Can the "big 3" of the south ever become true urban/dense cities? (climates, districts)

[Social Network]

Originally Posted by Mutiny77

Oh boy, here we go...

Huh?

I think of District of Columbia as neutral, in no region per se because its the borderline however West Virginia and Virginia are solidly southern and just so happens that 3.2 million out of 5.5 million of the Washington metro area is in NoVa and WV panhandle. Statistically that makes it 58% southern. I put my case to rest, plus its subjective anyway and seems everyone has their own riled up opinions for it. So I wasn't trying to disappoint.

[Trae713]

Originally Posted by chiatldal

I never said LA isn't dense I even said it's the dense urban area in country, I said if one was to walk around both city one would conclude Boston is more urban.


Again your not trying to listen, Atlanta has different lot sizes depending on the city or part of a city. Atlanta’s Brookwood Hills neighborhood has the lot size that's most common in DFW and Houston. Atlanta Druid hills lots are lot larger then what usually found DFW and Houston which is why I’m using Brookwood hills. Brookwood hills is the average lot size in the city of Houston and Dallas, and across their metro. Houston has neighborhoods develop dense like sweet Auburn or Atlanta’s 4th ward? post them!!!!!!!!!!!!!. None of Houston historic wards that touch Downtown have the consistent development like sweet auburn and etc. Don‘t get wrong there‘s a few blocks but it‘s not consistent. Half of the neighborhoods I’m naming in Atlanta don’t even have drive ways, and as far as yards go it’s tiny to street level, and homes are place next to each other, other wise Brookwood hills lot size bigger. Atlanta had, 331,314 people in 36.9 sq mi in 1950s. Atlanta now has 420,003 people in 132.4 sq mi 2010. That 36.9 sq miles is Atlanta core it held 3/4 of today population with in less than 1/3 the area. Atlanta has a much higher vacancy rate then Houston and Dallas, and also Atlanta has been though a lot larger population loss in the core. Atlanta core feels bigger than Dallas and Houston even though the it‘s actually smaller by pop. Point.

Don't see how Atlanta's Fourth Ward or Sweet Auburn are any different than the close in hoods in the Inner Loop of Houston. Dallas has some also. You're acting like Atlanta is on some other level. Houston and Dallas were both smaller and much denser back in the day also, so let's not act like that only applies to Atlanta. You can try to point out a few areas in Atlanta that have homes closer together, but Dallas and Houston are much more consistent, which is why their urban areas are much denser.

I had family in Houston until they move to Austin a few years ago, now DFW on other hand I only lived there a few year less than I have live in Atlanta actually, I grew up back and fourth between DFW and ATL other wiseI know DFW just as good as I do Atlanta. If you question me about DFW you might as well question about Atlanta too just saying. But speaking of Arlington TX yes Arlington TX is built like giant Brookwood hills.

From what I've seen from you try to explain things about DFW in the past, I doubt it. You don't use the DFW or Houston equivalent when trying to explain things. You street view neighborhoods in Arlington, while street viewing closer in Atlanta neighborhoods, then try and say you're comparing Atlanta and Dallas.

Midtown and Downtown. are right next to each other, and from a distance that create a allusion of a linear skyline in which posters assume to be all base off of Peachtree street because they it know it's busiest and it's the most know road. ) but reality is....
Midtown

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/152/3...e09a4a5a56.jpg
Downtown
All sizes | Downtown Atlanta East | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/29387580@N04/4385833858/sizes/z/in/photostream/ - broken link)

Are you trying to deny that Atlanta's skyline doesn't string along Peachtree? People aren't saying all of the major highrises are right on Peachtree, but they are never more than a couple of blocks from it. Buckhead especially.

New Orleans population was declining before Katrina since the 70s but yes that my point New Orleans is built denser and appear more urban no matter the population to Atlanta, Houston, and Dallas. Atlanta core is built denser no matter Houston population in the loop. Again Houston has a bunch of Atlanta’s Brookwood Hills and more apartments. How about this on average Houston home lots are smaller than Atlanta, but at same time on average Atlanta core home lots smaller than Houston core. Houston has cabbagetown like neighborhoods really? Name and Post them. My point that population density it’s Houston, Atlanta, New Orleans but actual dense development it’s New Orleans, Atlanta, Houston at the core.

Because of how long ago New Orleans was founded. The only reason why it's built the way it is (plus geographical limitations). Atlanta wasn't too far ahead of Houston and Dallas, which is why those three look more similar to each other than New Orleans. And no, Atlanta lot sizes ARE NOT smaller than Houston's lot sizes in the core. And as for a Cabbagetown neighborhood in Houston, have you ever heard of the Heights? Eastwood? I just don't know how you can say that when Atlanta's density drops off quicker than Houston and Dallas' do. Look at their urban areas.

Not just Atlanta core but areas in the suburbs with better transportation options, they will infill heavily too. it's call transportation oriented development. Areas with better transportation will become denser areas with bad transportation will remain low dense. Too fix Atlanta transit issues your going yall need to build more roads so people can travel easier "which is hard to do", Atlanta leaders are going NO, build more mix residential or commercial centers so people have a less need to travel.

Dude I'm not saying Atlanta is Boston, I'm saying Boston is more of a model city for Atlanta leaders, and what Atlanta is looking at for the Future development. DFW and Houston grid is irreverent. Atlanta as much of a shot to infil like Boston, as Houston and Dallas is to Chicago or LA.

PS I visit DFW a lot, still have family in Oakcliff (Dallas), Denton, Euless, Arlington, Irving and the Southside Fort Worth.

Everyone knows what TODs are. Trying to sound too important bolding parts of your posts that everyone already knows. I figured that's what you meant about Boston. We'll see how Atlanta does, since Boston had a huge head start and was developed very differently than Atlanta. Only similarities being the winding/terrible road system. Explain how Atlanta's suburbs have better transportation options than the ones in Houston and especially DFW? They just completed a commuter rail line from Denton to Carrollton. Houston's Park and Ride system is unmatched. In fact, residents in both DFW and Houston have more access to transit than those in Atlanta. And again, Atlanta is not the only one building mixed-use centers throughout the metro. Houston and Dallas have plenty of those spread throughout. The only difference is, those two cities have their developments situated on a metro wide grid, while Atlanta doesn't have a cohesive secondary road system. Just all mumbled-jumbled basically. Grids help flow and funnel traffic better, as well as increase chances of walking down to the store, etc. Harder to walk to the store when the road your development you live at twists and turns, is one way each direction, and has no sidewalks. And that's probably a reason why Atlanta has a little more mixed use developments than the other two. It has to, but that doesn't mean it'll be denser in its urban area, especially when it's not even there now and the other two are growing faster.

Atlanta core is build denser than Houston fact, Houston has a denser population due to Atlanta vacancy rate fact. And then when did Houston and Dallas light rail even became close to Atlanta in ridership? Anyway here the difference from criticism and some one being a troll (I’m not saying you) but the critic doesn’t care about fixing or improving the issue, as meaning they would become upset there are improvements or plans to fix what they are criticizing.

How is that a fact though? Atlanta's core isn't built denser than Houston's. Atlanta is not like New Orleans. Atlanta's density is more concentrated along one corridor, like everyone always says. There is more uniform density in Houston and Dallas, especially within 610 and Loop 12. Why do you always make up things in your posts? When did I ever say light rail ridership in Houston/Dallas is close to Atlanta's heavy rail ridership? I said heavy rail is a (good) advantage for Atlanta to have, but not the end all be all. Plus, it's not the only mode for transit. Overall, the systems in Houston and Dallas have more riders than Atlanta's. That's a fact. I'm just wondering why you think Atlanta is so far ahead of Houston and Dallas. Yes, Atlanta is doing some great things to improve it's metro, but imo Houston and DFW are a step ahead, even without heavy rail. The population and economic data has already been supporting that.

[Trae713]

I'd also add that Dallas and Houston also have homes with big lots in their city limits also. Atlanta isn't alone there, so don't try and name a couple of neighborhoods with big lots in Atlanta and say they throw the averages off. Atlanta is just more in line with easy coast cities. You can compare the suburbs also, and Houston and DFW's would have smaller lot sizes, on average.

[S.D. Calif]

Why isn't Miami on this list? Is it not considered part of the South?

[R1070]

Originally Posted by S.D. Calif

Why isn't Miami on this list? Is it not considered part of the South?

I was thinking that also.
Wouldnt the Big 3 of the south be DFW, Houston & Miami with Atlanta being 4th?

[Social Network]

Originally Posted by S.D. Calif

Why isn't Miami on this list? Is it not considered part of the South?

Originally Posted by R1070

I was thinking that also.
Wouldnt the Big 3 of the south be DFW, Houston & Miami with Atlanta being 4th?

The real big 3 of the south based off size would be Metroplex, Houston, and Washington but Miami and Atlanta are both in the same size range as Houston and Washington, hence the "big 5" notion I presented earlier. The big 3 of the southeast however would be Washington, Miami, and Atlanta since Houston and the Metroplex are far too removed to the western side of the south.

Miami wasn't included in this thread because its already dense, that doesn't signify its more urban but just more dense, which it is.

[PeytonC]

I think asking this question is like asking if NYC, Boston, etc will ever be true sprawling, suburban cities. The cities in each region of the U.S. have different characteristics that reflect the geography and growth patterns of the cities individually. Northern, older cities tend to be more dense and crowded, with heavy industrial areas near the city cores, while sun belt cities and cities out west are the opposite, with large, spread-out metro areas where people have yards, freeways are larger, and heavy industry builds more in outlying areas. Some poeple prefer to live stacked on top of each other in highly dense areas where they can walk to everything or use public transit. Others like to have a little land, use their own car, and have a variety of suburban options to live. So, I personally do not think that the "Big 3" of the south will ever be anything like the dense, more urban cities of the north/northeast. It's a weird question in my opinion. The southern cities have their own layouts and structures that have developed over time and there is no reason for them to change, other than the CBD and inner-city neighborhoods moving towards growth more centered around light rail and transitional development.

[Social Network]

Some of you are so rich comically. Northeastern and Midwestern cities don't sprawl? LMFAO Buffalo sprawls to Cleveland, just look at this map and look at the string of population along the lake that leads to Cleveland. Boston sprawl to New York, which thereafter sprawls to Philadelphia.

I find Northeastern and Midwestern cities to sprawl more than sunbelt cities but what sets them apart is that they have a gigantic core where extremely high density is generated but as you begin to go further out it begins becoming low density sprawl.

The fact that Los Angeles has a denser urban area than Boston, the fact that Dallas is denser than Boston, and so on and so forth only proves that. Here's the map from the 2010 census figures, enjoy everyone. All sizes | Contiguous United States, Census 2010 | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/5557821892/sizes/o/in/photostream/ - broken link)

On the map find the Metroplex and Houston, they're isolated islands of population, while huge because of the sprawl but contained in any movement towards other metros. The southeast however takes after the northeast in a development sense and sprawl, the southeastern cities such as Atlanta, and others have a more vibrant and active core compared to peers like Dallas and Houston but also sprawl more outward in a lower density than their counterparts. Atlanta's sprawl is heading into North Carolina, whereas Houston and Dallas are contained to their metros, the negative side is their lack of vibrant cores just as Los Angeles for example lacks a vibrant core compared to Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, New York, San Francisco, and even Seattle.

[btownboss4]

Originally Posted by Social Network

Some of you are so rich comically. Northeastern and Midwestern cities don't sprawl? LMFAO Buffalo sprawls to Cleveland, just look at this map and look at the string of population along the lake that leads to Cleveland. Boston sprawl to New York, which thereafter sprawls to Philadelphia.

I find Northeastern and Midwestern cities to sprawl more than sunbelt cities but what sets them apart is that they have a gigantic core where extremely high density is generated but as you begin to go further out it begins becoming low density sprawl.

The fact that Los Angeles has a denser urban area than Boston, the fact that Dallas is denser than Boston, and so on and so forth only proves that. Here's the map from the 2010 census figures, enjoy everyone. All sizes | Contiguous United States, Census 2010 | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/5557821892/sizes/o/in/photostream/ - broken link)

On the map find the Metroplex and Houston, they're isolated islands of population, while huge because of the sprawl but contained in any movement towards other metros. The southeast however takes after the northeast in a development sense and sprawl, the southeastern cities such as Atlanta, and others have a more vibrant and active core compared to peers like Dallas and Houston but also sprawl more outward in a lower density than their counterparts. Atlanta's sprawl is heading into North Carolina, whereas Houston and Dallas are contained to their metros, the negative side is their lack of vibrant cores just as Los Angeles for example lacks a vibrant core compared to Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, New York, San Francisco, and even Seattle.

Boston is very Unique in its set up. Boston has 12,000ppsm then 10 miles out Wilmington Has a density of 1,200 ppsm, then 10 more miles out Lowell has a Density of 8,000ppsm, so between 2 cities there is a suburban area, in which not everyone goes into Boston, and this Hopscotch goes away from the city in All directions.

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by Social Network

All sizes | Contiguous United States, Census 2010 | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/5557821892/sizes/o/in/photostream/ - broken link)

what do the different coloured dots mean?

edit: nevermind I figured it out looking at the different cities