• Cyburbia is a fun, friendly, big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, planning adjacent topics, and whatever else comes to mind. No ads, no spam, no echo chambers. Create your FREE Cyburbia ID, and join us today! Register through your Reddit, Facebook, Google, Twitter, or Microsoft account, or use your email address.

Let's see your city's sprawling suburbs

SouthSideSlayer

Cyburbian
Messages
86
Points
4
(Most of these images were posted on the message board of skyscraperpage.com)



Scottsdale, an eastern suburb of Phoenix:




Sandy, Utah, one of the sprawling burbs of Salt Lake:




Suburban Chicago:

 

Jeff

Cyburbian
Messages
4,161
Points
27
Maybe it's just not a good example, but that picture of Scottsdale looks pretty decent to me...
 

PlannerByDay

Cyburbian
Messages
1,827
Points
24
The Chicago pics give me the willies. Perhaps the only positive thing about it is that they have included sidewalks, something many newer suburbs in West Michigan and in many other parts of the country lack.
 

nerudite

Cyburbian
Messages
6,544
Points
30
Yeah... the second photo of Edmonton didn't look that bad. Lots of trees and pretty dense development. Also the suburbs of Cincinatti retained a lot of natural features/tree stands... at least they didn't wipe out everything in their paths.
 

donk

Cyburbian
Messages
6,970
Points
30
I have to second some of the comments here, many of those while big, don't seem to sprawling. Try working in a City with an area of 180 square kilometers and a population of less than 20 000.

As for scarberia, while it used to be a suburb, people now think of it as Toronto, it even has public transit.
 

Chet

Cyburbian Emeritus
Messages
10,624
Points
34
JoshD said:
The Chicago pics give me the willies. Perhaps the only positive thing about it is that they have included sidewalks, something many newer suburbs in West Michigan and in many other parts of the country lack.
I see street trees too. Looks like their making lemonade with 'dem lemons.
 

BKM

Cyburbian
Messages
6,464
Points
29
Open Suburbs

What is interesting to me now is how "open" midwestern suburbs are. Out here in the land of 4500 sf lots, every little tract home is surrounded by good neighbor fences-and every subdivision has its sound wall. On the one hand, they do provide for privacy in crowded conditions. On the other hand, you lose the All-American Residential Park feeling.

The Chicago picture is particularly illustrative of the openness of the midwest. The other thing I noticed-I wish we could get separated sidewalks in all of our tracts (most of our walks are monolithic).
 

Cardinal

Cyburbian
Messages
10,080
Points
34
I noticed the huge difference between the midwest and the west. Here, a new lot will generally not be less than 8000 square feet in an (sub)urban location. In Southeast Wisconsin, that lot will cost between $30,000 and $35,000. Closer to Chicago it may be $40-50,000. In California a 5000-6000 square foot lot will cost $60,000. I grew up on a suburban lot of about a quarter acre. I now live on a farm of over 100 acres. For me, the most difficult aspect of purchasing a home on the west coast would be finding a piece of land that I can afford and on which I would not feel cramped.
 

pete-rock

Cyburbian
Messages
1,551
Points
24
No doubt about it...

The suburban Chicago pics confirmed what I already believed -- the Midwest is the most sprawled region of the nation.

Geography and water constrains lot size in the west, east and south to varying extents. However, few such constraints exist in the Midwest, particularly the old "Rust Belt" Midwest (northern portions of Ohio, Indiana and Illinois, and the southern portions of Wisconsin and Michigan). The land is flat, the water is fairly plentiful, and, particularly in Illinois, few trees get in the way.
 

Tranplanner

maudit anglais
Messages
7,903
Points
35
donk said:

As for scarberia, while it used to be a suburb, people now think of it as Toronto, it even has public transit.
You can actually see the subway in the two pics of Scarborough - in the first one, the line is diving underground on the right hand side of the picture (follows the railway line across the pic). In the second pic, Warden subway station is in the mid-right hand side of the pic.

[EDIT] Oh yeah - the big box complex in the foreground of the second pic is actually a redevelopment of a GM van plant. Brownfields redevelopment at its finest, eh? [/EDIT]
 

Dan

Dear Leader
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
17,682
Points
57
Roeland Park, Kansas - about 10 km from downtown Kansas City, Missouri. It's a typical 1950s era suburb; small single family houses on fairly large lots (1/4 to 1/3 acre), with curvilinear streets and no cul-de-sacs. The area was developed by J.C. Nichols, who built Country Club Plaza.
 

BKM

Cyburbian
Messages
6,464
Points
29
Roeland Park looks a lot like Arden Park east of Sacramento City Limits. What's interesting there is the beginnings of "mansionization" as people wanting the close-in location and mature trees build much more grandiouse houses.
 

SkeLeton

Cyburbian
Messages
4,853
Points
26
Somehow these pics reminded me of the movie Signs... :p Not really crop marks but the streets make good "alien signs" :p ;)
 

BKM

Cyburbian
Messages
6,464
Points
29
Bay Area has no sprawl!

I can't contribute. My metropolitan area is a paragon of "Smart Growth" and perfected planning. :)
 

nerudite

Cyburbian
Messages
6,544
Points
30
Okay... here's my contribution

This is a neighbourhood in St. Albert (the "rich" suburb of Edmonton, where I work)...

At least we have a good trail/greenbelt system to make up for the street design/cul-de-sacs.

Note: the lot widths in this neighbourhood (which is typical of most neighbourhoods in S.A.) range between approx. 11.5m (37') and 15m (49'). So even though we are a 'burb, the density of S.A. is currently the second highest in Alberta (right after Calgary)... but we are in the middle of a major annexation that will probably drop that down temporarily.
 
Top