# What is the most sprawled city in the United States?



## The Cebuano Exultor (Aug 1, 2005)

Hi guys. I would want to know which city or urban area within the lower 48 states of the U.S. is the most sprawled in terms of the ratio between population and the sprawled built-up area's total land area?

In my opinion, great candidates would be:
(in no particular order)
Atlanta
Miami
Houston
Dallas-Fort Worth
Los Angeles (Southland)
Oklahoma City
Kansas City
New York (Tri-State Area)
Chicago-Milwaukee (Chicagoland)


----------



## titeness (Jul 3, 2004)

not a coincidedence that all those cities, except for L.A., are in states that voted Bush in '04.


----------



## hossoso (Oct 9, 2005)

Miami doesn't have the geographic conditions to sprawl as the other cities that are listed here.


----------



## Greens! (Feb 13, 2006)

not a coincidence that of all those cities, 5 are in the top 10 fastest growing cities in the US and add more than 100,000 per year to their metro areas and lead the country in job growth.

my guess is Atlanta though, partially due to geography.


----------



## ranny fash (Apr 24, 2005)

ive noticed detroit has ridiculous sprawl as well, despite not fitting in at all on that list (all southern)


----------



## hedlunch (Feb 11, 2006)

Raleigh-Durham, NC.


----------



## polako (Apr 7, 2005)

TOP 3 Metros: lowest compactness index( highest ratio of sprawl to population)

1. Greensboro-Winston-Salem-46.8
2. Raleigh-Durham-54.2
3. Atlanta-57.7

BOTTOM 3 Metros: highest compactness index(lowest ratio of sprawl to population)

1. Providence-153.7
2. Honolulu-140.2
3. Omaha, NB-128.4

Source:http://fletcher.tufts.edu/faculty/kahn/pdf/kahn_roundtable.pdf


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

Hmmm...According to that list, Hartford is more sprawled out than either Houston or Phoenix...


----------



## hedlunch (Feb 11, 2006)

There are trends too and IMO Atlanta has a viable and growing urban core. So it would, I think tend to be moving down that list of sprawl capitals over time. Where as many of those areas do not have much in the way of urban cores at all. So all growth in those areas in the future will be sprawl more or less.


----------



## Ian604 (Dec 22, 2005)

Houston or Atlanta


----------



## Greens! (Feb 13, 2006)

Hartford is more sprawled than Houston. It sounds stupid but taking the suburbs into consideration, I believe it. The suburbs in Houston that are 25 miles from downtown are of similar density to those that are 5 miles from dt. They build the buildings in suburban fashion, but close together.


----------



## Greens! (Feb 13, 2006)

Here are some pictures of the sprawl in Houston from a local development company. If anone has any pictures of suburban Atlanta or Hartford or anywhere else, this is a good way to compare.










18-19 miles from the CBD









and looking west near the edge of the development about 25 miles from downtown


----------



## nothingman (Jul 3, 2005)

I don't know, but I DO know that Miami seems to sprawl for MILES if you drive north up I-95. It's a very spread out city....everything seems so far apart.


----------



## TallTampa (Jul 25, 2005)

I'd say Houston, followed closely by Atlanta


----------



## Barragon (Dec 26, 2004)

Houston is huge... 

LA is the largest metro area in the world... but i don't know if you're using only the city/county.. or also the metro area..


----------



## Scba (Nov 20, 2004)

Jacksonville's pretty spread out too.


----------



## Nameless (Jul 8, 2004)

I live in Phoenix and it is pretty spread out here.


----------



## TheOldMan (Jul 1, 2005)

Los Angeles is the most sprawling. Phoenix is also a top candidate for this list.


----------



## TalB (Jun 8, 2005)

San Antonio tends to have a lot of sprawl once you go outside the CBD.


----------



## Geaux Tigers (Jan 6, 2005)

Without a doubt southern California is the most sprawled out metro in the US and I live in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area. 

BTW, Dallas and Ft. Worth are 35 miles apart and the distance from the furthest western suburb (Weatherford) to the furthest eastern suburb (Terrell) is about 100 miles.


----------



## raymond_tung88 (Mar 26, 2004)

LOS ANGELES!!!!


----------



## Greens! (Feb 13, 2006)

LA may be lots of suburbs but the buildings are still closer together. If anyone has been to Atlanta and LA, they know what im talking about. This is not about their urban core, many cities have urban cores, but about the nature of the development outside the core.


----------



## hedlunch (Feb 11, 2006)

The question was: 

"in terms of the ratio between (the) population and the sprawled buit-up area's total land area?" 

Meaning the lowest population desity per sq mile for the entire metro area. In that respect LA is average for a US city. Certianly not the lowest, unless you count all of San Berardino county(which is huge and mostly completely empty). LA has a very dense and very large urban core. It is geographicly the largest metro, but it is not the least dense. The study posted by polako is more to the point.


----------



## hedlunch (Feb 11, 2006)

San Bernardino County BTW is often counted as part of the LA metro area. In the case of the study posted by polako it's part of Riverside-San Bernardino metro which why that metro ranks as the least dense in the country. But SB county is half the size of South Carolina. It's 16,000 square miles. The largest county in the US. Bigger than 8 US states. And it's 90% empty desert. So it really throws statistics off.


----------



## OhmehawJ (Jul 31, 2004)

polako said:


> 3. Omaha, NB-128.4
> Source:http://fletcher.tufts.edu/faculty/kahn/pdf/kahn_roundtable.pdf


New Brunswick?  



It's actually NE. 

And it's quite interesting to see Omaha up there as we seem pretty sprawl-y for a metro of less-than-one-million.


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

With the most sprawled, probabily ATL and Chicago! :runaway:


----------



## Jue (Mar 28, 2003)

From my experience, Austin (Texas) has the worst sprawl in Texas. The city spans a huge area considering its population, and both employment and living are highly decentralised. The downtown is miniscule, with a cluster of apartments around the university as residential. Not only is the city low-density, many suburbs are scattered amidst various scenic areas, with very low infill between. Another factor is the city's outdated highway system, which is completely inadequate for ferrying these outlying people around.

Houston and Dallas at least build solidly along highway corridors.


----------



## Open Road (Feb 26, 2005)

My vote would be Kansas City, just for the annoyance factor. The city has 1.8 million people if you count the total urban area, and to drive across it in any direction is about 40 miles. I remember reading somewhere that it had the most highway-lanes miles per capital of any metro area in the US (sorry I can't find the source). 

I would also like to bitch that every single new strip mall they build (and there are hundreds) has a Panera Bread, a Chipotle, and a Starbucks. I like all three... but wouldn't it be sweet if we could get something different?


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

Open Road said:


> My vote would be Kansas City, just for the annoyance factor. The city has 1.8 million people if you count the total urban area, and to drive across it in any direction is about 40 miles. I remember reading somewhere that it had the most highway-lanes miles per capital of any metro area in the US (sorry I can't find the source).
> 
> I would also like to bitch that every single new strip mall they build (and there are hundreds) has a Panera Bread, a Chipotle, and a Starbucks. I like all three... but wouldn't it be sweet if we could get something different?


LOL, yea, that kinda things happen in the Chicago suburb as well....I know how you feel!


----------



## Jue (Mar 28, 2003)

Open Road said:


> My vote would be Kansas City, just for the annoyance factor. The city has 1.8 million people if you count the total urban area, and to drive across it in any direction is about 40 miles. I remember reading somewhere that it had the most highway-lanes miles per capital of any metro area in the US (sorry I can't find the source).
> 
> I would also like to bitch that every single new strip mall they build (and there are hundreds) has a Panera Bread, a Chipotle, and a Starbucks. I like all three... but wouldn't it be sweet if we could get something different?


It would be sweet, certainly. When I lived in Austin, the best thing I liked about the place was the number of unique small businesses in the city. But then the stifling heat kept me in a car anyway. :lol:

I wonder how Portland fares in this uniqueness factor given its smart growth initiatives.


----------



## globill (Dec 4, 2005)

titeness said:


> not a coincidedence that all those cities, except for L.A., are in states that voted Bush in '04.


Actually Illinois New York and California voted Democratic.

So, according your bizzare need to put politics into this thread...

let's add up the sprawled cities populations according to which way their state went...


Atlanta Bush 4,000,000
Miami Bush 4,000,000
Houston Bush 4,000,000
Dallas-Fort Worth Bush 4,000,000
Los Angeles (Southland) Kerry 18,000,000
Oklahoma City Bush 1,000,000
Kansas City Bush 2,000,000
New York (Tri-State Area) Kerry 21,000,000
Chicago-Milwaukee (Chicagoland) Kerry 10,000,000

Bush Sprawl cities- 19,000,000
Kerry Sprawl cities- 49,000,000


see how easy, fun, stupid and pointless it is to insert your political opinions into absolutely everything?


----------



## hudkina (Oct 28, 2003)

Miami is probably the least sprawled major metro in the country. It may not be overly dense in any particular area, but it also doesn't have the low-density exurbia found in just about every other metro. Miami's urbanized area has a population of 4,919,036 in just 1,115.80 sq. mi. In comparison Atlanta's urbanized area has just 3,499,840 in 1,962.06 sq. mi.


----------



## Gary B (Jan 14, 2005)

globill said:


> Actually Illinois New York and California voted Democratic.
> 
> So, according your bizzare need to put politics into this thread...
> 
> ...



LOL! Great post!


----------



## Chicagoago (Dec 2, 2005)

Yeah, Miami is one of the least SPRAWLED cities in the country. It might cover a large area, but it doesn't just pepper the landscape with random development, it's a pretty condensed solid mass for the most part. I mean there's a swamp and ocean surrounding it, you can't really just build random houses and crap EVERYWHERE. 

In the same respect LA doesn't sprawl as bad compared to its population. Yes it's very low rise and tons of single family homes, but it's fairly constant, and has a somewhat high household size due to so many immigrants. It also has a low level of abandoned development within its realm unlike some older cities that have had time to "decay" in areas within them.

I live in Chicago, and it is a mixed bag. The city obviously is very tight and compact, which probably is a huge saving grace in its overall level of sprawl per total population. The suburbs though developed differently than some western cities. Almost all of the suburbs of Chicago were tiny little cities of their own back 50-60 years ago ( at least a lot of them, i'm not saying ALL of them ). So when people started moving to the burbs you had tons of little settled towns suddenly start booming. It's almost like a big blob of mold spores, with Chicago being the one huge mold spore growing in the middle, but suddenly there are 70 little spread out mold spores growing near it all at once. It's finally getting to the point where the little spores are filling in and growing together more and more to form one solid mass - but for awhile there it was just sprinkled large scale development with many tracts of unbuilt land in between. This is mostly evident now in Lake County, which is actually working strongly toward keeping the islands of development (self respecting towns) instead of the full scale massive sprawl of urbanity seen in other areas.

I mean I love Chicago and all, but I always found it weird coming here from Iowa that there were large open areas in the middle of the burbs that hadn't filled in yet. This makes sense in the midwest though where thousands of little villages and towns were settled 150 years ago. They just sat dorment for many many years though waiting for an economic trigger like the ever expanding Chicago to jump start them ( and commuter rail stations ). I think in the west, you have more of a situation of miles after MILES of nothing outside many of these cities. This would make more sense to just continue development right off of the existing city instead of moving out 45 miles and starting a random subdivision there. Maybe I'm wrong...maybe I'm drunk....


----------



## superman987 (Sep 29, 2005)

I would say Houston, Atlanta and of course, how could anyone forget, LA. 

For the future i see Las Vegas, which is already really sprawled, leading this catorgory.


----------



## Facial (Jun 21, 2004)

Los Angeles.
Not the southside; that place is already surrounded and dense. Rather OC, Ventura, and the Eastside (the San Bernardino / Riverside / Corona / Chino Hills region)

And Atlanta, from what I've heard. Las Vegas is also out of control.


----------



## polako (Apr 7, 2005)

globill said:


> Actually Illinois New York and California voted Democratic.
> 
> So, according your bizzare need to put politics into this thread...
> 
> ...


Miami(3-County) voted for Kerry.

Kerry-1,192,000(58.8%)
Bush-818,000(40.4%)
Other=16,000(0.8)


----------



## Greens! (Feb 13, 2006)

I still say Atlanta has the worst sprawl. LA has areas that cannot be built up, like mountains. So do Phoenix and Vegas. Houston is spread but not as much as Atlanta. I have been to all of these places. The suburbs in Atlanta have bigger lots.


----------



## Greens! (Feb 13, 2006)

to back my point
suburban Atlanta


----------



## lancetop (Nov 27, 2005)

Jacksonville sprawls out of control~~~

St.Louis seemed extremely sprawling when I drove through there a couple years ago.


----------



## Facial (Jun 21, 2004)

Sprawl is a bad thing.


----------



## Vidiot (Apr 27, 2005)

LA's sprawl is a fabled thing. Yes, it is a large metro area, and in that sense it might win for the largest sprawling metro in actual land area, but in relation to its enormous population, it balances itself out. Homes and developments here are dense and built very close together and at mid-rise level. Building abandonment percentage in LA is one of the lowest in the country. Also, there are virtually no open spaces like in say Houston or Atlanta. LA has been built nearly to its full capacity, pushed and squeazed ever so tightly against its natural ocean and mountain borders. These horizontal limits have been reached fairly recently, and now we are starting to see LA build up and up and up.


----------



## StevenW (Sep 12, 2002)

^^ Building up is good!


----------



## Paddington (Mar 30, 2006)

The New York metro area overall actually has lower population density than the LA metro metro. There may be some truth to this, as a lot of LA + suburbs are congested in between the mountains and the sea, whereas the flatter suburbs of New York stretch across 4 different states.

Dallas, TX is probably the most comically sprawled city I've seen in America. It's not uncommon there to see a skyscraper, and then a vast cow pasture next to it. Or it's not uncommon to be driving through the "city" and pass through vast stretches of farms, until you hit more buildings and strip malls.

Most cities here in Ohio sprawl a lot too, especially Toledo and Columbus which are built on massive stretches of flat land.


----------



## Paddington (Mar 30, 2006)

nothingman said:


> I don't know, but I DO know that Miami seems to sprawl for MILES if you drive north up I-95. It's a very spread out city....everything seems so far apart.


I've been to Miami and driving through the city and some of its suburbs, stuff is built remarkably compact together. A lot of rich people's houses are on pretty small lots. I didn't see any vast stretches of lawn in the upscale residential areas that are so common here in Ohio.


----------



## sbarn (Mar 19, 2004)

I think its important to recognize that sprawl is not just low density development, but also includes the segregation of land uses which forces people to drive rather than walk. 

For example, new urbanism isn't considered to be sprawl (although it depends on who you talk to), despite its relatively low population density in comparison to urban cities. 

Anyway, I think the top sprawl contenders are Houston, Dallas, or Atlanta. Nothing scientific about my choices, just my 2 cents.


----------



## centreoftheuniverse (Nov 16, 2005)

No sprawl list would be complete without PHOENIX. :yes:


----------



## Jue (Mar 28, 2003)

Paddington said:


> The New York metro area overall actually has lower population density than the LA metro metro. There may be some truth to this, as a lot of LA + suburbs are congested in between the mountains and the sea, whereas the flatter suburbs of New York stretch across 4 different states.
> 
> Dallas, TX is probably the most comically sprawled city I've seen in America. It's not uncommon there to see a skyscraper, and then a vast cow pasture next to it. Or it's not uncommon to be driving through the "city" and pass through vast stretches of farms, until you hit more buildings and strip malls.
> 
> Most cities here in Ohio sprawl a lot too, especially Toledo and Columbus which are built on massive stretches of flat land.


Oh, those lone skyscrapers are funny. I guess single-family offices haven't caught on yet. :lol:


----------



## Diboto (Oct 20, 2004)

Atlanta is really crazy. I haven´t been to other places like Houston or LA. but I can tell that ATL is totally out of control.


----------



## InTheBeach (Apr 20, 2006)

Vidiot said:


> LA's sprawl is a fabled thing. Yes, it is a large metro area, and in that sense it might win for the largest sprawling metro in actual land area, but in relation to its enormous population, it balances itself out. Homes and developments here are dense and built very close together and at mid-rise level. Building abandonment percentage in LA is one of the lowest in the country. Also, there are virtually no open spaces like in say Houston or Atlanta. LA has been built nearly to its full capacity, pushed and squeazed ever so tightly against its natural ocean and mountain borders. These horizontal limits have been reached fairly recently, and now we are starting to see LA build up and up and up.


I agree. This distinquishes LA from other candidates for this prized award.

One thing that I have noticed is that spawl in northern cities seems to be ugly, whereas sunbelt cities seem pleasant. For me, this is to do with the vegetation. Could also be the age of the development, or the specifics of locations where I have made these observations.

Anyone else have a similar experience.


----------



## Skyman (Jan 4, 2006)

NYC
LA
Chicago
Miami


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

Here's some Hartford sprawl:


----------

