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.
Which type of city do you prefer?
Old Urban Hubs:
Examples: Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Baltimore, St. Louis
Gritty, urban industrial powerhouses, many have struggled over the years.
These cities were at their peaks far denser the today’s new urban hubs (Portland, Seattle). Although diminished, the urban feel remains. The cities have a few trendy/dense areas where urban living can be had on the cheap. Most have row houses and trendy warehouse districts.
Vacant houses and abandon lots are a problem.
Downtown can be a little rundown, but has great old architecture. DT remains a draw for civic events. But, DT shopping is marginal. These cities have Gilded Age theaters/museums that remain among the best in the US.
The cities have top notch hospitals/ universities. These institutions are often bright spot in the economy.
New Urban hubs:
Examples: Seattle, Portland, Denver, San Diego, Minneapolis
They are regularly cited for their vibrant DTs and high tech economies. 40 years ago most were marginal players.
They rank high for their livability, with an educated pop. and fewer social issues.
Civil life increasingly revolves around DT. These cities have undertaken massive redevelopment schemes, creating small but lively zones (LoDo, Pearl, Belltown.) The boom attracted affluent residents to the core and brings suburbanites in for dining/culture and in some cases shopping.
Outside of the downtown, these cities are relatively suburban, w/ most dominated by detached houses. Close in 'hoods, have some small apt. buildings and little commercial strips, but they aren't as urban east coast cities.
Most have small but growing transit systems. They are popular, but are too small to truly replace the car.
These areas are growing at healthy rates, although slower than the sunbelt.
I see you neglected Southern/Sunbelt cities in your post. Allow me to help you out here:
OLD: Charleston, Savannah, New Orleans, Miami
NEW: Atlanta, Houston, LA
I say these cities fit your description for both old and new. My vote is for the new urban. Nothing wrong with the older urban areas. I also love warehouse districts. Some of the newer cities actually have them. In the South ( I guess mostly Southeast and in the Piedmont) the warehouse districts spawned from closed textile mills that were thriving during the late 19th and early 20th century. You should check them out.
Yeah, I wanted to leave them out. Just cause the are really on another level.
Probably most (not everyone) would agree that yuppied up NYC/Bos/Chi/SF,etc are the best from an urban perspective.
I was just interested in what would be the 2nd best alternative?
A Seattle or Portland type city which are clean and have vibrant spiffed up downtowns, but aren't really urban in the traditional sense. Or an older grittier city like Pittsburgh or Baltimore. They are more urban, but usually a little more run down.
I see you neglected Southern/Sunbelt cities in your post. Allow me to help you out here:
OLD: Charleston, Savannah, New Orleans, Miami
NEW: Atlanta, Houston, LA
I say these cities fit your description for both old and new. My vote is for the new urban. Nothing wrong with the older urban areas. I also love warehouse districts. Some of the newer cities actually have them. In the South ( I guess mostly Southeast and in the Piedmont) the warehouse districts spawned from closed textile mills that were thriving during the late 19th and early 20th century. You should check them out.
I don't think he's neglecting those cities...they simply don't fit the parameters of the "new urban" which he described in his first post. Cities like Denver, Seattle, and Minneapolis are much more concentrated on their downtown core than cities like Atlanta and Houston, which are more spread out over several areas. I think Charlotte would probably fit the "new urban" mold though.
In terms of which one I prefer, I guess I would lean towards old urban but I like both of them. I like old urban because I do like a little bit of grit and I feel like there's a aura of potential in areas that have hit harder times. Yes there may be abandoned buildings...but who says an investor doesn't see potential and try to redevelop the area? I love seeing former factories turned into loft apartments (though they're usually insanely expensive).
To me, I feel the newly developed areas are too clean and plastic and often lack character. They don't feel genuine to me.
It is like saying ATL vs El Paso, both relatively new but ATL is a far better version of new.
In general older urban also uses better building materials with more attention to detail in facade, columns, wood quality, etc. Might need an HVAC upgrade or some water pipes run. Might have a small kitchen/bathroom but still prefer it. Even if I were to move to ATL or Seattle I would look for an older more historic area to live in.
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.