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 best the 3 can hope for is to pull of a Seattle. Basically, a vibrant downtown and a couple semi-dense adjacent neighborhoods with a few walkable neighborhood commercial strips. London it is not, but it at least gives the area something of a city feel.
Hmmm, Seattle...I've not been there so I don't know how the city is laid out, but that's an interesting example. I think Denver probably falls into the same category, especially since they seem to be getting a lot of contemporary infill.
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?
It's possible but not likely that you will ever see the big 3 turn into anything resembling Chicago, Philly, etc. Those cities boomed pre-automobile which shaped the way the cities grew. Most likely, what you will see are growing pockets of very high density condo/apartment towers with low density single-family homes continuing to take up the majority of the land. I seriously doubt we will ever see anything like the row houses of the northeast lining our streets for miles in every direction.
Despite what we hear on city data, the vast majority of Americans still prefer the suburban, lower-density life actually. We generally like our cars and our space. Perhaps if gas prices completely spike (I'm talking $10/gal or more - something truly unaffordable) before alternative energy has penetrated the market on a significant level and public transit becomes the preferred method of transportation in America again, we might see some drastic development changes more inline with the north but outside of an external influence on that scale, not much will change IMO.
Despite what we hear on city data, the vast majority of Americans still prefer the suburban, lower-density life actually. We generally like our cars and our space. Perhaps if gas prices completely spike (I'm talking $10/gal or more - something truly unaffordable) before alternative energy has penetrated the market on a significant level and public transit becomes the preferred method of transportation in America again, we might see some drastic development changes more inline with the north but outside of an external influence on that scale, not much will change IMO.
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
It's possible but not likely that you will ever see the big 3 turn into anything resembling Chicago, Philly, etc. Those cities boomed pre-automobile which shaped the way the cities grew. Most likely, what you will see are growing pockets of very high density condo/apartment towers with low density single-family homes continuing to take up the majority of the land. I seriously doubt we will ever see anything like the row houses of the northeast lining our streets for miles in every direction.
Despite what we hear on city data, the vast majority of Americans still prefer the suburban, lower-density life actually. We generally like our cars and our space. Perhaps if gas prices completely spike (I'm talking $10/gal or more - something truly unaffordable) before alternative energy has penetrated the market on a significant level and public transit becomes the preferred method of transportation in America again, we might see some drastic development changes more inline with the north but outside of an external influence on that scale, not much will change IMO.
I think you're dead on with that assessment.
And in order to reach "truly dense" (in the same sense as Chicago/Philly), a lot of those single family homes that you mentioned would have to be razed to make way for new development. I just don't see that happening anytime soon.
These cities will only get to that density level if there is the demand for it...and on that scale, there simply isn't the demand for it. The only way that changes is if, like you said, gas prices increase dramatically, or if there is a change in the social patterns that determine where we as Americans want to live.
In the meantime, I think the best way for these (and other similar cities) to increase their density will be to redevelop dead industrial or warehouse districts close to town as urban neighborhoods.
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.
Not really...maybe they like the density and urbanity of those cities, but don't like the climate or possibly even the culture. Plus, I see a lot of natives of Sunbelt cities wanting to see increased density and more urban infill. As I said before, they won't ever be on the order of NYC, Philly, Chicago, Boston, etc., because that era has simply come and gone and market forces, modes of transportation, etc. are different now.
I believe Atlanta can and it is in the process. I believe Houston can but has some SERIOUS work to do to catch up. I don't believe Dallas can.
Atlanta has the potential to be built out like Chicago, literally. Downtown would be the Loop and Midtown would be like Streeterville, etc. Peachtree could become like Michigan Ave, and that's the goal of developers and politicians in the city. Transit is there and about to be expanded, and there are more and more residents in high rises and mid-rises fronting walkable streets.
Outside of the PacNW, both Atlanta and Miami are doing the most to develop in a sustainably walkable and dense way, and that is quite a challenge in today's world.
Houston's "Center of Activity" could just be the Inner Loop (and really only half of it at that). That's where all the cars are heading into on the weekends. People go into their favorite areas once in the Inner Loop.
I believe Atlanta can and it is in the process. I believe Houston can but has some SERIOUS work to do to catch up. I don't believe Dallas can.
Atlanta has the potential to be built out like Chicago, literally. Downtown would be the Loop and Midtown would be like Streeterville, etc. Peachtree could become like Michigan Ave, and that's the goal of developers and politicians in the city. Transit is there and about to be expanded, and there are more and more residents in high rises and mid-rises fronting walkable streets.
Outside of the PacNW, both Atlanta and Miami are doing the most to develop in a sustainably walkable and dense way, and that is quite a challenge in today's world.
Houston is in a better position to do it more than Atlanta; both have serious work to do. It just lacks a decent and reliable public transit system [as far as rail anyways]. Houston already has the most populated and centralized core. Dallas can do it; it just lacks a cohesive core.
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.
