July 1 '06 CSA Census estimates (large MSAs with no CSAs added)

[LMich]

Originally Posted by Trae

Well I live here, and I can think of two counties of off the top of my head that are real rural. Chambers and Waller county. Chambers is in the eastern side, and Waller is in the northwestern side. Both have development popping up in them, but they both straddle the border of Harris County (3.6 million people, the size of Dallas and Tarrant County in the Metroplex combined). The people in those small developments all commute to Houston. You go just a bit away from those small developments, your in rural America. There are just enough people commuting to Houston (since there are no large population centers in those counties), to Houston.

Just go to Google Earth, and see what I am talking about.

I'm not real sure at what you're getting at. This can be said of countless metro areas in the country. Just about all of them include really rural counties that get counted in MSA and CSA. It's all about commuting patterns. Are you just describing the area to everyone?

[Trae]

Well, not many states have as large of counties as California or Texas. That is one reason why Los Angeles' CSA is over 30,000 square miles, and Houston's is over 10,000 square miles.

I started to start rambling off towards the middle of my post. Sorry about that.

[LMich]

But, particularly Metro Houston, Harris County is really the only one that I'd say maybe larger than your average county. Other than that, most are of a pretty normal size. So, I don't really think you can just chalk up Houston's large area to large counties. It can be chalked up, moreso, to being sprawled, just like other cities that boomed after the introduction of the automobile.

[Trae]

Harris County: 1,728 sq. miles
Brazoria County: 1,386 sq. miles

The smallest county in metro Houston is Galveston County: 398 sq. miles.

[LMich]

Dude, the Houston Metro is one of the more sprawled. It's not an opinion, and I'm not sure why you're protesting, so much.

[SteveD]

Originally Posted by LMich

Dude, the Houston Metro is one of the more sprawled. It's not an opinion, and I'm not sure why you're protesting, so much.

Trae, he's right. I haven't been able to really figure out what you're trying to say either. The only point I was making earlier is that Atlanta is unfairly single out for obscene sprawl, when, in fact, there's similar sprawl in numerous other large metros, particularly the sunbelt ones, like Dallas, Houston, and LA.

[LMich]

Well, now it looks like I'm going to be picking, but even if you take the Urbanized Area of Atlanta, it's UA is only smaller than Chicago's (and not by much), and New York's, of course. It's also the least dense out of the top 20 or 30 so UA's. It really is in a league of its own in its sprawl:

Atlanta UA: 3,499,840 / 5,083.1 square kilometers / 1,783.3 people per square miles
Houston UA: 3,822,509 / 3354.7 square kilometers / 2,951.1 people per square miles

In fact, you have to go down to number 47 and 48 Charlotte and Nashville UA's before you find any less dense than Atlanta's, and both of there are barely less dense:

47. Charlotte UA: 1,745 ppsm
48: Nashville UA: 1,741 ppsm

Atlanta is singled out for good reason, as it is an anamoly when talking about this nation's largest metros and urban areas.

[austin356]

Originally Posted by LMich

Well, now it looks like I'm going to be picking, but even if you take the Urbanized Area of Atlanta, it's UA is only smaller than Chicago's (and not by much), and New York's, of course. It's also the least dense out of the top 20 or 30 so UA's. It really is in a league of its own in its sprawl:

Atlanta UA: 3,499,840 / 5,083.1 square kilometers / 1,783.3 people per square miles
Houston UA: 3,822,509 / 3354.7 square kilometers / 2,951.1 people per square miles

In fact, you have to go down to number 47 and 48 Charlotte and Nashville UA's before you find any less dense than Atlanta's, and both of there are barely less dense:

47. Charlotte UA: 1,745 ppsm
48: Nashville UA: 1,741 ppsm

Atlanta is singled out for good reason, as it is an anamoly when talking about this nation's largest metros and urban areas.

Good work...... Exactly as I thought, but interesting none the less.


It is quite obvious that terrain differences play a very large role in the density of what sprawl in the south.

Houston is built on flat more tightly packed areas (comparable to desert development in the west) and Atlanta has to provide ever nomadic winding roads in order to develop. One does not even need to have been to either of these cities to determine this, but rather a quick look at Google Earth unmistakably shows this.


There are certain trade offs and benefits. For example you gain density in Houston, but things look (by suburban comparative standards) less homogeneous in Atlanta.

I also think this leads to Houston being able to densify with greater ease as the market begins to demand.

[LMich]

LaI'm not so sure that's a completey accurate prediction. Much like Pittsburgh, I'd suspect because of the hilly topography, Atlanta will develop some very dense nodes of urbanity. Houston may be able to develop more uniform density across the board, but hilly topography kind of forces super urban nodes.

Still, with our dependence on the car, and how auto-oriented many of these cities are built, we're decades off from that. For some of these newer sprawled cities, it's going to take a near complete reworking of transportation infastructure (i.e. the streets and highways) for them to fill back in on a human-scale, and, that's even if they want to do that in the first place. Who knows, many of these cities may simply develop commuter rail systems, and simply keep stretching them out for even further flung counties, allowing more sprawl.

I mean, I took at a city like Las Vegas. At 131 square miles (some of which is mountain), and 591,536 (2006 - City of Las Vegas Estimate), it gives you a pretty respectable population density of 4,508 ppsm for a new sunbelter. But, it still functions as nothing more than a collection of dense suburbs, and will continue to do so for the forseeable future for the sole fact that, in order for it to function as an urban city, the infastructure would have to be completely reworked to transform it into something much more human-scaled.

[SteveD]

thanks for posting those stats. That's not new to me, and really wasn't the point I was making. Maybe I shouldn't have been using the word "sprawl", I should have been talking "land area". It's a well known fact that metro Atlanta is the least dense large metro in the nation. The point that I was making is that the land area of it's MSA and CSA is not grossly larger than many other comparatively sized metros, again, in particular, the sunbelt boomers. My point was that most people, I believe, incorrectly assume that the land area of metro Atlanta is way bigger than that of say, Dallas or Houston, when in fact, the stats LMich posted earlier show that it's actually smaller. People get the wrong idea when they hear "28 counties" because Georgia's counties are so tiny. That's really all I was trying to convey. Of course I'm not saying Atlanta is more dense. I couldn't say that. It's the least dense big metro in the country.

[Trae]

It's all in the county size. The farther west you go, to larger the counties are. You can't even say that Los Angeles sprawls out for over 30,000 sq. miles. Los Angeles and Riverside counties are so large. Both of those counties are mostly rural. Maricopa County in the Phoenix metro contains 3.5 out of the 4 million people in Phoenix's metro. Again, that county is huge. In Harris County (Houston), you can be on farms and still see Houston's skyline. Many parts of Harris County are still very rural. Again, 3.6 out of Houston 5.5 million people live there (metro wise, not CSA). If you could split up the counties and make them smaller (like Georgia's size), Houston sq. miles would be smaller. As you can see by the urban areas LMich posted, Atlants sprawls out more than Houston or Dallas. That should give you an indicator on how much more "sprawly" metro ATL is.

[PremierAtlanta]

This may come off as ridiculous but in a way I'm glad that Atlanta (read as Atlanta's metro) is not so densely packed. Other than the long commute patterns and difficulty for making transit numbers work, I really like having space. I would think that a high percentage of the about 810,000 people who moved to Atlanta between 2000 and 2006 also found the space one of the appealing factors of moving to Atlanta. There are even ITP neighborhoods where homes are on 5-20 acre lots. This adds to the appeal because you are in your own private area yet 5 miles from the Buckhead business district.

I'm the oddity here so excuse my interference.

[Trae]

Atlanta grew by 890,000 since 2000, but I agree with you. You can have a mansion and be right behind Buckhead (same with Uptown Houston as well). Out of the 824,000 people who moved to Houston since 2000, I am sure they all found a good place...in the suburbs.


Just to show you how large the counties are:

Los Angeles:


Phoenix:


Houston:


Atlanta:

[SteveD]

Originally Posted by Trae

It's all in the county size. The farther west you go, to larger the counties are. You can't even say that Los Angeles sprawls out for over 30,000 sq. miles. Los Angeles and Riverside counties are so large. Both of those counties are mostly rural. Maricopa County in the Phoenix metro contains 3.5 out of the 4 million people in Phoenix's metro. Again, that county is huge. In Harris County (Houston), you can be on farms and still see Houston's skyline. Many parts of Harris County are still very rural. Again, 3.6 out of Houston 5.5 million people live there (metro wise, not CSA). If you could split up the counties and make them smaller (like Georgia's size), Houston sq. miles would be smaller. As you can see by the urban areas LMich posted, Atlants sprawls out more than Houston or Dallas. That should give you an indicator on how much more "sprawly" metro ATL is.

I'm not arguing with you. Atlanta sprawls REAL bad. Houston and Dallas sprawl PRETTY bad. Is that good enough for you? 70% of Atlanta CSA's 5.5 million people live in the core four or five counties also, similar to the Harris County percentage of the Houston CSA and MSA.

[SteveD]

trae, that graphic you posted is horribly misleading and puts a bold exclamation point on what I've been trying to convey. As I've said on several occasions now, and I will try to make this the last time, the Houston and Dallas CSA land areas are larger than those of Atlanta. You can't post maps of different scale like that for comparison purposes. It's a direct contradiction.

[PremierAtlanta]

Originally Posted by Trae

Atlanta grew by 890,000 since 2000, but I agree with you.

Ture, Atlanta metro grew by 890,000 but I am sure not all 890,000 moved to the city of Atlanta. That's why I said 810,000 chose the suburbs which means that many people obviously like less density.

[Trae]

Originally Posted by SteveD

trae, that graphic you posted is horribly misleading and puts a bold exclamation point on what I've been trying to convey. As I've said on several occasions now, and I will try to make this the last time, the Houston and Dallas CSA land areas are larger than those of Atlanta. You can't post maps of different scale like that for comparison purposes. It's a direct contradiction.

Your right. Bad map. Regardless, their land area may be larger, but they (don't know about Dallas, but Houston), does not sprawl out that far.

[Trae]

Originally Posted by PremierAtlanta

Ture, Atlanta metro grew by 890,000 but I am sure not all 890,000 moved to the city of Atlanta. That's why I said 810,000 chose the suburbs which means that many people obviously like less density.

Also take into account that about half of that are births (the 890,000 figure).

[LMich]

This is really getting ridiculous. It's like judging an ugly girl contest. They are both a total mess when it comes to transit if even its changing, slowly, a huge indicator in what makes something urban or not, and both have many decades before they can even begin to resemble anything walkable. They are both (along with Dallas-Fort Worth, Phoenix...) perfect examples of the New American city, including the good, the bad, and the oh-so very ugly.

But, if you don't mind hour commutes, pollution, walkability...urbanity is the last thing on your mind, and you'll find a welcome mat waiting for you, here.

[PhillyRising]

Originally Posted by LMich

This is really getting ridiculous. It's like judging an ugly girl contest. They are both a total mess when it comes to transit if even its changing, slowly, a huge indicator in what makes something urban or not, and both have many decades before they can even begin to resemble anything walkable. They are both (along with Dallas-Fort Worth, Phoenix...) perfect examples of the New American city, including the good, the bad, and the oh-so very ugly.

But, if you don't mind hour commutes, pollution, walkability...urbanity is the last thing on your mind, and you'll find a welcome mat waiting for you, here.

Amen and Thank You!