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 would seem that many on here misconstrue the definition of 'urbanity', thinking that it refers to a very specific, high density urban situation. It does not; ,the definition describes something much broader in scope...a mindset, really, in the original sense of the word:
BTW, Roswell, GA is not all subdivisions and strip malls as has been suggested. In Antebellum times, it began it's life as a higher-altitude summer retreat for wealthy low-country planters. At its' heart is a village surrounding a town common, with antebellum homes and churches surrounding it.
Only people on city-data think anything that isn't a a cramped concrete jungle is non-urban. Let them have there density orgasm.
And on urbanity? there are others stating that Rosewell adds to urbanity - maybe in Atlanta the idea of urbanity is different but subdivisions and strip malls do not scream urbanity to most, even those outside of the NE
First of all, it's Roswell, not Rosewell. Secondly, Roswell is a highly populated suburb of Atlanta, and it's within the urbanized area of the metro Atlanta area. It's not rural. It's not open fields, or wooded countryside, but rather subdivisions and shopping centers, so it's not rural. The opposite of rural is urban, referring to developed areas with greater numbers of people. Is Atlanta as dense as San Francisco? No. But with that said, it's still an urbanized area. You're confusing density with urban, and that's an error on your part.
urban (ˈɜːb ə n) — adj 1. of, relating to, or constituting a city or town 2. living in a city or town
[SIZE=4]ur·ban[/SIZE] /ˈɜrbən/ Show Spelled[ur-buhn] Show IPA –adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or designating a city or town.
2. living in a city.
3. characteristic of or accustomed to cities; citified: He is an urban type.
j.1.urban - relating to or concerned with a city or densely populated area; "urban sociology"; "urban development"2.urban - located in or characteristic of a city or city life; "urban property owners"; "urban affairs"; "urban manners" rural - living in or characteristic of farming or country life; "rural people"; "large rural households"; "unpaved rural roads"; "an economy that is basically rural"
Quote:
On the developed space - well I still dont see this, it still to me does not have anything to do with urbanity. Honestly if anything the area i live in has some of the largest and coninuous swaths of sprawl/suburbs of anywhere in the country but this is not urbanity
Actually, if you'll look above, you'll find that no definition of urban sets a base limit for density of what is truly urban? Simply put, an urban area is the absence of a rural area. A location that is more populated, concentrated around cities that is more densely populated [than the surrounding countryside].
That's the meaning of the word.
Hence, any urbanized area, whether "suburban" or "high density urban is urban.
Well good thing you are there, with the density in all liklihood it probably didnt hit anyone
Actually, I'm on holiday at my DH's cousin's house in Fairfax, VA. Hmm, for a metro area in the NE it's lookin' pretty sssprrrraaaaaawwwwwly out there...
Actually, I'm on holiday at my DH's cousin's house in Fairfax, VA. Hmm, for a metro area in the NE it's lookin' pretty sssprrrraaaaaawwwwwly out there...
I would agree DC developement outside of the District definately has much more similar characteristics to Sunbelt growth and the timing for the growth is similar too - even more pronounced in NOVA Fairfax and Loudon counties - much of Montgomery County in MD as well
to those of you claiming that Atlanta has a larger metro:
San Francisco CSA - 7.4 million people (8,818 sq. miles)
Atlanta CSA - 5.8 million people (10,003 sq. miles)
Atlanta has a larger urban area than SF does, and a larger MSA...but urban areas and MSAs aren't really represented fairly in the Bay Area due to development patterns. The Bay Area had to develop more or less linearly and largely in a north-south direction from SF, and with some breaks in development, due to our topography, which doesn't work well with the census criteria for determining metros. The result is that the Bay Area is split into 6 different MSAs and many multiple UAs, some of which are split in a seemingly completely arbitrary way, because of technicalities that arose from the topography and how it constrains development patterns around here...the census REALLY wants us to believe that places like Santa Rosa, Vallejo, and Napa are their own metros completely separate from the Bay Area? They want us to believe SF and SJ are separate metros? Anyone familiar with the Bay knows how ridiculous all of that is.
Census methods work best with a city that is in the center of its metro, with development radiating out in all directions, which is how the Atlanta metro is set up, for example, along with most other cities. The fact that the Bay Area is polycentric further confuses things, since commuter threshholds aren't always met which helps with the creation of multiple MSAs...but everyone identifies as being part of the bay area regardless of what the census decides, not to mention the entire bay has the same news, TV and radio stations, the same public transportation, etc, etc. If you measure anything in the Bay Area by only MSAs then you're invariably missing large, integral chunks of the area.
Yeah, even going to Atlanta, the Bay Area actually feels much larger overall. Its very strange actually because Atlanta has the reputation for being sprawled out and is a huge agglomeration of development for sure, but I think due to the topography of the Bay Area, its actually quite a bit larger overall as far as the extent of development over the entire area and the density goes far deeper into the suburbs than in Atlanta.
Not sure if this a very fair comparison, but these 2 subway maps are to-scale:
I believe you can actually do that legally in San Francisco.
nope, you can't. I tried, didn't end too well
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.
bən/ 
