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.
Yeah, but that's largely because of the Metro and resulting transit-oriented/transit-joint development.
Atlanta, Houston, and DFW are all experiencing a good bit of infill. They'll become denser and more urban, but not in the same exact way that their northern/midwestern counterparts are IMO.
Yes I think that the 3 will densify a bit more but at what costs? Will the few old buildings be torn down? What we will be left with is cookie cutter urbanity that gives no character to the city, I think mid-high density units need to be put in place around the adjacent neigborhoods around downtown without taking away the character of the city and architecturally blending them in.
Yes I think that the 3 will densify a bit more but at what costs? Will the few old buildings be torn down?
There's no need for that. There are plenty of surface lots in the urban cores of each that are ripe for urban infill.
Quote:
What we will be left with is cookie cutter urbanity that gives no character to the city, I think mid-high density units need to be put in place around the adjacent neigborhoods around downtown without taking away the character of the city and architecturally blending them in.
"Cookie cutter urbanity" is subjective, but I agree with the rest of your statement. Weaving the in-town neighborhoods into the urban fabric of the core is essential in creating a denser and more urban city.
Oh I'm with you there I do like my space and wall to wall is not for me either, however what options do these 3 cities offer other than high rise condos in the center of the city or a suburban home, its almost as if there's no middle ground.
We have several districts and mixed use developments that provide an urbanesque experience if that is what you prefer.
Inman Park and Glenwood Park are two of my favorites. Inman has some newer yet traditional style rowhouses with eateries at street level. It's near Little 5 Points, so the hipster scene is in full swing.
Glenwood is more upscale looking IMO. It's more manicured, with fewer wierdos...and within walking distance of East Atlanta Village.
The better question is what percentage of residents want them to be?
In that case this forum is not the best place to ask cause everyone here is gonna say yes
Good post, that is why, really. They don't want to develop like the northern cities. It is what it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtownboogie
, ok yes Dallas, ATL, and Houston have and are building high rise condos in the city center but what about the surrounding neighborhoods? I think its the surrounding areas that are the key to give cities that big city vibe when on the street. S
This too, it is usually posters from outside the city and tourists who go downtown, I don't know many people IN the big major cities that really want to live in downtown and know plenty that rarely if EVER go downtown unless it is to like some random event or to pick up a city sticker. It's all about the neighborhoods. The southern cities can compete on some scrapers here and there and have competitive skylines, it is the neighborhoods they lack the most, as they are virtually nonexistent. It is the neighborhoods people want when they talk about "urban living" and "urban environment" ...not many people care about the down towns. That's why you often see somebody from Atlanta for instance posting a pic of their skyline when going against a northern city, nobody cares and only proves their concept of "urban living" is so far off. Then the northern city poster will post an aerial and say, look, your downtown goes straight into nothing and suburban neighborhood giant lots and freeways, many southern posters then don't even grasp what they are trying to convey. I know some do but many it is just right over their heads. Show me some dense and vibrant neighborhoods then we'll talk. New Orleans probably has more livable "urban" style neighborhoods than the other big 3 actually. If this site wasn't so obsessed with stupid skylines maybe we could get somewhere in the conversation.
Last edited by Garfieldian; 08-28-2011 at 08:26 PM..
Good post, that is why, really. They don't want to develop like the northern cities. It is what it is.
It's not that they don't want to, but they just can't. If you didn't become a big city before the age of the automobile, then you just missed the boat. Even the cities that are experiencing lots of contemporary urban infill, like Portland, still aren't densifying like Northern cities because that shipped has already sailed. The market forces and pressures that caused Northern cities to develop as they did simply don't exist like that anymore.
That's just it, they are what they are and these three metros hold over 18M people, that is almost as many people as Australia
Well I think it is GOOD that there is that option, many people love that style of development as opposed to the denser development, others don't, we have a choice. Now that choice might make you have to move out of the state you are in, but, you still have the choice to go there.
It's not that they don't want to, but they just can't. If you didn't become a big city before the age of the automobile, then you just missed the boat. Even the cities that are experiencing lots of contemporary urban infill, like Portland, still aren't densifying like Northern cities because that shipped has already sailed. The market forces and pressures that caused Northern cities to develop as they did simply don't exist like that anymore.
The only one that has MUCH of a chance is Miami, and that is because they are pretty tight on where they can grow. Somewhere like Manhattan came up before automobile PLUS was very limited on where it can grow, that is why it so much denser than even Brooklyn right across the water.
San Francisco is the same way, it is a virtual anomaly west of the Mississippi.
The only one that has MUCH of a chance is Miami, and that is because they are pretty tight on where they can grow. Somewhere like Manhattan came up before automobile PLUS was very limited on where it can grow, that is why it so much denser than even Brooklyn right across the water.
San Francisco is the same way, it is a virtual anomaly west of the Mississippi.
Same for New Orleans. A freak of nature city south of the M-D.
Miami is also limited in its room to grow as well. (to an extent)
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.
