Multiple Dimensions of Sprawl: How Does LA Stand Up?

George Galster, Wayne State University

Royce Hanson, U. Maryland-Baltimore Co.

Hal Wolman, George Washington U.

Presented at the Conference: “Planning in the Post-Sprawl Era”

University of Southern California, Nov. 30, 2001

Overview of Presentation

• Sprawl has multiple dimensions

• Possible to develop meaningful, objective measures of multiple dimensions of sprawl

• Despite its lack of predominant core, LA is NOT very residentially sprawled relatively on most dimensions; it’s well above-average in housing density and proximity

Dimensions of Sprawl

• Density• Continuity• Concentration• Compactness

• Centrality• (Mono-)Nuclearity• Mixed Uses• Proximity

A Definition of Sprawl

A pattern of urbanized land use exhibiting low levels of some

combination of the aforementioned dimensions

Density

The average amount of the given urban land use per areal unit of

developable land

1.DENSITYThe Average Number of Residential Units PerSquare Mile of Developable Land in an UrbanizedAre.

= Border of Urbanized Area

= MSA

= Square Miles

= ¼ square miles

= Vacant parcels

= Undevelopable Land

= 1000 units

A

B

High Density Area

Low Density Area

Concentration

The degree to which a given urban land use is located disproportionately in relatively few square miles of the

developed area

= MSA

= Border of Urbanized Area

= Square Miles

= ¼ square miles

= Vacant parcels

= Undevelopable Land

AHigh Concentration

BLow Concentration

3. CONCENTRATIONThe degree to which development is located in relatively few squaremiles rather than spread evenly across the urbanized area.

Centrality

The degree to which a given urban land use is, on average, located close to the

core of the developed urban area

= MSA

= Border of Urbanized Area

= Square Miles

= ¼ square miles

= Vacant parcels

= Undevelopable Land

= 1000 units

= CBD

AHighly CentralizedArea

B

5. CENTRALITYThe degree to which development in an urbanized area is located closeto the Central Business District (CBD).

Highly Decentralized Area

(Mono-) Nuclearity

The degree to which development is characterized by a single-node pattern of

the given urban land use

= Border of Urbanized Area

= MSA

= Square Miles

= ¼ square miles

= Vacant parcels

= Undevelopable Land

= 1000 units

A

B

6. NUCLEARITYThe extent to which an urbanized area is characterized by amononuclear or polynuclear pattern of development.

Mononuclear Area

Polynuclear Area

Proximity

The degree to which observations of a single (or different) urban land

uses(es) are close to each other across the developed area

= Border of Urbanized Area

= MSA

= Square Miles

= ¼ square miles

= Vacant parcels

= Undevelopable Land

=1000 Residential Units

= 1000 Non-residential Units

A

B

8. PROXIMITYThe degree to which different land uses are close to each other acrossan urbanized area.

High Proximity of Uses

Low Proximity of Uses

Measuring Sprawl: A Prototype

• 13 Urbanized Areas • 5 Dimensions of sprawl operationalized • Housing Units (HUs) is land use considered• GIS used to construct database of HUs in

one square mile grids, extracting from 1990 Census block files

• Z-scores calculated for individual sprawl dimensions, plus unweighted average index

Prototype Measures of Sprawl

• Density: # Housing Units / Square Mile• Concentration: Dissimilarity of Housing Units vs.

Land Area Across Grids (Delta Index)• Centrality: Inverse of Ave. Distance of HUs from

City Hall, Weighted by Square root of HUs• Nuclearity: % of HUs in all Nodes (grids in top

1% of HU density) located in Contiguous Core• Proximity: Inverse Ave. Distance between HUs,

Standardized by Ave. Grid Centroid Separation

Sprawl Rankings: Least to Most

DensityConcen-tration Centrality Nuclearity Proximity Rank

New York, NY 1 1 1 1 1 1Philadelphia, PA 6 4 2 2 9 2Boston, MA 10 2 3 3 6 3Chicago, IL 4 6 9 4 3 4Los Angeles, CA 2 8 8 9 2 5San Francisco, CA 5 3 13 5 5 6Washington, DC 8 9 5 8 11 7Detroit, MI 9 10 11 6 7 8Houston, TX 11 6 4 13 10 9Dallas, TX 12 4 10 12 4 9Denver, CO 7 12 6 7 13 11Miami, FL 3 11 12 11 12 12Atlanta, GA 13 13 7 10 8 13

Are There Sprawl Archetypes?

Lesson:

Density alone does not sprawl make

(nor does any other single dimension)

Urbanized Areas’ Profiles of Residential Sprawl

Measured on Five DimensionsStandardized Indicators Expressed as Proportional Differences from the Sample Mean

Source: Constructed from data reported in George Galster et al (2000), Table 1

New York

-0.60 -0.40 -0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60

Proximity

Nuclearity

Centrality

Concentration

Density

Atlanta

-0.60 -0.40 -0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60

Proximity

Nuclearity

Centrality

Concentration

Density

Miami

-0.60 -0.40 -0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60

Proximity

Nuclearity

Centrality

Concentration

Density

Dallas

-0.60 -0.40 -0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60

Proximity

Nuclearity

Centrality

Concentration

Density

Boston

-0.60 -0.40 -0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60

Proximity

Nuclearity

Centrality

Concentration

Density

Los Angeles

-0.60 -0.40 -0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60

Proximity

Nuclearity

Centrality

Concentration

Density

Future Directions I

Expand Study Area Beyond Urbanized Area

Add grids within PMSA/UA counties having:

30%+ commuters to UA and 60+ housing units

Future Directions II

Use U.S. Geological Survey’s NLCDB:

Residential & non-residential uses

Vacant but “developable” land

“undevelopable” land

Conclusions

• Possible to develop meaningful, objective measures of multiple dimensions of sprawl

• Despite its lack of predominant core, LA NOT very residentially sprawled relatively on most dimensions; well above-average in housing density and proximity