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.
However, I fail to see why downtown should represent an entire city .
Your failure to "see" how, doesn't make it less significant.
And that is really the question here isn't it?
The problem Houston has, because of sprawl, it's virtually impossible to discern the urban core of the city from the suburban feel.
The two meld together. Whereas in other cities whose core is far more dense and active, the feel is dramatically different.
And in answering the question posed by the OP, it's rather apparent, the answer has to be Seattle.
Quote:
An urban area is characterized by higher population density and vast human features in comparison to areas surrounding it. Urban areas may be cities, towns or conurbations, but the term is not commonly extended to rural settlements such as villages and hamlets.
Urban areas are created and further developed by the process of urbanization. Measuring the extent of an urban area helps in analyzing population density and urban sprawl, and in determining urban and rural populations (Cubillas 2007).
Unlike an urban area, a metropolitan area includes not only the urban area, but also satellite cities plus intervening rural land that is socio-economically connected to the urban core city, typically by employment ties through commuting, with the urban core city being the primary labor market. .
I have had fantastic times in Houston and it surely is bigger, no doubt.
But the sprawl and lack of city planning make it just one big mess.
(Zoning is out of whack and the humidity/heat is unbearable)
I pray Seattle never grows at the break-neck speed Houston has seen.
Seattle punches about average for a metro its size. no more, no less
Then what's your bone of contention here? We're saying virtually the same thing. For a metro of its size, Seattle does well for itself and in many facets is on par or "better" than metros of its size and larger.
I would argue that extensive highway systems are somewhat at odds with public transportation. I think rail (heavy or light) and buses (on city streets) promote PT, and heavy highway systems suggest that there is more dependence on everyone driving their own cars.
I agree that smaller cities don't have huge highway systems, but I don't think that provides a big city "feel" for the most part. Sure, driving in, you see a lot of people, but that's more relevant to the metro area. What gives a big city feel to me, is block after block of street-facing retail, strong PT, tons of foot-traffic, etc.
I agree that PT and highway systems can be at odds at times. My puprpose is saying that they both move large amounts of people quickly. Highway system is set-up for cars, PT for use without cars. My point essentially is that 8 lane or more highways and clover leaf like interchanges (and the higher concentration of them) are most likely going to be found in larger cities than smaller cities.
I do agree that street level activity does constitute a busy and lively city, as well as urbanity. I am merely offering another definition as urbanity can be layered. With that said, I still say Houston.
Also, I stand by my argument that sprawl can lead a bigger city, more urban feel. I do agree that low density sprawl doesn't. But if the sprawl is high density mixed use, is it still sub-urban?
I agree that PT and highway systems can be at odds at times. My puprpose is saying that they both move large amounts of people quickly. Highway system is set-up for cars, PT for use without cars. My point essentially is that 8 lane or more highways and clover leaf like interchanges (and the higher concentration of them) are most likely going to be found in larger cities than smaller cities.
I do agree that street level activity does constitute a busy and lively city, as well as urbanity. I am merely offering another definition as urbanity can be layered. With that said, I still say Houston.
Also, I stand by my argument that sprawl can lead a bigger city, more urban feel. I do agree that low density sprawl doesn't. But if the sprawl is high density mixed use, is it still sub-urban?
It depends on what is around it, if the high density is maintained in the neighborhoods directly adjacent then yes, but if it acts as a town center with buildings and retail and gives way to much less dense housing or non continuous density then it has much more in common with the suburbs, clusters of density/offices/retail sorrounded by much less dense residential, that is what the burbs are. So to me as two examples the Midtwon area is urban and in Houston the TMC area seems a little more suburban. It is an urban cluster that is not surrounded by cohesive dense residential. Just a few block away there is suburban like neighborhoods with tree lined streets that exist in every suburb in the coutry. It looks and feels more like a place like Tysons Corner in NOVA, part of the suburbs, yes an impressive center of buildings but an island to itself.
It depends on what is around it, if the high density is maintained in the neighborhoods directly adjacent then yes, but if it acts as a town center with buildings and retail and gives way to much less dense housing or non continuous density then it has much more in common with the suburbs, clusters of density/offices/retail sorrounded by much less dense residential, that is what the burbs are. So to me as two examples the Midtwon area is urban and in Houston the TMC area seems a little more suburban. It is an urban cluster that is not surrounded by cohesive dense residential. Just a few block away there is suburban like neighborhoods with tree lined streets that exist in every suburb in the coutry. It looks and feels more like a place like Tysons Corner in NOVA, part of the suburbs, yes an impressive center of buildings but an island to itself.
I can see where you're coming from and concede to that aspect of your argument concerning suburban development. Now the tree aspect, Southern cities are just known for having trees incorporated into their urban fabric.
I can see where you're coming from and concede to that aspect of your argument concerning suburban development. Now the tree aspect, Southern cities are just known for having trees incorporated into their urban fabric.
I meant of the tree lined streets and subdivisions so well asociated with suburban america
I think its safe to conclude that Seattle feels more like a bustling city with a traditional urban core, whereas Houston is not as vibrant but has a far more expansive metro area.
If I want to experience big city living; I'd go for Houston which I feel offers more of a big city offering. Big City =/= urban city. No one here is saying Houston is urban, but it is bigger.
don't even bother, some here are acting dumb and not even reading what we are saying
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.
Imagine that, Phily still filled with trees. Now that is an interesting thread.