Urban footprints

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by pj3000

I think that coastal Southeast Florida has the largest continuous urban footprint in the US.

There are no significant breaks in it for about 200 miles. It's a completely paved over, unnatural environment.

I think LA is still much larger. It's 150 miles east to west (or more) plus over 100 miles north to south. SE Florida doesnt go much far inland in comparison.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by pj3000

It's really the continuous part about southeast coastal Florida that I'm talking about.

Zoom out to 100 or 200 miles on Google Maps -- I don't think anywhere will show up as a bigger continuous stretch of gray than the south Florida concrete artificiality. Other mega-regions with even a bit of actual topography to speak of at least have hills, mountains, forested land, etc. to break it up at least a little bit.

The Atlantic Coast of Florida is pretty much the world's longest strip mall.

LA's string doesnt break up with the mountains. On the 10 and the 101 to Ventura, its all development. Then From Santa Clarita to San Clemente on the 5.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

By average density LA's UA is THE densest in the US, but by the much more meaningful metric of weighted density, no one comes close to touching NYC.


If you combine the Riverside UA to LA's, you end up with 2,281 sq. miles, bumping it up to 4th place just behind chicago.

Ok, makes sense. Yea, there's very little towns around LA.

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by pj3000

It's really the continuous part about southeast coastal Florida that I'm talking about.

Zoom out to 100 or 200 miles on Google Maps -- I don't think anywhere will show up as a bigger continuous stretch of gray than the south Florida concrete artificiality. Other mega-regions with even a bit of actual topography to speak of at least have hills, mountains, forested land, etc. to break it up at least a little bit.

The Atlantic Coast of Florida is pretty much the world's longest strip mall.

Yeah, it’s that’s long but it isn’t all that large compared to the masses that exist for NYC, LA, Chicago, etc. It’s at its widest in Miami-Dade and Broward counties and even that’s a shrivel of density.

Despite the continuous density, it makes up for it by have decent tree cover, a protected swamp/ wetland on the west, tropical islands to the south, and still very beautiful beaches and warm ocean water on the East.

[dave8721]

Originally Posted by pj3000

I think that coastal Southeast Florida has the largest continuous urban footprint in the US.

There are no significant breaks in it for about 200 miles. It's a completely paved over, unnatural environment.

Longest, probably. LA is probably much larger in total area since it has 2 full dimensions to it rather than the thin line of South Florida and is developed in much the same way. Which makes sense considering it has 4x the population. Packing tons of people into a single unbroken blob is probably the most environmentally sensitive way to develop. Its probably best to completely envelop one small area and leave the rest completely untouched rather than spread that same number of people out over a huge area and little intermittent blobs effective killing an entire region (South Florida, California, Vegas model of continuous cities ending at strict borders with no human habitation outside that vs NE model of city giving way to endless smaller and smaller towns).

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by LA21st

LA's string doesnt break up with the mountains. On the 10 and the 101 to Ventura, its all development. Then From Santa Clarita to San Clemente on the 5.

Originally Posted by LA21st

I think LA is still much larger. It's 150 miles east to west (or more) plus over 100 miles north to south. SE Florida doesnt go much far inland in comparison.

Yeah, I definitely realize LA is significantly larger. I probably should have said "longest" rather than "largest" in the case of south Florida. My main point was that it is continuous without gaps over a roughly 200 mile distance. I'm really not familiar enough with the LA hinterlands to assert that what you say isn't accurate, but I didn't realize that there's that distance of a continuous development stretch without hitting significant stretches of uninhabited mountain areas (just based on maps, it really doesn't seem to hold true for the LA area). I've never driven I-5, but I have driven the 101... and I seem to recall plenty of vast farmland/basin areas and definitely some mountainous areas that were definitely not (and unable to be) developed.

Originally Posted by dave8721

Longest, probably. LA is probably much larger in total area since it has 2 full dimensions to it rather than the thin line of South Florida and is developed in much the same way. Which makes sense considering it has 4x the population. Packing tons of people into a single unbroken blob is probably the most environmentally sensitive way to develop. Its probably best to completely envelop one small area and leave the rest completely untouched rather than spread that same number of people out over a huge area and little intermittent blobs effective killing an entire region (South Florida, California, Vegas model of continuous cities ending at strict borders with no human habitation outside that vs NE model of city giving way to endless smaller and smaller towns).

Right, shoulda said longest. What's most environmentally sensitive is up for debate, because there are so many parameters to consider. It all depends on the type of development, not so much the density. "Intermittent blobs" do not kill an entire region. Extremely dense, high intensity of use, and manmade terrain alterations effectively do.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Yeah, I definitely realize LA is significantly larger. I probably should have said "longest" rather than "largest" in the case of south Florida. My main point was that it is continuous without gaps over a roughly 200 mile distance. I'm really not familiar enough with the LA hinterlands to assert that what you say isn't accurate, but I didn't realize that there's that distance of a continuous development stretch without hitting significant stretches of uninhabited mountain areas (just based on maps, it really doesn't seem to hold true for the LA area). I've never driven I-5, but I have driven the 101... and I seem to recall plenty of vast farmland/basin areas and definitely some mountainous areas that were definitely not (and unable to be) developed.



Right, shoulda said longest. What's most environmentally sensitive is up for debate, because there are so many parameters to consider. It all depends on the type of development, not so much the density. "Intermittent blobs" do not kill an entire region. Extremely dense, high intensity of use, and manmade terrain alterations effectively do.

E-W for LA is developed . So is N-S.
on the 101 in Ventura County? It's strip malls and office parks mostly, fronting the freeway. Not sure where you saw vast farmland of the freeway. Mountains?
Eh, not really. Maybe some smalll stretches. Ventura County has growth boundaries, but on the 101, its all development.
Once you hit Ventura city, you're in suburbia all the way to the Palm springs area, which can also be considered more suburbia. I really dont know what significant
stretches of no development you're referring to.

The mountains and hills you speak of don't interrupt the suburban development. It's north of those freeways. Florida might be longer, but LA has to be at least 160 miles E-w-.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by LA21st

on the 101 in Ventura County? It's strip malls and office parks mostly, fronting the freeway. Not sure where you saw vast farmland of the freeway.

The farmland was true maybe 30-35 years ago. Basically from Camarillo through to the city of Ventura, it was mostly agricultural, like strawberry fields, lettuce (or cabbage?) fields, and even some banana groves---actually, the banana trees were in La Conchita, closer to the Santa Barbara County line.

Then the Camarillo Premium Outlets were built some time in the mid or late 90s, maybe? And then development started to boom from there, it seems.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

The farmland was true maybe 30-35 years ago. Basically from Camarillo through to the city of Ventura, it was mostly agricultural, like strawberry fields, lettuce (or cabbage?) fields, and even some banana groves---actually, the banana trees were in La Conchita, closer to the Santa Barbara County line.

Then the Camarillo Premium Outlets were built some time in the mid or late 90s, maybe? And then development started to boom from there, it seems.

Yea, I've never seen undeveloped stretches on the 101 in my lifetime. The cool thing about Ventura/LA area you can leave the suburbia development behind and venture into a giant mountain range. But the development itself is unbroken.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by LA21st

E-W for LA is developed . So is N-S.
on the 101 in Ventura County? It's strip malls and office parks mostly, fronting the freeway. Not sure where you saw vast farmland of the freeway. Mountains?
Eh, not really. Maybe some smalll stretches. Ventura County has growth boundaries, but on the 101, its all development.
Once you hit Ventura city, you're in suburbia all the way to the Palm springs area, which can also be considered more suburbia. I really dont know what significant
stretches of no development you're referring to.

The mountains and hills you speak of don't interrupt the suburban development. It's north of those freeways. Florida might be longer, but LA has to be at least 160 miles E-w-.

Originally Posted by sopas ej

The farmland was true maybe 30-35 years ago. Basically from Camarillo through to the city of Ventura, it was mostly agricultural, like strawberry fields, lettuce (or cabbage?) fields, and even some banana groves---actually, the banana trees were in La Conchita, closer to the Santa Barbara County line.

Then the Camarillo Premium Outlets were built some time in the mid or late 90s, maybe? And then development started to boom from there, it seems.

Originally Posted by LA21st

Yea, I've never seen undeveloped stretches on the 101 in my lifetime. The cool thing about Ventura/LA area you can leave the suburbia development behind and venture into a giant mountain range. But the development itself is unbroken.

Speaking of Camarillo, I actually flew into the airport there on a charter about 15 years ago. So it's been a little while... but there was a ton of vast farmland to be seen from the plane. You guys are telling me that all of that agricultural land near Camarillo and Oxnard is now developed?

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Speaking of Camarillo, I actually flew into the airport there on a charter about 15 years ago. So it's been a little while... but there was a ton of vast farmland to be seen from the plane. You guys are telling me that all of that agricultural land near Camarillo and Oxnard is now developed?

Oxnard is pretty developed. Camarillo still has agriculture, but it was way more agricultural decades ago. To see more of the agriculture in Camarillo, you have to go away from the 101.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

Oxnard is pretty developed. Camarillo still has agriculture, but it was way more agricultural decades ago. To see more of the agriculture in Camarillo, you have to go away from the 101.

Well yeah, obviously there is going to be more development right along a highway route. I'm sure sure there's been plenty of development in the whole area since I was last there. But there was definitely farmland along 101 in that area when I was there and obviously a ton in between Oxnard and Camarillo. Ventura County is a pretty big agricultural production region, no?

I'm definitely not talking about only linear continuous development along a highway... shit, if that's the indicator, then the entire 400+ mile stretch of US1 along the Atlantic coast in Florida would qualify

[JManc]

When I was last in Ventura a year or so ago, there were several avocado farms nearby for all these Millennials and their toast.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Speaking of Camarillo, I actually flew into the airport there on a charter about 15 years ago. So it's been a little while... but there was a ton of vast farmland to be seen from the plane. You guys are telling me that all of that agricultural land near Camarillo and Oxnard is now developed?

Sure its there. Ventura has growth boundaries. But, on the 101, it's nothing but suburbia the entire way. It's not like that entire 180 mile stretch in Florida is heavy developed the entire way either.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Well yeah, obviously there is going to be more development right along a highway route. I'm sure sure there's been plenty of development in the whole area since I was last there. But there was definitely farmland along 101 in that area when I was there and obviously a ton in between Oxnard and Camarillo. Ventura County is a pretty big agricultural production region, no?

I'm definitely not talking about only linear continuous development along a highway... shit, if that's the indicator, then the entire 400+ mile stretch of US1 along the Atlantic coast in Florida would qualify

Then what are you talking about lol. Suburban development? Yes, its sububan development near the 101 the entire way. When we say the 101, were not saying frontage roads and nothing else. There's tons of housiing developments and office parks nearby. Typical suburban shit. Does the 1 in Florida have offices and real business for 400 miles? Probably not.

Florida has many stretches where it barely goes inland, so i'm confused. You said continuous development, that's what the 101 is. That's not the only place where there's development in Ventura county, there's giant suburbs outside of that.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by JManc

When I was last in Ventura a year or so ago, there were several avocado farms nearby for all these Millennials and their toast.

Good one

[sopas ej]

I guess that joke is lost on Californians; I'm a Gen-Xer, and I grew up eating avocado toast... didn't everybody? It's easily made at home.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by LA21st

Then what are you talking about lol. Suburban development? Yes, its sububan development near the 101 the entire way. When we say the 101, were not saying frontage roads and nothing else. There's tons of housiing developments and office parks nearby. Typical suburban shit. Does the 1 in Florida have offices and real business for 400 miles? Probably not.

Florida has many stretches where it barely goes inland, so i'm confused. You said continuous development, that's what the 101 is. That's not the only place where there's development in Ventura county, there's giant suburbs outside of that.

I was, and am still, talking about the longest stretch of continuous development without significant interruption to the "urban footprint" (i.e., the developed, unnatural area)... be that interruption forests or mountains or farms... and I'm not just considering it to be development that thinly hugs a highway route.

The Southern California area is obviously bigger than South Florida. If you can't see how mountain ranges and agricultural land provides some breaks in the massive urban sprawl of the greater LA area, then there's nothing really more I can say on the topic.

But let's just pare it down to a nice round number, 100-mile straight shot for shits and giggles. Let's go from Jupiter to Florida City in a straight line... for that entire stretch, you will find nothing but artificial, urbanized area. Now do a same 100-mile straight shot for the LA area... go from Ventura and head east for 100 miles... go from Ventura and head southeast for 100 miles. You're going to traverse undeveloped mountain or agricultural areas. Use another starting point and do the same thing, doesn't matter -- you will pass thru undeveloped area (and even using a highway route, you're going to find the same thing). Aerial mapping doesn't lie.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

I guess that joke is lost on Californians; I'm a Gen-Xer, and I grew up eating avocado toast... didn't everybody? It's easily made at home.

You're lucky. Avocados were pretty much a rather exotic thing in the northern/northeastern US until guacamole became a household snack dip, and then with the adoption by millennials, it was discovered that the fruit itself could be used for delicious concoctions rather recently.

We've long had it down in Miami, thanks to Cuban cooking. But for greater "middle America", it's still somewhat of a recent novelty.

[toddguy]

Atlanta's sprawl and in particular the large lot checkerboard amount of it is unreal, also avocados and avocado toast are great. LA is huge but even the single family home development is relatively dense-similar to Canadian cities. Many cities out west and in Canada do not have the transition zone of low density large lot sprawl-it goes from developed to just not developed with no miles of checkerboard sprawl(SE US) and intermingling of urban/suburban development(NE US).

*this is all going by the standard for US "urban" areas many of which are suburban really and not by the standards of most other nations.