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.
It's not "an issue," it's an industrial area. There's a working steel mill, a concrete mixing plant, some other stuff. Why apologize for it?
No kidding, Am sure it is not an issue for those who work there and support their families from it. The bigger issue is the loss of these such jobs in cities such as Chicago and Philly
I think we can agree that we have different views of urbanity. I think rowhouses are the epitome of what urban is. So my view will be different from someone in the Midwest who has never lived in a neighborhhod with rowhouses.
Responses like these are exactly what I was refering to in my previous post. Look up the definition of the word urban. I never said Philly or rowhouses weren't urban, I said by definition alone the word urban ( which there are many) includes density, which would make Chicago ( God forbid a midwestern city) slighty more dense-hence more urban.
I gauge how urban a place is by the people on the streets, the vibe, the vibrancy and the general aesthetics of the place. I think that aspect is missed a lot on this forum.
New Orleans to me while small feels quintessentially urban, while LA feels like a poster child for modern american suburban life. Even the people do not feel like city people and seem like they lead typical suburban lifestyles.
Philly and Chicago are urban anyway you cut it, you can't really get more urban, only denser, which isn't the same. You know the people in both places are city folk and there are plenty of characters and history to go along with it.
I'm sure some will agree and disagree with me, but I'm sticking with my guns.
I would like to visit Philadelphia, and now since I live near two significant airports I think I might do it in the not too distant future.
Here are my thoughts:
There are essentially three types of living environments; urban, suburban, and rural. No matter how you cut it, I think any type of living environment can be boiled down to those three types. And then within those types of living environments are wide ranges of conditions, attitudes, people, structures, and etcetera. Living "Rural" could be in a town of less than 10,000 which is spread throughout an entire county. It could also be living in the woods, alone, isolated from other potential neighbors.
I
believe this also holds true for "Suburban" living and "Urban" living.
If the city of 10,000 spread throughout the county had a little square with buildings and neighboring streets with shops, businesses, entertainment, and it was within a few blocks and 2-4,000 people lived within a square mile of that square, would that not be considered urban? I think the remaining 6-8,000 people living in the rest of a 120 square mile county could certainly have lifestyles and residential environments that are also rural and suburban, distinct from the high density square mile. If all those people had all their needs met within that one square mile I think that certainly qualifies for urban, but to what degree?
There is absolutely no doubt that Philadelphia and Chicago are urban. To what degree is/was the forceful debate that has been the past few dozen pages. It interested me, so I decided to look at Google Earth and see how the two looked in a direct comparison. I typed in both cities and took screen shots and then did a little Photoshop with them to try and outline the most "Urban" parts of both. I did some reading before hand, and it doesn't seem to be breaking any rules to post my findings on here. If it is not allowed, I apologize in advanced, but really? How else was I supposed to do this? I'm not a cartographer.
I have a pretty good idea of what the boundary lines are for Chicago, so I tried to stick to them as much as I could, maybe even trimming a little just because I'm not familiar with all the "Most Urban" parts of the city, and I don't want to be accused of trying to rig the game. As for Philadelphia, I didn't even have an idea as to what the official city lines were until I got to this paragraph. Then I Goggled it.
So when I drew lines for Philadelphia I was going solely on what I thought looked the most urban. In the further out pictures there is certainly more give and take with the boundary lines for both cities to keep things relatively simple and not bogged down over specific intersections, "corridors", "enclaves", "vibrant corridors", "enclaves of corridors", or "vibrant enclavidors". Chicago and Philadelphia have pretty much anything anyone could want in terms of being urban and everything associated with it. Just how much?
In the pictures they are shots from just typing "Philadelphia" and "Chicago" into Google Earth and using the scroll on the mouse, centered over the 'A', to zoom in one click at a time. I have outlined the parts that look the most urban in the picture with yellow. Once it becomes clearer to distinguish, I use a blue line to surround the parts of both cities that had 3D buildings, once again, from Google Earth. I thought Philadelphia stacked up pretty well with Chicago in terms of looking urban from above. But then the parts that are outlined blue are where the answer to "Most Urban" at street level lies.
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.
