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.
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
Boy you are trying not to listen Look at LA then look at Boston LA has the most dense urban in country but if some one walk around a neighborhood one would not know LA urban area is larger than Boston, this is what Atlanta core is to Houston. Houston is trying infill too but Houston is trying to infill a much broader area, Houston is trying to infill a wide grid. Atlanta is trying infill more selective areas. In return Atlanta is putting more eggs in lesser baskets than Dallas and Houston, you can flip that metaphor and say Atlanta is putting the same amount of eggs in lesser basket if you want it still works.
Atlanta's Brookwood Hills neighborhood has the lot size that's most common in DFW and Houston. I been to Houston and lived in DFW. Houston and DFW don't have many neighborhoods like Sweet Auburn and etc found in Atlanta core, this isn't even a debate sorry. But instead of alot Brookwood Hills. Atlanta has a high vacancy rate, and Also Atlanta has neighborhoods like Druid Hills outside the core with large lots. That's why Houston population in the loop is denser. But Houston core it's not built denser than Atlanta core. Hell Atlanta and Houston core both are denser than New Orleans by population but New Orleans core is built denser.
Why not build more freeways? because it feed the sprawl, How about build more walkable areas instead? More roads and freeways create more horizontal growth. What your failing to understand new urbanism and LC is more progressively a part of Atlanta transportation plan, the way Atlanta is built Historically had more development around the metro and a way more challenging environment other wise where heck are they going to go? Choice A) do nothing. Choice B) tear up the metro. Choice C) Put more development near better transportation. Anyway you said this referring to Houston and Dallas grids “instead of just one small area. This will lead to further increased density over time” And when these small areas in Atlanta start to build up instead spreading the infill over time, stick to the same area make it even denser.
Hou and DFW Light rail is not ever going to beat Atlanta heavy rail, DFW and Houston can expand their rail and Atlanta can stay still. And Atlanta will stay head of DFW and Hou in terms in passengers. And if Atlanta plans get off it only will make the gap wider. The rest of your post is more a fantasy and boasting, we all know that article by the blogger is the gospel and positive articles about Atlanta can't be founded.
Man, say Atlanta core is built denser than Hou and DFW, and Atlanta is more progressive in New Urbanism with reason, and some "not all" texas poster lose their mind. Cause we all know Texas cities beats Atlanta in everything besides hills and tress. ) The funny thing I never said way a head, I said a head.
Boy you are trying not to listen Look at LA then look at Boston LA has the most dense urban in country but if some one walk around a neighborhood one would not know LA urban area is larger than Boston, this is what Atlanta core is to Houston. Houston is trying infill too but Houston is trying to infill a much broader area, Houston is trying to infill a wide grid. Atlanta is trying infill more selective areas. In return Atlanta is putting more eggs in lesser baskets than Dallas and Houston, you can flip that metaphor and say Atlanta is putting the same amount of eggs in lesser basket if you want it still works.
That is simply not true. The places in Houston receiving the most infill is in the Inner Loop. Because of no zoning, new developments pop up all over the place. And as far as LA vs. Boston goes, it depends on where in LA you are, because LA is pretty dense/urban in many places.
Quote:
Atlanta's Brookwood Hills neighborhood has the lot size that's most common in DFW and Houston. I been to Houston and lived in DFW. Houston and DFW don't have many neighborhoods like Sweet Auburn and etc found in Atlanta core, this isn't even a debate sorry. But instead of alot Brookwood Hills. Atlanta has a high vacancy rate, and Also Atlanta has neighborhoods like Druid Hills outside the core with large lots. That's why Houston population in the loop is denser. But Houston core it's not built denser than Atlanta core. Hell Atlanta and Houston core both are denser than New Orleans by population but New Orleans core is built denser.
On average, lot sizes in Houston/DFW are smaller than the ones in Atlanta. Don't know what you're trying to say here. Why do you think both of those urban areas are denser than Atlanta? And if you think Houston and DFW don't have areas like Sweet Auburn in them, then you obviously didn't explore Houston or DFW enough. Didn't you try and use Arlington as an example when comparing Dallas to Atlanta once? How long did you even live in DFW, and visit Houston? And who said Houston's core was built denser than Atlanta (though overall, it is)? New Orleans' core doesn't have as much density anymore because of Katrina and people living, but Atlanta can't compare to New Orleans' build, which is more like a dense European city. Like many have already said, Atlanta's core, since it is primarily along one urban road (Peachtree) and one area, is more vibrant. DFW has two different cores of activity. Houston has one giant core with different nodes inside.
Quote:
Why not build more freeways? because it feed the sprawl, How about build more walkable areas instead? More roads and freeways create more horizontal growth. What your failing to understand new urbanism and LC is more progressively a part of Atlanta transportation plan, the way Atlanta is built Historically had more development around the metro and a way more challenging environment other wise where heck are they going to go? Choice A) do nothing. Choice B) tear up the metro. Choice C) Put more development near better transportation. Anyway you said this referring to Houston and Dallas grids “instead of just one small area. This will lead to further increased density over time” And when these small areas in Atlanta start to build up instead spreading the infill over time, stick to the same area make it even denser.
But if people are going to move here anyway, it'd be pretty dumb not to build them. That would just increase the traffic problem. You're acting like everyone moving to Metro Atlanta is going to move into Atlanta's core. Houston and Dallas have much better transportation networks overall (freeways, arterial streets, transit). Look at a map of each metro and compare. The layout/planning is not even close and is in Houston/Dallas' favor. Have you seen the cores of Houston and Dallas lately (even Fort Worth)? The first two have grown as much, if not more, than Atlanta in their cores. Outside of it, they have freeways and grids criss-crossing the metro area. Grids funnel traffic better than the winding streets of Atlanta. I bet you're going to try and say Boston has winding roads (you have before) and like I always say, the mass transit system in Boston is top-notch. Atlanta is lucky to have the heavy rail already, but don't act like that makes it that much more urban than Houston and Dallas (each with their own rail systems).
Quote:
Hou and DFW Light rail is not ever going to beat Atlanta heavy rail, DFW and Houston can expand their rail and Atlanta can stay still. And Atlanta will stay head of DFW and Hou in terms in passengers. And if Atlanta plans get off it only will make the gap wider. The rest of your post is more a fantasy and boasting, we all know that article by the blogger is the gospel and positive articles about Atlanta can't be founded.
Man, say Atlanta core is built denser than Hou and DFW, and Atlanta is more progressive in New Urbanism with reason, and some "not all" texas poster lose their mind. Cause we all know Texas cities beats Atlanta in everything besides hills and tress. ) The funny thing I never said way a head, I said a head.
Atlanta can stay ahead in terms of passengers with heavy rail (and it should, because it is heavy rail). That's fine. There is more to a transit network than just heavy rail. Even with heavy rail, it's not like MARTA ridership is far and ahead of DART and Metro. IIRC, all are about the same. That article is pretty good, especially since the author didn't even diss Atlanta at all. It was constructive criticism, and many Atlanta posters agreed with it.
Look, Atlanta's core isn't denser than Houston's (fact) and I'm not sure about Dallas. Many of the new urbanism projects you posted for Atlanta are like small neighborhoods off of some winding road. Yeah, the homes are built close together, but everyone still has to drive. In Houston and Dallas, because of the grid, it makes it easier to funnel traffic and easier for walking. All three are about the same, but I think because of the planning going on in Dallas and Houston that they will be ahead in the future. Only advantage Atlanta has is heavy rail (which is a good advantage to have, but not the end all, be all).
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?
The big three in the South are DFW, Houston and Miami
Nope. Only Jacksonville. Biggest city... duh Htown..
wait what?
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.
