Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
The very name Los Angeles has become synonymous with the concept of urban
sprawl (see Figure 7.4). There is no doubt that the urban morphology of the Los
Angeles plain is striking. The last 30 years of the 20th century were characterized by
an almost general intensification of urban land use in this region. Measured using
the standard distance of the population from the metropolitan area's barycenter,
sprawl progressed less rapidly than one might think, given the massive size of the
population of this southern California city. It would seem that urban sprawl has
reached its limits in Los Angeles, where it is difficult and expensive to urbanize the
arid slopes of the region's surrounding mountains. Population growth therefore
continues with the densification of the existing urban fabric, which is gradually
losing its typically suburban aspect, throughout the county of Los Angeles. Urban
sprawl does continue, however, towards the east into the County of San Bernardino.
Unlike the New York area, there is no depopulating inner city in Los Angeles.
Growth is widespread, with the exception of a few, relatively limited neighborhoods.
The case of Los Angeles should discourage the hasty assimilation of metropolitan
statistical areas with cities. The metropolitan area of Los Angeles is larger than
Ireland (88,500 km²), but the Mojave Desert is the largest part of its territory, to the
extent that Figure 7.4 does not even include the entire Consolidated Metropolitan
Statistical Area (CMSA). The agglomerated part of the CMSA, which spans 7,725
km², includes 95% of the metropolitan area's population. The average density of the
greater city is therefore 20 inhabitants/ha, which is relatively high in the American
context. Inside the greater city, the center of Los Angeles is very spread out (1,226
km²) and its average density is 30 inhabitants/ha.
There are a number of other interesting case studies, which we must,
nevertheless, try to summarize in order to draw some general lessons from the
diversity of geographical situations.
Among the major cities of the United States, Phoenix (Arizona) is the only one
that did not spread out between 1970 and 2000, despite explosive growth. The
population has more than tripled, but development simply built on unused land in a
city that was already very spread out. Central areas, however, continue to lose
population. The two-headed metropolis of Dallas-Fort Worth is also characterized
by rapid growth, with a population which more than doubled between 1970 and
2000. Given its organization around two centers, the urban sprawl of Dallas is
known for its moderation in comparison with the American standard. Unlike many
other cities, no neighborhoods were emptied of their population, and urban growth
tends to fill the gaps that existed in 1970, despite a tendency to sprawl towards the
north. This is proof that there is not necessarily a causal relationship between
population growth and urban sprawl. In the same way, urban sprawl has been very
active around Saint Louis (Missouri) and Detroit (Michigan), despite a virtually
