Expansive and Expensive Cities

[finehoe]

* As a whole, U.S. cities maintained a constant pace of outward expansion into rural territory since the 1950s, but behind the facade two groups of thriving cities are behaving very differently.

* The first group of cities substantially reduced the pace of outward expansion beginning in the 1970s, channeling its economic strength into higher property values. This group includes San Francisco, Boston, New York, Los Angeles, Seattle, San Diego, Washington, Philadelphia, Portland and Miami.

* In contrast, the second group of cities accelerated its outward expansion, channeling economic strength into greater population growth. This group includes cities like Atlanta, Austin, Charlotte, Houston and Phoenix, as well as many others.

https://www.buildzoom.com/blog/cities-expansion-slowing

[I-10east]

Nice objective article. I really get sick of the biased 'One type of city (limited footprint, high property values) is better than sprawling growing cities'. Many times these high property cities have more problems (alot of homeless, very concentrated crime, no affordable housing etc). I prefer this city of Jax, opposed to my birthplace of NYC. My cousin is paying like 4K a month to live in a 2 bedroom in Brooklyn; No way in hell, I would've headed south a long time ago, as many continue to.

[thelakelander]

^FYI, NYC is a sprawling growing community as well. Most of New Jersey is NYC sprawl. The scale of NYC's urban area is just different than a smaller regional community like Jax. There, everything is bigger.....urban core density and suburban sprawl. Regardless of city size, most in the US are developed the same. Some just happened to get pretty massive before the automobile took over.

[I-10east]

^^^I'm well aware Lake. Of course a megalopolis is gonna alot of urban sprawl (which much of it was created a long time ago). Despite NY still growing, it concentrates inward opposed to the average Sun Belt city.