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.
The Sunbelt is too conservative to take the steps necessary, like public transit, to create a dense urban core, most of the residents of these cities would have a serious fit, if driving and owning a car downtown was made prohibitively expensive like in the more urban cities. However, all the pavement and asphalt that is needed to accommodate all those cars is an environmental issue due to the way it stores heat.
One last thing I always wondered was how people too poor for cars survive in these places. If you were to get your license suspended, how would you live, begging for rides?
Can ATL, DFW, and Houston really become urban dense cities? What do these cities lack that other more urban cities have? I believe all 3 cities need more denstiy, however this in itself is one of the last ingredients needed to make a city urban, I believe the main obstacle for these cities is demand for inner city urban living combined with lack of walkable surroundings and street facing store fronts/retail. ATL has done the best with rail, DFW although pretty good coverage just lacks the destinations outside of downtown where you would want to get off the train and just want to walk and see others walking, Houston has good bus service but suffers from the same stigma as Dallas, and on top of all this the weather in all 3 are pretty unbearable during summer. In the end I think the locations of these cities, the lack of "urban living" demand, and ultimately the urban fabric of these cities prevents them from achieving true urban city status. One last thing I would like to add is that these cities were not built for people to walk to and from their homes unless we're talking about the downtown cores which even then is limited, so would most of the retail stores in these cities have to completely redo the design of their stores to a more pedestrian friendly design or is it possible to achieve density and walkability with big box stores and wide streets? I was reading the thread on "Philly vs Chicago, which is more urban" and one poster talked about how his neighborhood in Chicago had houses with front and back yards, grass between the sidewalks and streets with trees planted and streets wide enough for cars to park on both sides of the street and 2 way traffic and still has a density of 18,000 ppsm, so I am guessing that this type of urbanity will be the maximum that the "big 3" of the south will ever be able to achieve outside of their respective downtown cores, does anyone agree or disagree?
Please excuse my lack of manners, but what kind of question is this? Can the big 3 (really should be 4 including Miami but whatever) of the South have urban living? Don't all 3 have MSAs over 5 million? How is that not urban? I think the real question is can they be pedestrian friendly and transit oriented. With that, all Sunbelt areas are going to be car oriented, which is cool. What you want in the Sunbelt, and perhaps these three can be a model, is to change the perception of public transit. Most people that I know in the South view public transit as less affluent. Proper marketing should aimed at illustrating the positives public transit and how it can be an added benefit to your car. Perhaps more park and rides. Also development could be aimed at creating town center type developments.
..cuz honestly, let's be real. People move to these areas for a reason and to turn these areas into Northern and Mid-West type of urbanity is not gonna work. There needs to be a new urbanism defined for metros in the South, and I think that is where the problem lies. We Southerners aren't going to accept Northern and Mid-Western definitions of urbanism for our area.
When Texans think of Atlanta they think of neighborhoods like Druid Hills or Cascade Heights where there’s very large Home, and no type of grid at all. And they’re quick to point out how they don’t have many neighborhoods like that in DFW or Houston, but when Atlantans say are core is more urban they act like they can’t comprehend.
http://clatl.com/imager/width/b/orig...poverview2.jpg When I say core I'm mean Downtown/Midtown and neighborhoods that surround them pretty much the neighborhoods that touch or inside Atlanta belt line projected.
Downtown
Midtown
Cabbagetown
East Atlanta
Edgewood
Grant Park
Home Park
Inman Park
Kirkwood
Oakland
Old Fourth Ward
Ormewood Park
Reynoldstown
Summerhill
Sweet Auburn
Virginia-Highland
Pittsburg
Mechanicsville.
Summerhill
Peoplestown
West end
Beside Downtown and Midtown ATL are right next to each other. Around Houston and Dallas Downtown's are these loops freeways, and while adjusted but not all around are a lot of warehouses but I must add Dallas has a uptown but it's not like Midtown ATL never the less though. While Atlanta just have the Grandy Curve and the Downtown connector, adjusted to DT and MT are Atlanta's most urban neighborhoods.
If you look at the Historic Houston wards that touch Houston’s Downtown you can add sixth if you wanted too at what point, or how many have a feel like any of the Atlanta intown neighborhoods I name? Most of Houston and Dallas looks like Atlanta’s Brookwood Hills excepted with a grid, that’s neighborhoods close and far from their Downtowns. So when ever there’s a urban conversation between these cities pop up something about a grid a lot size pop up.
Basically posters have been saying Houston and Dallas are more Urban because they have more neighborhoods like this excepted in a grid.
but when Atlantans say are core is more urban it's a argument.
Because Atlanta is putting more eggs in lesser baskets than Dallas and Houston. Houston and Dallas are taking on a wide grid. Atlanta leaders are trying to infill that should been more urban. Dallas and Houston are building roads and freeways in new areas later in which they would probably try to infill.
A poster said something uncorrected, Atlanta infrastructure is lay out more traditional urban. Boston is a lot older than Atlanta but have you notice Boston’s Metropolitan is hopscotch rather than LA which is continuous that cause a need for more roads, freeways and etc The error with Atlanta from Boston is instead building up core areas Atlanta Started sprawling in areas that not supported by any where close to the infrastructure in the sense of the way Atlanta is built. So put more people at point A and provide good transportation infrastructure to get to point B. Instead stead of making A.B.C and providing good transportation infrastructure E.F.G. that’s what Texas cities are doing.
That was hard to read, but you have no idea what you're talking about man. Sorry. It's funny seeing you try to convince people that Atlanta is so far ahead of Houston and DFW. Houston and DFW have grids throughout the entire metro, instead of just one small area. This will lead to further increased density over time, instead of Atlanta's winding two lane streets. Looking at the cores of each city, Houston's is obviously the largest and densest. In fact, Inner Loop Houston is smaller than the City of Atlanta square mileage wise, but has a larger population. Both Houston and DFW are expanding/recently expanded rail transit. Both have more plans of rail transit in the future. I have no idea where you get the idea that Brookwood Hills is what all of Houston and Dallas look like. Making some strong claims that don't add up at all.
Why can't DFW and Houston expand freeways into new areas? The growth is coming regardless and it'll be pretty ignorant of us to not build anything like Atlanta. It's why traffic in Houston and DFW isn't as bad as Atlanta and why Houston was the only major metro to reduce congestion since 2000. We went over this in the "Is It Game Over for Atlanta" thread. Just because there are new freeways doesn't mean there aren't any new rail lines, or new urban infill. Atlanta is doing nice things to urbanize it's core more, but the Texas two are doing it differently. To try and say Atlanta is just so far ahead of Houston and DFW is just dumb, IMO, and makes no sense.
Seriously, you can't honestly believe Atlanta is far ahead of Dallas and Houston. If anything, they are ahead of Atlanta, save for rail transit since they started let. I'm telling you, the much larger grid in those metro areas will further help it be more dense in the future, especially Houston since it's a one core metro. Atlantans are seeing Houston and DFW pulling away and are getting mad. jk
Location: NY-NJ-Philly looks down at SF and laughs at the hippies
1,144 posts, read 1,296,325 times
Reputation: 432
Quote:
Originally Posted by polo89
Yes they can. Aren't all 4 in the process of doing that now?
They are getting denser, but still far from urban.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove
I agree. Americans still prefer the suburban lifestyle.
If they wanted more dense areas I don't think they would push the sunbelt cities into becoming some fake Philly/Chicago etc, I think they would just go for the real thing.
People who come here expecting NY will always run back. People who come here for what it is seem to fit in quite nicely
No, Americans do not prefer the suburban lifestyle. Many Americans don't have a choice because there is only 6 truly urban cities in Boston, Chicago, DC, NY, Philly and SF. Yes, someone can get glimpses of urbanity in other cities with LA, Miami, Seattle, Baltimore, Minneapolis and Detroit, but there are only 6 truly urban cities in my opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by polo89
How do people get around up North in those really frigid temps?
How do people get around down south in swamp weather?
Quote:
Originally Posted by john_starks
i think they can all become LA
NYC? no
Yep, I agree. They will all end up looking like LA. All 3 will have low-medium density throughout the whole metro spread over about 8,000-10,000 sq miles.
No, Americans do not prefer the suburban lifestyle. Many Americans don't have a choice because there is only 6 truly urban cities in Boston, Chicago, DC, NY, Philly and SF. Yes, someone can get glimpses of urbanity in other cities with LA, Miami, Seattle, Baltimore, Minneapolis and Detroit, but there are only 6 truly urban cities in my opinion.
Overall, they absolutely do perfer suburban living. The evidence is loud and clear on that front. Not only are the metro areas that are growing at a fever pitch those that are more suburban (Houston, DFW, Atlanta, Phoenix, LA, etc), but the growth in the "urban" metro areas is mostly in suburban neighborhoods. The growth within the urban cities that is in urban neighborhoods is largely in those that have been gentrified.
People vote with their feet and the data speaks loud and clear.
Location: NY-NJ-Philly looks down at SF and laughs at the hippies
1,144 posts, read 1,296,325 times
Reputation: 432
Quote:
Originally Posted by justme02
Overall, they absolutely do perfer suburban living. The evidence is loud and clear on that front. Not only are the metro areas that are growing at a fever pitch those that are more suburban (Houston, DFW, Atlanta, Phoenix, LA, etc), but the growth in the "urban" metro areas is mostly in suburban neighborhoods. The growth within the urban cities that is in urban neighborhoods is largely in those that have been gentrified.
They absoutley DO NOT prefer the suburban lifestyle and we can argue this all day long. When did Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Phoenix and LA become suburban? I might be confusing suburban with rural, everyone has their own definition.
Quote:
People vote with their feet and the data speaks loud and clear
Nah, they vote with their wallet. Ask these people if they could have stayed somewhere else for the same costs of living.
* On a side note, I quoted you in another thread in post #280, but never heard back. I am curious as to your opinion and thought.
That said, I disagree with the premise of this thread. All three are already true urban/dense cities:
> True cities? Check.
> Urban cities? Urbanity generates a lot of debate here on CD. Here's a definition: 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.(Urban | Define Urban at Dictionary.com) So, urbanity? Check.
> Dense cities? Denser than their suburbs? Yes. Denser than many other cities? Yes. As dense as NY, Philly, Boston, etc.? No. So some give them a "check," others don't.
I'm more interested in how these cities will develop going forward: with a greater balance on in-fill or on further sprawl. IMO, it would be in their best interest to focus on in-fill. There is only so far a city can sprawl before infrastructure can support the outlying population. At some point, you cross a sweet spot where people can no longer realistically commute into the core city. Yes, commutes are easier with commuter rail, but none of these cities is far enough ahead of the curve to meet expected demand. And tolerance limits for commutes are reached even with rail. I the meantime, highways to the hinterlands continue to to built, despite the realty that they are insufficient to accommodate existing capacity even as these new lanes open.
If the central cities do not develop sufficient density to accommodate the workforce needed to support and grow their economies, businesses vacate the city and move to exurbs where the people are (e.g., in Houston's case, places such as The Woodlands and Sugarland). This is a losing game for the central cites as the tax base erodes while the poor remain.
These cities are becoming denser. Is it enough? Time will tell. Regardless, as the poster above proposes, I also predict this density will more greatly resemble LA than NYC. Like LA (and unlike NY), these cities are being built in the automobile age, so the accommodation of cars will dictate much of how these cities in-fill - 2+ car garages in homes, parking lots, strip centers, more lanes on surface streets, etc. Further, construction technology has moved on, along with the profit incentive for building solid architecture designed to last 100 years or more.
Last edited by Pine to Vine; 09-01-2011 at 09:55 AM..
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.
