Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,043,145 times
Reputation: 4047
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
Newark, New Jersey. Very dramatic.
When I got away from Texas for my first year of college at Ann Arbor, Michigan, I was away from the things going on in the state. So when I transferred to UT-Austin for my 2nd year, I saw the downtown and the skyline. I kid you not- I thought I was in the wrong city.
This is what it looked like last I remembered it from any trip before going to college:
This is what it looked like when I started my 2nd year of college:
I haven't officially been to Miami since 2005. I have heard it's dynamically so much more different now.
I must go and see it for myself...
I haven't officially been to Miami since 2005. I have heard it's dynamically so much more different now.
I must go and see it for myself...
A skyline change to me doesn't equal a dramatic transition. Miami is growing but its not really transitioning just becoming an ever increasing version of itself. There have been no major infrastructure changes or industry changes like in other cities that have been named.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,043,145 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by EndersDrift
A skyline change to me doesn't equal a dramatic transition. Miami is growing but its not really transitioning just becoming an ever increasing version of itself. There have been no major infrastructure changes or industry changes like in other cities that have been named.
I find our debates interesting EndersDrift, we normally have such divergent views.
Anyways here's the basis for my size (lets see how long this one lasts, LOL!):
1. The transition for Miami was a strong one, especially since it added residential units for more people willing to invest in it's markets. Miami's population grew quite a lot in the span it had all this "boom" going. Which is why it's skyline helped it. Not to mention what you see in the start up in every city exposure by the media You see the cityscape first. I'm sure with a skyline like that Miami has been getting a lot of "holla!" thrown at it's way.
2. Downtown Austin has been attracting people with it's residential units as well. A lot of the highrise development has been helping the city grow. A lot more office space added, because it's had quite a lot of companies open up offices there. In March Facebook went ahead and did it. Google has opened one up there as well. Trust me, it's helping the city more than just adding scenery.
3. I am a skyline fanatic to the core. Like I think metal and glass runs through my veins more than blood half the time. You can expect a good argument from me as to why a skyline is relevant.
There that was a novice level explanation just to get things started.
I find our debates interesting EndersDrift, we normally have such divergent views.
Anyways here's the basis for my size (lets see how long this one lasts, LOL!):
1. The transition for Miami was a strong one, especially since it added residential units for more people willing to invest in it's markets. Miami's population grew quite a lot in the span it had all this "boom" going. Which is why it's skyline helped it. Not to mention what you see in the start up in every city exposure by the media You see the cityscape first. I'm sure with a skyline like that Miami has been getting a lot of "holla!" thrown at it's way.
2. Downtown Austin has been attracting people with it's residential units as well. A lot of the highrise development has been helping the city grow. A lot more office space added, because it's had quite a lot of companies open up offices there. In March Facebook went ahead and did it. Google has opened one up there as well. Trust me, it's helping the city more than just adding scenery.
3. I am a skyline fanatic to the core. Like I think metal and glass runs through my veins more than blood half the time. You can expect a good argument from me as to why a skyline is relevant.
There that was a novice level explanation just to get things started.
I find our debates interesting EndersDrift, we normally have such divergent views.
Anyways here's the basis for my size (lets see how long this one lasts, LOL!):
1. The transition for Miami was a strong one, especially since it added residential units for more people willing to invest in it's markets. Miami's population grew quite a lot in the span it had all this "boom" going. Which is why it's skyline helped it. Not to mention what you see in the start up in every city exposure by the media You see the cityscape first. I'm sure with a skyline like that Miami has been getting a lot of "holla!" thrown at it's way.
2. Downtown Austin has been attracting people with it's residential units as well. A lot of the highrise development has been helping the city grow. A lot more office space added, because it's had quite a lot of companies open up offices there. In March Facebook went ahead and did it. Google has opened one up there as well. Trust me, it's helping the city more than just adding scenery.
3. I am a skyline fanatic to the core. Like I think metal and glass runs through my veins more than blood half the time. You can expect a good argument from me as to why a skyline is relevant.
There that was a novice level explanation just to get things started.
Your turn.
You're talking about past growth, the OP wants to know what city is currently undergoing a major transition.
*Transition: (Noun) The process or a period of changing from one state or condition to another.
Growth does not really change its state or condition. Not for Miami at least. Maybe for Austin, that wasn't the topic though. Miami has been large for quite some time, it has been a major financial center for quite some time. No new hospitals have been built, no new research parks have been built, even intermodal is an expansion of an existing transit system.
Compare to Orlando where there was no light rail, there was limited medical facilities and no medical school, major industry being tourism can no longer sustain and then NASA took a huge hit too further shifting the economy of Orlando. Much like people mention Detroit and Las Vegas for similar reasons. Major shifts to its overall state of being whether for good or bad. Miami has just experienced growth in what way is it currently undergoing change?
Chicago has built a lot of skyscrapers and are building a lot of skyscrapers, again though and I think you would agree Chicago isn't shifting its entire economy.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,043,145 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by EndersDrift
You're talking about past growth, the OP wants to know what city is currently undergoing a major transition.
I want to show you what Austin is projected to look like in 2015-2016:
Your definition can rest easy now. The ATX is still in a period of "transition". I can't say for Miami though. I haven't been there enough to know about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EndersDrift
Growth does not really change its state or condition. Not for Miami at least. Maybe for Austin, that wasn't the topic though. Miami has been large for quite some time, it has been a major financial center for quite some time. No new hospitals have been built, no new research parks have been built, even intermodal is an expansion of an existing transit system.
state [steyt] Show IPA ,noun, adjective, verb, stat·ed, stat·ing.
–noun
1.
the condition of a person or thing, as with respect to circumstances or attributes: a state of health. 2.
the condition of matter with respect to structure, form, constitution, phase, or the like: water in a gaseous state.
3.
status, rank, or position in life; station: He dresses in a manner befitting his state.
4.
the style of living befitting a person of wealth and high rank: to travel in state.
5.
a particular condition of mind or feeling: to be in an excited state.
Well according to the definition I have highlighted and the use in your sentence it does mean change dealt by growth.
1. Austin is in a condition to change it's complete outlook. The city that was centered around the flagship university system for Texas has been diminishing in influence. It has started to become more than the typical state capital city/college town. It's not stepping up with the other Texas cities with it's own Texas Micro-business climate. As of March 2010, Austin just got Commuter Rail, which I think is a transition, if the OP can list it for Houston, I don't see why I can't use it for Austin's defense.
2. Well I can't say for Miami, I'm really not a local and I don't follow the city all that closely, so I can't tell you if it has any development or not. But I think residency is it's main form of development and possibly a media appeal along with it. But I know Miami is going to have to shift it's tactic, I believe it was one of the hardest hit economies? It's got to attract some businesses there. But I don't live there so I can't say.
Miami is going to be one of those places I'll have to look into briefly between replies here, or it's something to read about and see what developments if any they have going on or possible developments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EndersDrift
Compare to Orlando where there was no light rail, there was limited medical facilities and no medical school, major industry being tourism can no longer sustain and then NASA took a huge hit too further shifting the economy of Orlando. Much like people mention Detroit and Las Vegas for similar reasons. Major shifts to its overall state of being whether for good or bad. Miami has just experienced growth in what way is it currently undergoing change?
Chicago has built a lot of skyscrapers and are building a lot of skyscrapers, again though and I think you would agree Chicago isn't shifting its entire economy.
1. Chicago did build a lot of skyscrapers, and that completed it's transition into the kind of city it is today. When you see pictures of Chicago, is there even one picture you see that doesn't actively involve it's downtown? No, that was it's greatest creation and it's made a name for itself with that.
So has Miami, when you overtake Houston for third largest skyline by mass of buildings in the skyline, your bound to flip heads. And it did.
That was a sour day for Houston. It lost something it had since the 1980's.
Miami at 38 square miles has no choice but to improve it's infrastructure. You tell me one city that isn't trying to attract people inside their city limits before their suburban area? There is none, every city has been building density and attracting people inside city limits and Miami's small land area gives it no choice but to do that.
2. Newly built skyscrapers don't mean anything for Chicago. It can get a supertall, no one will parade about it because in it's history it's always built some of the tallest. It's got a building mass of 1,111 high rise buildings in it's skyline, adding one new tower or even eight new towers right now doesn't make a difference to that city, it's already established itself as what it is. It won't even look all that dramatically different. Austin will. Compare the two pictures from before and the one from this post.
3. So you mean to tell me Miami doesn't have a way to supply the new residents with jobs? Yeah a city when it's population grows normally it's job base and structure should too. Otherwise Miami would have one hell of a high unemployment rate if people are moving into the city without a job infrastructure. So technically that would mean it's not growing, who would want to move where all the jobs are gone? Tell me that it's not the case and that Miami has something to stabilize itself and grow effectively to support it's population. Maybe those new towers can serve as offices? Just a possibility, I know not all of those are residential, some had to have been created for office buildings. That's a shift in employment environment. That's a shift to a growing job market if they can get occupants for those buildings.
4. Chicago can't do anything to it's economy besides lower unemployment and attract more companies. It's already the most diverse economy in America, there is no way it can even shift to one field in it's economy that would give it more importance over another sector of it's economy. It has the most balanced and diverse economy, no one sector comes out on top of the other.
5. When a city grew the amount Orlando did, it better get public transportation rolling. That's something cities it's size have been investing in doing for public ease. That is a transition for public transportation. San Antonio has yet to do any of that.
That will be it for right now, too many things written = more things to refute when responding time comes. I'll leave it at that till the next round.
2.
the condition of matter with respect to structure, form, constitution, phase, or the like: water in a gaseous state.
Its talking about a shift from water to ice. Not adding more water to the pot.
Quote:
1. Austin is in a condition to change it's complete outlook. The city that was centered around the flagship university system for Texas has been diminishing in influence. It has started to become more than the typical state capital city/college town. It's not stepping up with the other Texas cities with it's own Texas Micro-business climate. As of March 2010, Austin just got Commuter Rail, which I think is a transition, if the OP can list it for Houston, I don't see why I can't use it for Austin's defense.
I don't recall ever attacking Austin and in reviewing my responses I haven't.
Quote:
2. Well I can't say for Miami, I'm really not a local and I don't follow the city all that closely, so I can't tell you if it has any development or not. But I think residency is it's main form of development and possibly a media appeal along with it. But I know Miami is going to have to shift it's tactic, I believe it was one of the hardest hit economies? It's got to attract some businesses there. But I don't live there so I can't say.
Miami is going to be one of those places I'll have to look into briefly between replies here, or it's something to read about and see what developments if any they have going on or possible developments.
A new art gallery, yet more high-rises, the intermodal, a tunnel, low income sex offender policy changes, lots of corruption, and more real-estate development with a bit of mixed-use.
Quote:
1. Chicago did build a lot of skyscrapers, and that completed it's transition into the kind of city it is today. When you see pictures of Chicago, is there even one picture you see that doesn't actively involve it's downtown? No, that was it's greatest creation and it's made a name for itself with that.
So has Miami, when you overtake Houston for third largest skyline by mass of buildings in the skyline, your bound to flip heads. And it did.
That was a sour day for Houston. It lost something it had since the 1980's.
Miami at 38 square miles has no choice but to improve it's infrastructure. You tell me one city that isn't trying to attract people inside their city limits before their suburban area? There is none, every city has been building density and attracting people inside city limits and Miami's small land area gives it no choice but to do that.
Well the first response above in this reply shows again skyscraper build up does not equal a shift. However, Miami was not Austin for a long time. Miami has been one of the nation's largest cities for a long time. It passing Houston is no more significant than Tampa becoming 4 million strong without anyone even noticing.
Quote:
2. Newly built skyscrapers don't mean anything for Chicago. It can get a supertall, no one will parade about it because in it's history it's always built some of the tallest. It's got a building mass of 1,111 high rise buildings in it's skyline, adding one new tower or even eight new towers right now doesn't make a difference to that city, it's already established itself as what it is. It won't even look all that dramatically different. Austin will. Compare the two pictures from before and the one from this post.
Again, I have made no comments about Austin
Quote:
3. So you mean to tell me Miami doesn't have a way to supply the new residents with jobs? Yeah a city when it's population grows normally it's job base and structure should too. Otherwise Miami would have one hell of a high unemployment rate if people are moving into the city without a job infrastructure. So technically that would mean it's not growing, who would want to move where all the jobs are gone? Tell me that it's not the case and that Miami has something to stabilize itself and grow effectively to support it's population. Maybe those new towers can serve as offices? Just a possibility, I know not all of those are residential, some had to have been created for office buildings. That's a shift in employment environment. That's a shift to a growing job market if they can get occupants for those buildings.
No, right now sadly it doesn't have jobs. You can read the above link or go directly to the Brookings Institute to read scholarly reports about it if you prefer.
Quote:
4. Chicago can't do anything to it's economy besides lower unemployment and attract more companies. It's already the most diverse economy in America, there is no way it can even shift to one field in it's economy that would give it more importance over another sector of it's economy. It has the most balanced and diverse economy, no one sector comes out on top of the other.
If say the Mercantile Exchange fell and Manufacturing industries went under than Chicago would have to adapt. That has not occurred. The housing recession did hit Miami very hard but so far it has made no adaptations which is what constitutes a transition.
Quote:
5. When a city grew the amount Orlando did, it better get public transportation rolling. That's something cities it's size have been investing in doing for public ease. That is a transition for public transportation. San Antonio has yet to do any of that.
Ok?
Quote:
That will be it for right now, too many things written = more things to refute when responding time comes. I'll leave it at that till the next round.
Good night
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
