Cities where the center is located on both sides of a river

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

Yeah but you didnt run out there with a tape measure steely.

I bet it wouldn't be hard using some Google Satellite photos to get pretty accurate estimates of the river's width

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I bet it wouldn't be hard using some Google Satellite photos to get pretty accurate estimates of the river's width

google earth has a distance measuring tool which i used to measure various river widths.

it's accurate enough for the purposes of this thread.

rivers don't have consistent widths either, so all of it is a game of approximation anyway.

[Minato Ku]

Please, keep the debate cordial.
The width of the river doesn't matter as long it is not an artificially constructed water channel that was added latter.
What's interest us here is the urban history and the urban fabric of cities. The city development with the river.

Here a perspective drawing of Paris during the 17th century (1618).
The city was already spreading well on both side of the river.

Wikipedia common

Originally Posted by 10023

If we're sticking to the same definition as the OP (which refers to the Thames as a "real barrier"), then the Huangpu is much more of a barrier.

In the case of London, although there are some small dense area in the south of the Thames with many new office development, it is not spread, it is just the long of the River and around major railway terminal.
There are no signifiant shopping and entertainment areas there.

To get a high street retails in the south, you need to go in Brixton or in Batterseas, out of the city center.

When we see the history of London, the widespread development of the south side of the Thames is pretty "recent".

Originally Posted by hipster duck

It's hard for a city to grow by 1 million people per year and not grow outward to some degree.

Yeah, of course...

I was just commenting on the unrestrained urban sprawl of Shanghai not being too attractive to me after viewing a photo of said unrestrained urban sprawl.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Perch

Can't tell if this is sarcasm or not.

I've never been there, but Shanghai is one of the most often cited poster children for chaotic urban sprawl.

There have been concerted government efforts to rein in the "development at all costs" mindset that characterized Shanghai for the past few decades, but calling Shanghai the "antithesis of sprawl" leaves me concerned for your mental well-being.

The modern part of Pudong is about 2% or less of the entire area of Shanghai, one of the most densely populated places on the planet. BTW, I've been there several times.

You must use Sprawl and Bigness interchangeably. I suppose that Tokyo is also a poster child for sprawl.

But I will await your source supporting your contention. Please dispense with the ad hominem remark.

here is a layman's definition for urban sprawl:
Urban sprawl or suburban sprawl describes the expansion of human populations away from central urban areas into low-density, monofunctional and usually car-dependent communities, in a process called suburbanization. In addition to describing a particular form of urbanization, the term also relates to the social and environmental consequences associated with this development. In Continental Europe the term "peri-urbanisation" is often used to denote similar dynamics and phenomena, although the term urban sprawl is currently being used by the European Environment Agency. There is widespread disagreement about what constitutes sprawl and how to quantify it. For example, some commentators measure sprawl only with the average number of residential units per acre in a given area. But others associate it with decentralization (spread of population without a well-defined centre), discontinuity (leapfrog development, as defined below), segregation of uses, and so forth. Wikipedia

Images for urban sprawl (hmm, where is Shanghai, the supposed poster child?):
https://www.google.ca/search?q=urban...sAQIMQ&dpr=1.5

First one on the list, Milton (Ontario):


another image near the top of the list:

[Xing]

Originally Posted by IWant2BeInSTL

whether or not the river happens to coincide with a political boundary probably makes a difference in terms of the amount of development on each side as well. in particular i'm thinking about how the state of IL basically ignores East St. Louis and southern IL in general. any investment by St. Louis city or the state of MO on the east side of the river would basically be a loss in terms of revenue.

It's not just Illinois, but St Louis too. I will say though that there are politicians that do try hard to influence the southern part of the state, Dick Durbin is a perfect example. He grew up in East St. Louis, and still tries to help. Jerry Costello was a great politician. He was instrumental in building the metrolink in Illinois, keeping Scott AFB, and building the new airport.

An example of Missouri and St Louis hurting the metro east is the new bridge. Missouri didn't want it. Illinois obviously did. Of the 3 entities involved, the State of Illinois, the Federal government, and Missouri, Missouri put in the least to build it. Ironically, Missouri felt it had a right to name it. Thank god they agreed on Stan Musial Veterens Memorial Bridge - a bit long, but better than the Ronald Reagan bridge.

[10023]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Twice now. Going again later this month. You?

I usually restrict my comments to cities that I have been to. Unlike many others, whose opinions are masqueraded as facts.

Yeah a couple times. Once was for almost two weeks at a stretch, and I was staying in Xintiandi with a client in Pudong so I got pretty familiar with the tunnels and bridge over the river. And I do think Pudong is a bit auto centric, or at least it seemed that way riding around everywhere in the back of a taxi.

[Spocket]

Originally Posted by Perch

Can't tell if this is sarcasm or not.

I've never been there, but Shanghai is one of the most often cited poster children for chaotic urban sprawl.

There have been concerted government efforts to rein in the "development at all costs" mindset that characterized Shanghai for the past few decades, but calling Shanghai the "antithesis of sprawl" leaves me concerned for your mental well-being.

If you define sprawl simply as growth of the urban footprint then, yeah, I guess Shanghai sort of qualifies. If you define it the way the dictionary does then no, it's absolutely not sprawling.

The Chinese have managed to pack tens of millions into an area the size of, oh, a city of maybe 2 million people in America, Canada, Australia, NZ, etc. Where are they supposed to house new arrivals ? Underground ?
No Chinese city could be considered sprawling by North American standards and while Europe is better, it's still not as dense as anything in China. In fact, it certainly looks like the peripheries of Chinese cities are more dense than the cores because the older construction tended to top out at 6 floors while the "suburbs" are where the new 30 and 40 story towers get built. They don't build houses in China except for the very, very rich.

So, I'm sorry but you need to check out the definition of sprawl again if you think Shanghai is a sprawling behemoth. It's a behemoth alright but it's hardly sprawling.
Part of the reason we don't like sprawl is because it's unsustainable if you grow your cities using the North American model. Economically, it's disastrous. Culturally it's bland and does nothing to knit a community together. It's car-centric and contributes nothing to the urban fabric. This is absolutely not the case with Chinese "sprawl". You could say that Pudong isn't pedestrian-friendly (well, Lujiazui to be more specific which was planned to be more of a showpiece than a simple business core) but it's a poor representative of the rest of Shanghai. That was the idea when they planned it.

[Minato Ku]

Anyway sprawl is not the topic of this thread.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Xing

It's not just Illinois, but St Louis too. I will say though that there are politicians that do try hard to influence the southern part of the state, Dick Durbin is a perfect example. He grew up in East St. Louis, and still tries to help. Jerry Costello was a great politician. He was instrumental in building the metrolink in Illinois, keeping Scott AFB, and building the new airport.

An example of Missouri and St Louis hurting the metro east is the new bridge. Missouri didn't want it. Illinois obviously did. Of the 3 entities involved, the State of Illinois, the Federal government, and Missouri, Missouri put in the least to build it. Ironically, Missouri felt it had a right to name it. Thank god they agreed on Stan Musial Veterens Memorial Bridge - a bit long, but better than the Ronald Reagan bridge.

i know IL sen. durbin and mayor slay are friends and when he brings the illinois mayors to DC, slay is invited and often comes with them. although i'm sure that the geospatial intelligence facility issue has strained that, of late.

i've said before that if illinois wasnt a titanic fiscal basketcase, it would almost make more sense if st. louis were in illinois instead of missouri.

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Center is located on both sides of the Yangtze.

That's not the Yangtze, it's the Huangpu. The Yangtze estuary is located in the very north part of the municipality of Shanghai.

Originally Posted by 10023

Have the people who are saying Shanghai ever been to Shanghai?

Obviously there are very big buildings and financial districts on both sides of the river. But it's a very big river, and these are quite distinct districts. If I'm walking along the Bund and want to go to the big shopping mall across the river, it's going to take me 30 minutes by subway or perhaps 20 by taxi. In terms of time and connectivity, it's more like going from Midtown to Downtown Manhattan (but with a half mile wide river in between) than going from one side of the Chicago River or the Seine or even the Thames to the other.

Or you can hop a ferry and be across in less than 10 minutes.

[hammersklavier]

I'd say St. Petersburg, Russia qualifies:



So does Stockholm:



This opens up another interesting question: what about cities in deltas? St. Petersburg lies in the Neva's delta, something that I think is rare among major cities.

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

The modern part of Pudong is about 2% or less of the entire area of Shanghai, one of the most densely populated places on the planet. BTW, I've been there several times.

You must use Sprawl and Bigness interchangeably. I suppose that Tokyo is also a poster child for sprawl.

But I will await your source supporting your contention. Please dispense with the ad hominem remark.

here is a layman's definition for urban sprawl:
[I][B]Urban sprawl or suburban sprawl...

Wikipedia

First, having visited a city/region does not confer expertise on that city/region. Second, I do not use the terms sprawl and bigness interchangeably, as you suggest (though many very large cities do most certainly exhibit urban sprawl... Tokyo, yes. Not nearly as an extreme case as Shanghai because Tokyo instituted planning laws long ago which resulted in the designated areas and clusters we see today). Third, sorry for the AD HOMINEM attack... I realize now just how absolutely unyieldingly ruthless I was! Fourth, I'm no layman, and because of that fact, I would never cite Wikipedia.

Urban sprawl is NOT suburbanization, which is what you seem to be equating it with (but that is a common misconception). Urban sprawl is unrestrained and unplanned growth outward from an urban center... or unrestricted growth of urban areas with little concern for urban planning. This is how professionals in the study of urban geography define it... professionals like Harm de Blij (RIP) and Peter Muller... eminently respected professors in the practice who, fortunately for me, became colleagues.

Shanghai fits the definition to a T. And with the environmental degradation, transportation challenges, and infrastructure stresses that have come with it, that is precisely why the Chinese govt has been enacting rules which mandate sustainable growth in an effort to begin to correct decades of the unplanned and unrestrained urban development at costs model.

You can continue to "await (my) source supporting (my) contention" for as long as you wish to remain uneducated about the topic in Shanghai. For 1) I am not the one who made the contention (that was you when you said that Shanghai was the "antithesis of sprawl" in contention to me commenting on an aerial photo illustrating Shanghai's apparent urban sprawl) and 2) there is much easily-available commercial print on the topic (a quick search will provide you plenty of info ; and volumes of deeper research available in journals.

[10023]

Some other cities I would propose...

Lyon
Prague
Rome
Salzburg
Cairo
Istanbul (across the Golden Horn, not the Bosphorus)

[Jonesy55]

Dublin?

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Perch

First, having visited a city/region does not confer expertise on that city/region. Second, I do not use the terms sprawl and bigness interchangeably, as you suggest (though many very large cities do most certainly exhibit urban sprawl... Tokyo, yes. Not nearly as an extreme case as Shanghai because Tokyo instituted planning laws long ago which resulted in the designated areas and clusters we see today). Third, sorry for the AD HOMINEM attack... I realize now just how absolutely unyieldingly ruthless I was! Fourth, I'm no layman, and because of that fact, I would never cite Wikipedia.

Urban sprawl is NOT suburbanization, which is what you seem to be equating it with (but that is a common misconception). Urban sprawl is unrestrained and unplanned growth outward from an urban center... or unrestricted growth of urban areas with little concern for urban planning. This is how professionals in the study of urban geography define it... professionals like Harm de Blij (RIP) and Peter Muller... eminently respected professors in the practice who, fortunately for me, became colleagues.

Shanghai fits the definition to a T. And with the environmental degradation, transportation challenges, and infrastructure stresses that have come with it, that is precisely why the Chinese govt has been enacting rules which mandate sustainable growth in an effort to begin to correct decades of the unplanned and unrestrained urban development at costs model.

You can continue to "await (my) source supporting (my) contention" for as long as you wish to remain uneducated about the topic in Shanghai. For 1) I am not the one who made the contention (that was you when you said that Shanghai was the "antithesis of sprawl" in contention to me commenting on an aerial photo illustrating Shanghai's apparent urban sprawl) and 2) there is much easily-available commercial print on the topic (a quick search will provide you plenty of info ; and volumes of deeper research available in journals.

I am not at all uneducated about Shanghai, but keep being obtuse. This quote doesn't exactly confer wisdom upon the poster:

To me, it's yucky concrete vomit with random larger chunks all over the place.

Since you dislike layperson definitions (which are perfectly fine for a non-academic site, but if you must remain 'perched' in your Ivory Tower), here are the two most cited papers according to Google Scholar under the search parameters "urban sprawl":

The study reported in this paper measured urban form at the county and metropolitan levels.
Urban form at these levels is often characterized as more or less “sprawling.” Poor accessibility
is the common denominator of urban sprawl—nothing is within easy walking distance of anything else
[32]. Although variously defined by others, we consider sprawl to be any environment characterized
by (1) a population widely dispersed in low-density residential development; (2) rigid separation
of homes, shops, and workplaces; (3) a lack of distinct, thriving activity centers, such as strong
downtowns or suburban town centers; and (4) a network of roads marked by large block size and
poor access from one place to another. Compact development is the antithesis of sprawl, keeping
complementary uses close to one another.
In: Urban Ecology, "Relationship Between Urban Sprawl and Physical Activity, Obesity, and Morbidity" Reid Ewing, Tom Schmid, Richard Killingsworth, Amy Zlot, Stephen Raudenbush)
Google Scholar Count : Cited by 1272

In recent years, the rapid expansion of metropolitan areas has been termed
“urban sprawl”—referring to a complex pattern of land use, transportation,
and social and economic development. As cities extend into rural areas, large
tracts of land are developed in a “leapfrog,”
low-density pattern. Different land uses—
housing, retail stores, offices, industry, recre-
ational facilities, and public spaces such as
parks—are kept separate from each other,
with the separation enforced by both cus-
tom and zoning laws. Extensive roads need
to be constructed; for suburban dwellers,
most trips, even to buy a newspaper or a
quart of milk, require driving a car. Newly
built suburbs are relatively homogeneous in
both human and architectural terms, com-
pared with the diversity found in traditional
urban or small town settings. With the ex-
pansion of suburbs, capital investment and
economic opportunity shift from the center
to the periphery. Regional planning and co-
ordination are relatively weak.
cited from "Urban Sprawl and Public Health" (2002, Howard Frumkin), Public Health Reports, vol. 17
Cited by 735

Aside from a very small part of Pudong (Lujiazui), none of Shanghai is characterized by low-density, rigid separation, or car-dependency. The metro has more than 34 million people, and, as noted by the Chemist and a few other posters, for a time it was growing by 1 million per year.

Ad hominem attacks are the weakest rebuttals. Name dropping is perhaps the third weakest, after straw man arguments. If you are truly in Academia (as I am) you would know this. Yet you have employed all three in your two rebuttals.

I am done wasting my time with someone who employs vitriol to make a point. You have been duly corrected by others, but you persist on being nasty.Perhaps try to build a reputation here before bludgeoning others for disagreeing with your flawed arguments.

PS: Being in Academia does not confer one automatic authority.

[lio45]

As a general rule, if the river is tiny then the city is likely to be spread nearly equally around it. I see that San Antonio got mentioned -- that's a good example of a downtown river not acting like a barrier in any way.

And if the river is bigger (NYC, Montreal, St. Louis, Quebec City etc.) you'll clearly have the main city totally on one side of it only, with a noticeably less urban cluster on the other side of the bridges and tunnels.

Common sense.

[Centropolis]

i'm trying to think of the most lopsided city in the US...probably memphis. you have cities like manaus on the amazon that basically have jungle on the other side.

[dave8721]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

i'm trying to think of the most lopsided city in the US...probably memphis. you have cities like manaus on the amazon that basically have jungle on the other side.

Mobile, AL as well:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Mo...!4d-88.0398912

[Centropolis]

i know that says mobile river right on the waterfront but ships dock there, its probably considered mobile bay. there's even a fair bit of sprawly stuff way over on the other side.