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.
In the case of Atlanta, not really. We wouldn't call Marietta, Sandy Springs, Dunwoody, et al 'The City'.
It is part of the metro area, and in general, if speaking to someone outside of the metro, and they ask you where you're from, many metro Atlantans will say "Atlanta", as they know where such is. However, this is often the case for people of various metros across the country.
It is part of the metro area, and in general, if speaking to someone outside of the metro, and they ask you where you're from, many metro Atlantans will say "Atlanta", as they know where such is. However, this is often the case for people of various metros across the country.
Charlotte/ Atlanta--Cities built in Suburban style with pockets of urbanity and density.
San Francisco/D.C.--- Cities built in Urban/ dense styles with pockets of suburban lifestyle.
It is not that hard to figure out.
Metropolitan Washington DC is mostly suburban style development. The district, Arlington, Alexandria, and a few other towns/cities are built in a greater density/traditional urban fashion. The rest is mostly suburban/urban fashion.
Metropolitan Washington DC is mostly suburban style development. The district, Arlington, Alexandria, and a few other towns/cities are built in a greater density/traditional urban fashion. The rest is mostly suburban/urban fashion.
I understand now where you are coming from. But honestly when you are from Charlotte and have lived in Atlanta(5 years) or any other sunbelt city really, what you guys see as suburban in San francisco/D.C./ Philly we see as urban. its kinda a matter of perception.
What the did they put in atlanta's drinking water?? those people saying any city with a larger land area is more urban. jacksonville, phoenix, okc, houston, dallas, LA, are all more urban than NYC... wow
What the did they put in atlanta's drinking water?? those people saying any city with a larger land area is more urban. jacksonville, phoenix, okc, houston, dallas, LA, are all more urban than NYC... wow
Link us to where an Atlanta poster has asserted such a thing.
What the did they put in atlanta's drinking water?? those people saying any city with a larger land area is more urban. jacksonville, phoenix, okc, houston, dallas, LA, are all more urban than NYC... wow
Mr. Redd, from my travels, the NYC metro, what they refer to as the Tri-State region, is obviously the most contiguous mass of urbanized area in the country, even larger than the greater LA (Southland) area. On this account, it is the most urban area of the country. The city of New York is also the most dense city in the country, but this doesn't make it "more urban", but only more dense.
Phoenix is a large metropolitan area, and its developed imprint is smaller than Atlanta, but larger than a Minneapolis-St. Paul. Actually, it's developed imprint is similar in size to Washington D.C.
Oklahoma City's imprint is relatively small compared to the big boys, but it's of decent size. It's somewhat smaller in size to a Pittsburgh, in terms of developed area, but not by a large amount. It's larger, development-wise, than Milwaukee.
Houston is a very large metropolitan area. I'd argue that it's metro is about as spread out as Atlanta's. Dallas-Fort Worth is also similar to Atlanta, in terms of developed area. Really, it's hard to say which one of these would even by minutely larger than the other, in terms of developed area. They're that close in size.
Jacksonville is a consolidated city with Duval County, giving it a large population, but its developed area is relatively small. It's similar in size, developmentally-wise, to a Milwaukee, Sacramento, or Austin.
Thank u stars&stripes u made my job a lot easier.....so im asking, as far as city limits are concerned, are jacksonville, phoenix, okc, LA, dallas, and houston more urban than the city of new york?
Actually, San Francisco is more DENSE, not more urban, for urban relates to the opposite of rural. You can't be "more urban". You're either in an (urban)ized area, or you're not (rural). Simple as that.
By the way, San Francisco Bay Area has a lot of suburban development, what many of your mislabel "sprawl". To sprawl simply means the expansion of a city/metro's built-up environment. Forms of development, a noun, can't take on the name of a verb.
I disagree. The word urban means "relating to or concerned with a city or densely populated area". Therefore, to say something is more urban, means that it's more dense and more developed. Therefore, it's not a black or white argument. Something can be more urban than something else (hence Atlanta and SF).
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.
