km²

Helsinki Metropolitan Area: 2.970 km2 - 1,3mil - 442/km2 ( aka 1/2rd of LA )

Stockholm metropolitan Area: 6.519 km2 - 2 mil - 309/km2 ( aka 1/3rd of LA )

Oslo Metropolitan Area: 8.900 km2 - 1,4mil - 159/km2 ( aka 1/7th of LA )

Reality is a bith eh... :lol:


----------



## staff (Oct 23, 2004)

LtBk said:


> Suburban in what way?


A large part, or the majority of the urban/metro area population living in areas other than the inner city-- regardless of the type of housing, I might add. 

Stockholm is essentially a huge forest with commieblocks and single family homes scattered throughout it, and a fairly small inner city area on the central islands of the metro area. As for Oslo-- I believe Norway is the country with the largest percentage living in single family houses in the world.


----------



## staff (Oct 23, 2004)

FREKI,

You do realize that Copenhagen's suburbs (that is, the areas you've been showing screenshots of) are actually part of the urban area (as in the continuously built up area)? There's really no point in talking about metro figures here.

Were you to compare total city population sizes, using metro areas would make more sense.


----------



## Mike____ (Mar 15, 2009)

I lol'd at reading this x)


----------



## dösanhoro (Jun 24, 2006)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Helsinki










I find this questionable. As this contains just about endless amounts of undeveloped land. A lot places have no feasible public transportation links to the city. It is true some people do commute by car from say Nurmijärvi. But how does make Helsinki sprawled out if someone wishes to drive from a village surrounded by fields. Nurmijärvi for example doesen't even look suburban. Vihti somehow a part Helsinki sprawl hno: Nothing but fields and forrest there. 

Kerava and maybe even parts of Tuusula could be included in an extremely stretched Helsinki . Kerava is what 25 or 30 minutes by train to Hki central railway station. Kerava is small town like built around the railway line. Tuusula has a motorway and is more suburban/rural. 

Sipoo for example:
east of Helsinki

Sipoo (Sibbo) 339.63 km² 18,123 53.36/km²
That is just a giant forrest. A few years ago there was a forced enlargement of Hki into Sipoo, the place is yet to bedeveloped. In the east the fields begin inside the city limits of Helsinki. 

EDIT: The more brightly coloured parts of the map here:
Helsinki (Helsingfors) 213.66 km² 584,420 2,735.28/km²
Espoo (Esbo) 312.22 km² 244,930 784.48/km²
Vantaa (Vanda) 238.38 km² 198,351 832.08/km²
Kauniainen (Grankulla) 5.88 km² 8,589 1,460.71/km²

makes another definition
Helsinki Metropolitan Area 
Area Population(2010-03-31) Population density
770.14 km² 1,036,290 1,345.59/km²

Vantaa and Espoo are mostly undeveloped. Half of northern Espoo is what a nature reserve or something similar. A lot of Golf fields in Espoo btw.


----------



## Anderson Geimz (Mar 29, 2008)

FREKI you are so clueless it's not even funny. Everyone is telling you are wrong and still you are persisting. I don't want to hear anything more about LA and metro areas, both are totally besides the point in the first place!
Secondly, as I repeatedly pointed out, you are using THE WRONG NUMBERS! Metro LA is not 15,2 million on 12,562 km² it's 12,8 million on 14,800 km2 (LA MSA = Los Angeles and Orange Counties!) Where do your extra 2,4 million people come from and where did 2,250 km2 land go to?!

But you are purposely pushing this LA thing, which I already stated has a similar density to Copenhagen because it is the only city in the US that comes close.

Please name 10 other US cities, no name 5..., you know what, name just one other that has higher density than Copenhagen to support your claim that Copenhagen is less dense than US cit*ies*. You can't!


----------



## Anderson Geimz (Mar 29, 2008)

btw it very well might be that CPH is "the most suburban city in Europe", if we're talking the ratio of suburbs (but what is the definition?) to inner city.

I'm disputing FREKI's claim that Copenhagen suburbs or Copenhagen as a whole is less dense than American cities and their suburbs. It's utter bullshit. Only LA comes close even exceeds it if you tweek the numbers enough. America's number two, San Fransisco is already significantly less dense than CPH. After that, densities of US urban areas go down with leaps and bounds...


Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA UA 11,789,487 4319.9 7068.3 
Copenhagen, DK UA 1,181,239 175.9 6715.4
San Francisco-Oakland, CA UA 3,228,605 1364.0 6130.4 
San Jose, CA UA 1,538,312 673.7 5914.1 
New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT UA 17,799,861 8683.2 5309.3 
New Orleans, LA UA 1,009,283 512.4 5101.6 
Las Vegas, NV UA 1,314,357 740.5 4597.1 
Miami, FL UA 4,919,036 2890.7 4407.4 
Denver-Aurora, CO UA 1,984,887 1292.0 3979.1 
Chicago, IL-IN UA 8,307,904 5498.1 3913.6 
(in sq miles)

http://www.census.gov/geo/www/ua/ua2k.txt


----------



## FREKI (Sep 27, 2005)

staff said:


> You do realize that Copenhagen's suburbs (that is, the areas you've been showing screenshots of) are actually part of the urban area (as in the continuously built up area)?


Yes the pics I posted were examples of typical Danish suburban development and I posted link to Bing and Google for those interested in more..

If there is any area that people want to see I'll gladly post pics of it, so just let me know..



Anderson Geimz said:


> FREKI you are so clueless


Yes dear, you already told me last time you went 3rd grader.. :|

But facts and reality remains regardless of my mental state.. ( and yours )



Anderson Geimz said:


> I don't want to hear anything more about LA and metro areas, both are totally besides the point in the first place!


Halle-fracking-luuujah you finally get it! 

It's about European suburbs and there are a lot of sprawly ones, Copenhagen being one of them.. the end 


Anderson Geimz said:


> Secondly, as I repeatedly pointed out, you are using THE WRONG NUMBERS!


I have now posted for you to read no less than what.. 7 times..

Here it is 3 more times so you have no excuse for missing it..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_metropolitan_area
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_metropolitan_area
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_metropolitan_area

And a bonus just for you my dear Beneluxian friend

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_metropolitan_area



Anderson Geimz said:


> Metro LA is not 15,2 million on 12,562 km² it's 12,8 million on 14,800 km2 (LA MSA = Los Angeles and Orange Counties!) Where do your extra 2,4 million people come from and where did 2,250 km2 land go to?!


Oh jeez.. let's take it another 3 times then..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_metropolitan_area
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_metropolitan_area
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_metropolitan_area

If you got beef with that, it's not me you have to take it up with..


Anderson Geimz said:


> Please name 10 other US cities, no name 5..., you know what, name just one other that has higher density than Copenhagen to support your claim that Copenhagen is less dense than US cit*ies*.


LA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_metropolitan_area


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

staff said:


> A large part, or the majority of the urban/metro area population living in areas other than the inner city-- regardless of the type of housing, I might add.
> 
> Stockholm is essentially a huge forest with commieblocks and single family homes scattered throughout it, and a fairly small inner city area on the central islands of the metro area. As for Oslo-- I believe Norway is the country with the largest percentage living in single family houses in the world.


Agreed, look at the percentage of types of dwellings in Stockholm. Two thirds of the whole of metropolitan Stockholm according to Swedish statistics are actually apartments rather than single family dwellings. Plus, most of Metropolitan Stockholm is uninhabited as one can see from Google Earth - and even then most settlements are strung along railway lines. 

Sorry, statistics about density can lie about the TYPE of urban development in an area. The most telling evidence is disseminating all available data to draw conclusions on the level of "sprawl".


----------



## dösanhoro (Jun 24, 2006)

Sorry I wrote some bad messages earlier. I apologize for that. The discussion here was a little heated but still relevant to these issues about sprawl and suburbs. Now that I mentioned Helsinki earlier , I continue with that. 










This shows the smaller version of Helsinki metropolitan area. Probably would contain Helsinki region urban area.
NW above the bigger ring road is still Espoo and parts of Vihti.
NE is Sipoo.
Look at fields under the airport.
In Espoo the area between the two branches is very undelevoped.
One can still some more fields between the development in Espoo. Note the development gap in the middle under the airport. 

Now one more image.










The image is roted 90 degrees to the right. It shows an area a little more north than the first image. It shows sprawl. Note rail line. Maybe this type or rail supported sprawl is similar to the one in Stockholm metro. Maybe this is a distinct difference to a lot of the US cities. Stockholm and it's Metro by the way has a far more developed very impressive rail system. Overall this kind of sprawl gives the whole Hki metro area an suburban feel. Very much commieblocks in a forrest. SW part of the first image has currently no rail service at all , but will have in the future.

People being for sustainable development etc have often applauded rail as an alternative to the evils of autocentric development. Maybe they will target sprawl caused by mass transportation also at some point. 
The whole area is densifying a lot in the coming years. Still there is a lot of outward sprawl development being planned. The most sprawly being again planned by the city of Espoo. Location NW outside the ring road in the first image.


----------



## niterider (Nov 3, 2009)

laokstate said:


> With gasoline already expensive, how can a European family afford this suburban lifestyle? Are only wealthy people buying these houses while middle and lower income people stay in the city?


Cars are much more efficient in Europe, particularly diesels, so fuel may be for example 5x more expensive than the US but the real time cost may only be 2-3x


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

There was no need to quote all those pictures.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

niterider said:


> Cars are much more efficient in Europe, particularly diesels, so fuel may be for example 5x more expensive than the US but the real time cost may only be 2-3x


Driving only half the number of kilometers than in the USA explains the difference left. Also in Germany, car is a status-symbol, even more than an owner-occupied appartement or house.


----------



## FREKI (Sep 27, 2005)

laokstate said:


> With gasoline already expensive, how can a European family afford this suburban lifestyle? Are only wealthy people buying these houses while middle and lower income people stay in the city?


Wages are higher than in the US in many nations like the Nordic ones.. so cars are available to all, just like a house in the suburb is if that is what people want..


----------



## Spookvlieger (Jul 10, 2009)

FREKI said:


> Wages are higher than in the US in many nations like the Nordic ones.. so cars are available to all, just like a house in the suburb is if that is what people want..


Well, live is not as expensive as a whole in the US compaired to Europe, so ofcourse wages are lower...
Car ownership in Europe is in some counties bigger than in the USA. But in some states of the USA it might be bigger. (I was just thinking that it wouldn't be fare to have oen country against a lot of states. Mayby someone can find some number per state? I couldn't find any!)

*Car ownership in Europe:*
http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-m...2_2009_assessmentv2_figure2.gif/image_preview










*Car ownership of the world:*









http://media.economist.com/images/rankings/11-CarOwnership01.jpg


----------



## Spookvlieger (Jul 10, 2009)

A reasonably modern European supermini and many mid-size cars, including station wagons, may manage motorway travel at 5 L/100 km (47 mpg US/56 mpg imp) or 6.5 L/100 km in city traffic (36 mpg US/43 mpg imp), with carbon dioxide emissions of around 140 g/km.

An average North American mid-size car travels 21 mpg (US) (11 L/100 km) city, 27 mpg (US) (9 L/100 km) highway; a full-size SUV usually travels 13 mpg (US) (18 L/100 km) city and 16 mpg (US) (15 L/100 km) highway. Pickup trucks vary considerably; whereas a 4 cylinder-engined light pickup can achieve 28 mpg (8 L/100 km), a V8 full-size pickup with extended cabin only travels 13 mpg (US) (18 L/100 km) city and 15 mpg (US) (15 L/100 km) highway.

European-built cars are generally more fuel-efficient than American vehicles. While Europe has lots of higher efficiency diesel cars, gasoline vehicles are also more efficient.

That said : Europeans also travel a lot smaller distances like Chrissib said...


----------



## Spookvlieger (Jul 10, 2009)

*Detailed GDP map.*









http://randomdude.com/images/GDP_density.jpg


----------



## FREKI (Sep 27, 2005)

joshsam said:


> Well, live is not as expensive as a whole in the US compaired to Europe, so ofcourse wages are lower...


Well it kinda depends on how "whole" you want to go...

Medical, pension, school, insurances giving birth childcare etc runs up too.. not to mention tipping.. ( and it's not like their groceries are that much cheaper than even here in DK ) and in Europe there are many cheap nations ( especially the Eastern ones ) so it all depends..

And wages is just as much union work and workers fight than it is living costs and government interference ( again something that heavily depends on nation )


in the end it all comes down to the individual nations and with around 50 in Continental Europe, it's hard to sum them all up.. but I think it's safe to say that very few are much like the rumours and stereotypes one often hear from the other side of the pond


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

laokstate said:


> With gasoline already expensive, how can a European family afford this suburban lifestyle? Are only wealthy people buying these houses while middle and lower income people stay in the city?


the suburbs don't tend to sprawl as far, and a lot of cities are quite decentralised anyway, so they don't have all the offices in the centre. The majority of people here live within 5-10 miles of where they work. Those that don't normally are living where they lived before they took the job, rather than moving somewhere a long distance away.


As said by another poster, surburbia isn't expensive here compared to city centres. Europe didn't ever have the "white flight" phenomenon, so city centre housing is rarely cheap housing here. City centre developments are usually beyond the means of most. 

The bad areas here are often the purpose-build estates designed for low-income families.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

Rev Stickleback said:


> The bad areas here are often the purpose-build estates designed for low-income families.


Those areas *are* subject to native flight, as I would call the phenomenon in Europe. In Germany those developments were planned as middle-class appartements but developed to low-income appartements thereafter, when the middle-income people started to move to single-family homes in the suburbs, leaving the cities and those developments.


----------



## Plumber73 (Mar 3, 2005)

joshsam said:


> A reasonably modern European supermini and many mid-size cars, including station wagons, may manage motorway travel at 5 L/100 km (47 mpg US/56 mpg imp) or 6.5 L/100 km in city traffic (36 mpg US/43 mpg imp), with carbon dioxide emissions of around 140 g/km.
> 
> An average North American mid-size car travels 21 mpg (US) (11 L/100 km) city, 27 mpg (US) (9 L/100 km) highway; a full-size SUV usually travels 13 mpg (US) (18 L/100 km) city and 16 mpg (US) (15 L/100 km) highway. Pickup trucks vary considerably; whereas a 4 cylinder-engined light pickup can achieve 28 mpg (8 L/100 km), a V8 full-size pickup with extended cabin only travels 13 mpg (US) (18 L/100 km) city and 15 mpg (US) (15 L/100 km) highway.
> 
> ...


Are you sure? Do you really mean to say 4 cylinder vehicles are more fuel-efficient than 8 cylinder vehicles? A 6 cylinder Mercedes-Benz is on par with 6 cylinder Chevrolet Camaro. European owned cars are generally smaller than cars owned in the US, and Canada for that matter. That doesn't mean similar sized engines are any more or less efficient. If I'm mistaken, perhaps someone can do some side by side comparisons...


----------



## niterider (Nov 3, 2009)

Plumber73 said:


> If I'm mistaken, perhaps someone can do some side by side comparisons...


I drive a 2.0 large diesel saloon and get up to 68 mpg cruising at 60mph...thats about 56 miles per gallon in US measurements


----------



## Plumber73 (Mar 3, 2005)

niterider said:


> I drive a 2.0 large diesel saloon and get up to 68 mpg cruising at 60mph...thats about 56 miles per gallon in US measurements


That's great, but what about comparing gas with gas.


----------



## Spookvlieger (Jul 10, 2009)

Plumber73 said:


> Are you sure? Do you really mean to say 4 cylinder vehicles are more fuel-efficient than 8 cylinder vehicles? A 6 cylinder Mercedes-Benz is on par with 6 cylinder Chevrolet Camaro. European owned cars are generally smaller than cars owned in the US, and Canada for that matter. That doesn't mean similar sized engines are any more or less efficient. If I'm mistaken, perhaps someone can do some side by side comparisons...


read post #146


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

FREKI said:


> not to mention tipping..


"tipping" as a custom is not really an added cost. The cost of proper wages for waiters in Europe and Australia is built into the cost of the meal or the drinks. In other words, you automatically pay for it. This is not the case in North America, as wages for servers and bartenders are low, and in some American states even non existent. You get your meal cheaper over here, and indeed it is cheaper than Europe, because the tip is voluntary. There are, however, tourists who absolutely refuse to acknowledge this custom because they do not tip at home, and feel they needn't conform to local customs. Unfortunately, these people give Europeans and Australian tourists a bad reputation. A good tourist learns quickly to adapt to the norms of whichever country he/she is visiting; if they do not, they run the risk of becoming considered _"ugly"_ tourists! :yes:.


----------



## nordisk celt83 (Dec 2, 2008)

^^

Interesting, and way off topic I know. The thing is despite higher wages in the services sector, tipping is also pretty standard in most European countries (I think.) Apart from the majorly stingy ones that is; they know who they are...
I always tip unless service charge is stated in the bill no matter where I am anyway (incl. Europe and North America)... 


As for the most suburban city in Europe... I'd imagine it's some obscure mid-sized city that hasn't been mentioned on this site. It's definitely not Toulose from my impressions of the place though; I saw way too many mid-rise apartments and commieblocks when I was there for it even to be considered.

From my personal experiences; I've lived in Oslo(norway), Brussels and Liege (belgium) Lund (sweden), Dublin (ireland) and Luxembourg city, and travelled all over Europe.
Drawing on that I'd say that the UK, Ireland, Norway and Denmark are the countries with the most suburban cities!!!


----------



## nordisk celt83 (Dec 2, 2008)

Cities that have a good spattering of single-family homes while the majority live in tower-blocks/mid-rsies, like in Sweden, can't really be considered suburban in the true sense.


----------



## nordisk celt83 (Dec 2, 2008)

Also, those car stats should be taken with a pnich of salt as it's difficult to get up-to-date info on it. Many countires go years without updating the stats resulting in a skewed impression.

Wiki has a more up-to-date list, which in itself is still not up to scratch for many countries because the year stats were collected varies from country to country.

Rank Country Motor Vehicles per 1000 people Notes: 


> 1 United States 765
> 2 Luxembourg 697 As of 2008[2]
> 3 Iceland 658
> 4 Australia 619
> ...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_per_capita


----------



## Plumber73 (Mar 3, 2005)

joshsam said:


> read post #146


Yea, I got that already. But that doesn't really do a good job of comparing the two. All you've basically said is that North Americans drive larger vehicles - nobody drives SUV's or trucks in Europe. What I'd like to see is a side by side comparison between similare sized engines. I guess I'll have to do the research myself.


----------



## Spookvlieger (Jul 10, 2009)

Plumber73 said:


> Yea, I got that already. But that doesn't really do a good job of comparing the two. All you've basically said is that North Americans drive larger vehicles - nobody drives SUV's or trucks in Europe. What I'd like to see is a side by side comparison between similare sized engines. I guess I'll have to do the research myself.


Yeah i'm sorry I reacted to fast... I can't find any on that either. I think it's just that Amercians drive bigger cars wich consume more fuel + that Amercians drive more gasoline cars that are less fuel efficient+that there are really no real super efficiant cars on the marked in the US exept for a few hybrids...


----------



## goschio (Dec 2, 2002)

Plumber73 said:


> Yea, I got that already. But that doesn't really do a good job of comparing the two. All you've basically said is that North Americans drive larger vehicles - *nobody drives SUV's or trucks in Europe. *What I'd like to see is a side by side comparison between similare sized engines. I guess I'll have to do the research myself.


Trucks are really quite rare in europe but SUV 's are a common sight. Not sure about other european countries but in German cities you see lots of SUV. Mostly german brands such as Cayenne, Audi Q7, BMW X5, VW Touareg etc.

Not sure where North Americans always get this impression that europeans only drive little cars. Its simply not true. A big car is still a status symbol and typical for an upper middle class family.


----------



## Plumber73 (Mar 3, 2005)

goschio said:


> Trucks are really quite rare in europe but SUV 's are a common sight. Not sure about other european countries but in German cities you see lots of SUV. Mostly german brands such as Cayenne, c, BMW X5, VW Touareg etc.
> 
> Not sure where North Americans always get this impression that europeans only drive little cars. Its simply not true. A big car is still a status symbol and typical for an upper middle class family.


There are a wide range of SUV's... the ones you mention look like they're at the smaller end of the spectrum. They're called crossovers, I think. Yes, it may be a poor generalization that many people make - saying Europeans drive small cars. But having been to both England and France myself, I can say that it simply isn't on the same level. There are just a hell of a lot more heavier vehicles over here, which is stupid imo. A lot of these huge cars and trucks are made for towing and hauling heavy loads. Most people hardly ever use them for that.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

I think that the way Europeans afford living in suburbs or rural areas with high fuel prices is simply that they choose models with smaller engines and better fuel efficiency. Very few people actually need a 4-litre+ V8, unless you work carrying huge loads or tow big RVs regularly a standard 2-litre 4 cylinder car can easily transport an average family and their luggage across the continent on holiday which is probably the heaviest load most people carry.

Also 'stuff' is less spread out here, maybe not in northern Scandinavia but in much of Europe the next town or city is much nearer than in most of North America and if you take the distance from outer suburb to centre of a typical 100k city, in Europe it will usually be much less than in NA, a car might not even be necessary for such a journey at all in many cases.

So even if fuel is 3 times the price, different geography and different vehicle purchasing choices mean that Europeans don't spend 3 times as much on fuel.


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

_"So even if fuel is 3 times the price, different geography and different vehicle purchasing choices mean that Europeans don't spend 3 times as much on fuel. "_

Don't know if I completely buy that; getting from A to B by road in Europe is generally far less straightforward as the highway system in North America. Smaller vehicles do use less fuel, but it still costs a great deal to run a car in Europe; no pretending it doesn't. Having said that, it does not stop people from driving.


----------



## niterider (Nov 3, 2009)

Taller said:


> _"So even if fuel is 3 times the price, different geography and different vehicle purchasing choices mean that Europeans don't spend 3 times as much on fuel. "_
> 
> Don't know if I completely buy that; getting from A to B by road in Europe is generally far less straightforward as the highway system in North America. Smaller vehicles do use less fuel, but it still costs a great deal to run a car in Europe; no pretending it doesn't. Having said that, it does not stop people from driving.


It's what you're used to. If you grow up in the UK you don't even think twice that you must pay car tax each year just for the luxury of being allowed to drive on the road, nevermind the other costs. The cost of driving just 'is'. Just like everywhere else.

People in Europe _generally_ drive smaller distances. In the States I saw people seem to think nothing of say an 8 hour journey...here that isin't as common. But generalising 'Europe' doesn't work too well on many counts on these topics in any case.


----------



## FREKI (Sep 27, 2005)

When speaking gas usage I think people are forgetting something.. urban driving is a lot most gas using the long distance driving, so it's really not about distances, but the roads used.. ( stops due to traffic, intersections etc )

I have nearly a 400km difference on a full tank in Norway on it's 80km/h country roads than I do city driving or freeway in Denmark.. ( 1000km+ vs ~650km )

And the larger the engine the less fuel usage at slower speeds..


Other that that I don't get the fuel debate at all really, if people are on so stringy a budget that fuel expenses is something to consider from month to month they shouldn't have a car in the first place..


----------



## dösanhoro (Jun 24, 2006)

Cars and fuel can be cheap compared to a suburban home in an area people like. Zoning and greenbelt laws can show their effect here.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

niterider said:


> People in Europe _generally_ drive smaller distances.* In the States I saw people seem to think nothing of say an 8 hour journey*...here that isin't as common. But generalising 'Europe' doesn't work too well on many counts on these topics in any case.


Were they truck drivers?

That's too much for me, at that length, it's perhaps better to take a plane.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

Taller said:


> _"So even if fuel is 3 times the price, different geography and different vehicle purchasing choices mean that Europeans don't spend 3 times as much on fuel. "_
> 
> Don't know if I completely buy that; getting from A to B by road in Europe is generally far less straightforward as the highway system in North America. Smaller vehicles do use less fuel, but it still costs a great deal to run a car in Europe; no pretending it doesn't. Having said that, it does not stop people from driving.


It's usually pretty straightforward to get from one place to another I think, there are motorways linking most cities and plenty of choice of non-motorway routes too, distances between cities are definitely shorter on the whole than in NA. 

Running a car is kinda expensive but its not prohibitively so, we are a very average income household running an average 2.0l family carand when you spread out the costs we spend on average per month:

£70 petrol (800-850kms)
£25 comprehensive insurance including UK breakdown cover
£20 Vehicle excise duty (road tax)
£25 Servicing/repair costs
£15 Parking/car wash/miscellaneous
£100 into a savings account to cover depreciation so we have enough for a replacement after a few years.

Total cost £255 per month or around £0.31 (US$0.48) per km

I think we pay much less for insurance here than they do in the US at least, not sure about Canada.


----------



## apinamies (Sep 1, 2010)

I don't know answer that question. 
Cities in Finland are very suburban. 
Helsinki density is lower than Los Angeles, and Vantaa/Espoo are pure suburban cities without real city center.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

goschio said:


> Not sure where North Americans always get this impression that europeans only drive little cars. Its simply not true. A big car is still a status symbol and typical for an upper middle class family.


Its kinda true to cities as small cars are more practical, but in Cheshire where I currently live everyone has huge cars. We have a massive Chrysler Grand Voyager, my friends all have Audi Q7, BMW X5 etc, even big saloons like BMW 7series are pretty huge...


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

apinamies said:


> I don't know answer that question.
> Cities in Finland are very suburban.
> Helsinki density is lower than Los Angeles, and Vantaa/Espoo are pure suburban cities without real city center.


It might depend how you calculate density. If you count all the parks/woods etc withing the city metro area, a Finnish city probably would be pretty low. If you only count developed land, the figure would be higher, and might well take it higher than developed land somewhere like LA.


----------



## Spookvlieger (Jul 10, 2009)

Lets see another city in France: Dense inner core, extreme suburbia around: NIMES


----------



## Bjarki (Sep 18, 2009)

Nobody has mentioned Reykjavík yet? It's definately one of the sprawliest suburban cities in Europe. It is much closer to a North American city than a European one, probably because 90% of it was planned and built after 1950. The only public transport is a shitty bus system and car ownership is on par with the USA.


----------



## manrush (May 8, 2008)

With automobile ownership in Russia increasing, are Moscow and Piter also heading towards a suburban sprawl future?


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

poshbakerloo said:


> in Cheshire where I currently live everyone has huge cars. We have a massive Chrysler Grand Voyager, my friends all have Audi Q7, BMW X5 etc, even big saloons like BMW 7series are pretty huge...


Not everybody in cheshire has a huge car, its just that you and your mates are all rich :laugh:

I'm guessing you live somewhere like Knutsford, Mere, Hale Barns, Lymm etc?

There are more big and expensive cars around in those areas compared to most places in britain but there are still more Ford Focuses than Audi R8s. Go to a council estate in Crewe and you won't find many Rolls-Royces


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

Bjarki said:


> Nobody has mentioned Reykjavík yet? It's definately one of the sprawliest suburban cities in Europe. It is much closer to a North American city than a European one, probably because 90% of it was planned and built after 1950. The only public transport is a shitty bus system and car ownership is on par with the USA.


Do Icelanders drive mostly European or North American cars?

Are there any other sizeable settlements (say 10,000+) apart from Reykjavik in Iceland? The only other place i can think of is seydisfjordur because that's where the ferry goes to from the UK although I think it might have stopped now :dunno:


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

manrush said:


> With automobile ownership in Russia increasing, are Moscow and Piter also heading towards a suburban sprawl future?


Until now, I don't think so. In Google Earth, I looked for newly built areas around Moscow, and they are largely 20-storey highrises, some sort of modern commieblock, better looking and more modern, but still arranged like commieblocks.


----------



## Bjarki (Sep 18, 2009)

Jonesy55 said:


> Do Icelanders drive mostly European or North American cars?
> 
> Are there any other sizeable settlements (say 10,000+) apart from Reykjavik in Iceland? The only other place i can think of is seydisfjordur because that's where the ferry goes to from the UK although I think it might have stopped now :dunno:


Mostly Japanese and European cars. American ones have been pretty rare but the number of American SUVs on the streets has been going up in recent years.

Akureyri (18,000 inhabitants) is the only big town outside Reykjavík. Seyðisfjörður is really just a village with less than 1000 people I think. The ferry goes from there to Faroe Islands and Denmark.


----------



## Blackraven (Jan 19, 2006)

Interesting discussions

But my response to this topic is this:
If you want to live in a concrete jungle, okay. If you want to have your own individual house and lot with a garden and car garage, then good for you.

At least there is choice then it is up to the owner to deal with the consequences (good or bad) because of this.

Personally, for me, as long as I have a roof on my head, then it's all good for me.

Two cents


----------



## Spookvlieger (Jul 10, 2009)

GENIUS LOCI said:


> Don't need to close it: you just have to build a fence around it


I did previously... What can I do?


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

GENIUS LOCI said:


> Gated communities maybe; about walled houses, I think in US row houses rarely have a fence
> 
> As Northern Europe (the way of living of NA is mainly from anglosaxon culture)
> In Southern Europe row houses are often fenced, because it is another 'culture' of living based mainly on the flats in the past, without gardens or space in the front (or having it in a courtyard: then fenced by the building itself)
> ...



That, and in the US there are regional preferences. In the South and parts of the Northeast and Midwest, houses aren't divided by fences or walls while in the West especially, walls and fences rule. Also urban areas are more likely to see the high fences and walls while smaller, more rural towns have less of them. Usually it's a privacy thing. I remember some neighbors in Orange County that liked doing the nude hot tub thing. Having walls worked well for them...and the rest of us.


----------



## Zach759 (May 20, 2010)

I didn't really mean to lump Europe together. I was asking a question 'bout the walls that i've seen in most European suburbs in both travels, pics, & the travels of others.

but then again the US has been lumped together too. I don't even know where there is a gated community around here. There are rich neighborhoods, but no gated.They aren't very prevelent in the midwest it seems.....


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

Having thought about it a bit more, i'd say that the most common arrangement here for detached, semi-detached and rowhouses is to have a 'front garden/yard' which is on public display with the front of the house, visible from the street with a small 50cm brick wall, fence and/or railings or in quieter suburban streets no divide from the public pavement.

At the rear of the house it is more common to have a garden which backs onto other rear gardens and has tall fences, walls or trees for privacy. Even at the rear though it is not uncommon to only have 1m tall fences so that neighbours can chat to each other, I know some people who have an open archway between rear gardens so that the two families children can play together without going around the block.


----------



## Tubeman (Sep 12, 2002)

Putting out of misery... Has ambled off topic


----------

