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.
These 2 cities always get knocked for sprawl and low density, but if only looking at the cores both cities have good bones and infrastructure along with new urban construction. One has a mature HRT system and the other making strides with 4 new lines being built, are they not getting the credit they deserve from old stereotypes?
Just saw the title, was suppose to say "than they get".
Is there a less urban major metro on earth than Atlanta? I'm not sure if there's another metro of 6 million that is so suburbanized, anywhere.
So I would say the answer is "no".
The OP said the core cities, not the metros. If we're discussing just the cities themselves, I'd say yes, they deserve more credit. If we're talking about the metros, then no, especially Atlanta.
The OP said the core cities, not the metros. If we're discussing just the cities themselves, I'd say yes, they deserve more credit. If we're talking about the metros, then no, especially Atlanta.
OK, then what core city on earth is less urban than Atlanta? I can't think of one.
Give me a city of 6-7 million people anywhere on earth that's as sprawly as Atlanta at the core.
Yes this is limited to the cores, I was going to throw in Dallas as well but it doesn't seem to get the same negative stereotypes as ATL or Houston on CD.
OK, then what core city on earth is less urban than Atlanta? I can't think of one.
Give me a city of 6-7 million people anywhere on earth that's as sprawly as Atlanta at the core.
Atlanta, the city, doesn't have 6-7 million people. It's just shy of 500,000, which is only about 3500 ppl per square mile. While that's not great, there are more sprawly and less dense cities. If you can't think of one, you're not thinking hard enough.
Atlanta, the city, doesn't have 6-7 million people. It's just shy of 500,000, which is only about 3500 ppl per square mile. While that's not great, there are more sprawly and less dense cities. If you can't think of one, you're not thinking hard enough.
It is pretty obvious when he said 6-7 million people that he meant metropolitan area/combined statistical. I cant seem to be able to name one urban area on planet Earth with more than 4 million people that is lower density than Atlanta.
Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowedI don't see one.
It is pretty obvious when he said 6-7 million people that he meant metropolitan area/combined statistical. Name one urban area on planet Earth with more than 4 million people that is lower density than Atlanta?
Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowedI don't see one.
I know what he meant, but the OP asked to limit the discussion to the cores, which I'm doing.
Houston has some urban districts but as a whole the city is very sprawled and poorly designed. The urban districts need better connectivity. Downtown, TMC, Upper Kirby, and Uptown are broken up and separated by low density communities. That would be fine if transit was connecting those communities. Downtown and TMC have good connectivity but Downtown, Upper Kirby, and Uptown have awful connectivity and that will limit its ability to become more urban. Houston has a long way to go before it can put to rest it's reputation as a suburban sprawl mess. Our leadership has limited vision and making any efforts to become more urban will be a battle that may never be won.
I can't really argue that Atlanta isn't still a largely car dependent city, but it's trying to get things done. The city just voted for a $250 million bond referendum, some of which will go toward building complete streets and major improvements to sidewalks. The state legislature just yesterday granted approval for the Beltline to enter into PPPs to accelerate the construction of the Atlanta BeltLine // Where Atlanta Comes Together..
Atlanta is still stymied by the state when it comes to funding MARTA. A transportation bill that initially allocated $100 million to public transit was gutted and the state legislature, for reasons still unclear, prevented the jurisdictions served by MARTA from voting to increase the percentage of sales tax allocated to MARTA from 1% to 1.5%. This would have provided around $200 million extra a year to MARTA.
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.
