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.
So I was looking at the wikipedia pic of KCMO, and it looked as if it was more urban and walkable in the core than anything I've seen in the south for the exception of NOLA? I'm not an expert on KC but it seems like it has kept most of its pre WW2 core buildings intact.
So it's more urban simply because it has more pre-WW2 buildings? It still looks like it has a myriad of parking lots to me. This looks more urban to me.
So it's more urban simply because it has more pre-WW2 buildings? It still looks like it has a myriad of parking lots to me. This looks more urban to me.
'
Sure from afar just like Houston may look more urban than NOLA from afar.
Austin, San Antonio, and Fort Worth would fit the bill. Of course once your outside the very core, it's not walkable at all, but that's no different from KC.
Sure from afar just like Houston may look more urban than NOLA from afar.
Except that picture isn't from a far...Your picture of KC looks more farther away than that picture of Midtown Atlanta. Just saying. I don't think Atlanta is that urban, but it seems your basis of urban is more pre-WW2 buildings, but looking closely, it has parking lots scattered just like most Southern cities. Anyone can have an urban thoroughfare or two, then having parking lots on the outside of that thoroughfare.
Had ATL, Dallas, and Houston preserved their pre WW2 stock do you not think these cities would be more walkable? All the so called "new urbansim" that happened from the 60's forward was tear up buildings that were at human scale and made office parks out of them, obviously not all of the southern cities got it that bad but just look at Houston for an instance.
Had ATL, Dallas, and Houston preserved their pre WW2 stock do you not think these cities would be more walkable? All the so called "new urbansim" that happened from the 60's forward was tear up buildings that were at human scale and made office parks out of them, obviously not all of the southern cities got it that bad but just look at Houston for an instance.
Most of the buildings that were tore down from the 60s in ATL were replaced with another buildings. The parking lots in ATL now never really had anything there in the first place. DT Atlanta was pretty small back then. There's still a healthy section in Downtown ATL(Fairlie-Poplar) that has pre-WWII buildings. Midtown ATL, the picture you see wasn't nearly that dense 20 years ago. It's a completely new place now so IMO, Atlanta has became more urban, not less urban.
I don't know about Houston or Dallas too well. Last time I was in Houston, they still had a healthy section of pre-WW2 buildings, but parking lots are everywhere there. Worst than Atlanta or Dallas.
Most of the buildings that were tore down from the 60s in ATL were replaced with another buildings. The parking lots in ATL now never really had anything there in the first place. DT Atlanta was pretty small back then. There's still a healthy section in Downtown ATL(Fairlie-Poplar) that has pre-WWII buildings. Midtown ATL, the picture you see wasn't nearly that dense 20 years ago. It's a completely new place now so IMO, Atlanta has became more urban, not less urban.
I don't know about Houston or Dallas too well. Last time I was in Houston, they still had a healthy section of pre-WW2 buildings, but parking lots are everywhere there. Worst than Atlanta or Dallas.
Don't get me wrong I do obviously think that ATL, Dallas, and Houston are overall more urban and each day are infilling their cores with with new high density multifamily housing but almost everything that is being built comes with tons of parking which takes away IMO from the walkability of the place.
Don't get me wrong I do obviously think that ATL, Dallas, and Houston are overall more urban and each day are infilling their cores with with new high density multifamily housing but almost everything that is being built comes with tons of parking which takes away IMO from the walkability of the place.
I agree with you and hopefully overtime, they can infill these spots and have uninterrupted streetwalls or more greenspace within their cores. But no KC is not the most urban. I'd say New Orleans wins hands down, then Savannah/Charelston.
I know people don't think of it as the south but it is the you gets big city out there. Miami's core is very walkable and has better transit than most southern cities.
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.
