U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: More urban shopping district?
Beverly Hills (Golden Triangle) 84 78.50%
Atlanta (Buckhead) 23 21.50%
Voters: 107. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-13-2014, 12:17 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA
2,551 posts, read 3,325,294 times
Reputation: 1678

Advertisements

Some of the busiest bus lines go through Beverly Hills. It's centrally located for transit. For cars though it's far from a freeway with lots of traffic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-13-2014, 12:23 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 12,573,038 times
Reputation: 3941
Quote:
Originally Posted by theraven24 View Post
You're right, most people do get there by ways of cars. Public transportation to BH is very limited.
Well limited as in there are only buses. But there are a lot of buses that go through it - including two of the highest ridership lines in the metro, the 720 and 704 (20 and 4 local service) which bracket the city along Santa Monica Blvd and Wilshire Blvd. The bus lines actually cross each other on the western border of BH as Santa Monica cuts diagonally to the south west.

And yes traffic is awful in that area, the intended freeway was blocked by Beverly Hills. The freeway would have run along the route of Santa Monica Blvd.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2014, 12:30 PM
 
Location: Tokyo, Japan
6,479 posts, read 7,719,547 times
Reputation: 7295
Atlanta is the lowest density major city on planet Earth. It struggles to even have a census tract, of all things, in the 20,000 people per square mile range, and it cant even hold that for more than a quarter of a square mile.

The highest density census tract in Atlanta is behind the highest of that of Chicago (508,697), New York (200,764), San Francisco (161,499), Boston (110,107), Miami (77,214), Philadelphia (64,262), Los Angeles (94,490), Baltimore (86,889), Washington (66,782), Houston (55,254), Seattle (50,077), Dallas (44,099), San Diego (51,128), Minneapolis (25,732), Denver (23,724), and Phoenix (23,431). Then comes Atlanta (21,189 people per square mile).

Census tracts are much smaller but I've used them to illustrate that Atlanta lacks even a small area of density, to check for densities over a larger area, just simply use Zipatlas. Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowed. Once again, lowest case study for density among the country's biggest cities.

To tie this all back into Buckhead, I cant say whether or not if it's urban, as I haven't seen it for myself to know but it's definitely the least dense part of the least dense major city on planet Earth. If there's any consolation to that idea, it's that regardless of what Beverly Hills may appear to be like, I don't think it gets any less dense than Buckhead, ever.

Translation: I don't think there is a sound argument what-so-ever for any case to be made for Buckhead. Surprised it even got as many votes as it did.

Last edited by Yac; 05-23-2014 at 07:42 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2014, 01:22 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
27,619 posts, read 24,814,812 times
Reputation: 11185
Chicago has a tract that's 500,000 ppsm?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2014, 01:27 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 12,573,038 times
Reputation: 3941
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
Chicago has a tract that's 500,000 ppsm?
It's 1 block with 2 highrises.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2014, 01:39 PM
 
Location: Tokyo, Japan
6,479 posts, read 7,719,547 times
Reputation: 7295
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
Chicago has a tract that's 500,000 ppsm?
Yeah it's very tiny like two blocks. It's population is 3,400 people, about six total highrises and a few commercial buildings in a condensed area. It's next highest tract is right after Boston's at 97,000 people per square mile.

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8511/...02ac8721_b.jpg

Which is my point though, census tracts are the smallest barometers to any sort of density argument. For all intents and purposes, Buckhead lags in having a high density tract of it's own, Atlanta in general lags in the density category straight across the board. While density isn't the end all and be all of urbanity, Buckhead lacks the very first thing needed to make a place urban, which is supporting human density.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2014, 02:10 PM
 
112 posts, read 102,270 times
Reputation: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by afonega1 View Post
Well Im sorry I dont go around taking picture as much as Pwright.

I can show people on the street in my dad's home town of Perry Georgia.Do you think that will show urbanism?

Those pics posted of BH do not show how urban BH it is or not.


and a skyline pic does
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2014, 02:15 PM
 
Location: Denver, Colorado U.S.A.
14,174 posts, read 22,509,046 times
Reputation: 10428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red John View Post
Atlanta is the lowest density major city on planet Earth. It struggles to even have a census tract, of all things, in the 20,000 people per square mile range, and it cant even hold that for more than a quarter of a square mile.

The highest density census tract in Atlanta is behind the highest of that of Chicago (508,697), New York (200,764), San Francisco (161,499), Boston (110,107), Miami (77,214), Philadelphia (64,262), Los Angeles (94,490), Baltimore (86,889), Washington (66,782), Houston (55,254), Seattle (50,077), Dallas (44,099), San Diego (51,128), Minneapolis (25,732), Denver (23,724), and Phoenix (23,431). Then comes Atlanta (21,189 people per square mile).

Census tracts are much smaller but I've used them to illustrate that Atlanta lacks even a small area of density, to check for densities over a larger area, just simply use Zipatlas. Here is Atlanta. Once again, lowest case study for density among the country's biggest cities.

To tie this all back into Buckhead, I cant say whether or not if it's urban, as I haven't seen it for myself to know but it's definitely the least dense part of the least dense major city on planet Earth. If there's any consolation to that idea, it's that regardless of what Beverly Hills may appear to be like, I don't think it gets any less dense than Buckhead, ever.

Translation: I don't think there is a sound argument what-so-ever for any case to be made for Buckhead. Surprised it even got as many votes as it did.
I've been to BH many times (having lived in Orange County for years) and my first time in Buckhead was a couple years ago, staying at the Intercontinental on Peachtree. I really liked Buckhead, interesting skyscrapers, stores, and restaurants. But what was ODD was when I took a walk off Peachtree into a neighborhood. It was like walking from city to country in one block! The houses were sooo far apart and set back sooo far from the street. I don't understand why anyone would want to live on an acre, in the city?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2014, 02:59 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Western Massachusetts
45,749 posts, read 39,655,111 times
Reputation: 14671
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
Well, we know that 3.4% of Beverly Hills residents commute to work using public transit. It's a bit tougher to find out how many people get to work in BH using transit. My guess is that it can't be that high.

To answer the OP, BH is more urban than Buckhead. It's more walkable.
The difference is more that those who arrive at Beverly Hills mostly park, then walk around. While in Buckhead [guessing], visitors are more easily able to drive from spot to spot.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2014, 03:04 PM
 
112 posts, read 102,270 times
Reputation: 36
I hate saying this because I think its a bad way of gauging a city but all one has to do is a little Google streetview in both areas to realize they're not compatible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top