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.
Low key and vibrant aren’t antonyms. Vibrant doesn’t mean flashy. By vibrant I mean Seattle has a huge number of independent and locally developed stores and restaurants for a city of its size, and many unique neighborhood commercial strips. The stores and restaurants also typically have way later hours than places like Boston. There’s also a steady amount of pedestrian traffic and the buses are frequent and convenient.
Ok. I don't know enough to agree or disagree, except for the buses which are pretty amazing!
I think that my deal is that I had built Seattle up in my head as a city that would be my dream city. After one short visit I left thinking that it was nice, but not for me.
All of these can be found in abundance in Duncan, Oklahoma. It’s not what defines a city.
Abundance is a relative term, not absolute... if you’re going to troll, troll better
No they don’t “define” a city, they are just essential to every cities economic foundation and are usually where the cities local culture stems from.
Nobody in the real world cares about how many F500 companies are in your downtown or if you’re city has “x” skyscrapers in it then the next. These are nothing more than CD circle jerks.
Abundance is a relative term, not absolute... if you’re going to troll, troll better
No they don’t “define” a city, they are just essential to every cities economic foundation and are usually where the cities local culture stems from.
Nobody in the real world cares about how many F500 companies are in your downtown or if you’re city has “x” skyscrapers in it then the next. These are nothing more than CD circle jerks.
Stop being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse
I can't speak for that poster, but I can maybe see their point. I've consistently said that urbanity is largely measured by the density of people and amenities. I say that because those two things lead to the availability of a certain lifestyle. A lifestyle where you can walk (or in LA's case walk or drive) to an abundance of amenities that you use in daily life. Drug stores, grocery stores, restaurants, barbers, liquor stores,...all of that. If people have to frequently leave their neighborhood by car or transit to access such amenities, I think that takes points away. I think that urbanity is more about the lifestyle that the density of people and amenities bring, than it is about street widths and building setbacks.
The surrounding DC suburbs don’t have real “skyscrapers.” The buildings in the surrounding suburbs wouldn’t even be noticed in most city skylines. Tysons may have one pretty tall building, but Tyson’s is so far from DC that it can’t claim that.
They have noticeable skylines which is sufficient. Rosslyn's skyline alone is comparable to Wilmington, DE's.
Abundance is a relative term, not absolute... if you’re going to troll, troll better
No they don’t “define” a city, they are just essential to every cities economic foundation and are usually where the cities local culture stems from.
Nobody in the real world cares about how many F500 companies are in your downtown or if you’re city has “x” skyscrapers in it then the next. These are nothing more than CD circle jerks.
Stop being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse
I’m not being obtuse. I’m saying your examples of barbershops, liquor stores, laundromats aren’t what makes a city a bigger or more urban or vibrant city. They are commodities. They can be found anywhere where there is people. It’s a ridiculously low bar to have. I don’t care if they are essential. Third world countries have them. Maybe it’s a little elitist for me to say, but I kind of want my city to have better and more enriching amenities than that. That’s why I live in a city, otherwise I could live in Duncan Oklahoma. I also care about F500 companies because my job opportunities are tied with the economic outlook and growth of my city.
I can't speak for that poster, but I can maybe see their point. I've consistently said that urbanity is largely measured by the density of people and amenities. I say that because those two things lead to the availability of a certain lifestyle. A lifestyle where you can walk (or in LA's case walk or drive) to an abundance of amenities that you use in daily life. Drug stores, grocery stores, restaurants, barbers, liquor stores,...all of that. If people have to frequently leave their neighborhood by car or transit to access such amenities, I think that takes points away. I think that urbanity is more about the lifestyle that the density of people and amenities bring, than it is about street widths and building setbacks.
While I don’t disagree with the underlying point of the posters argument, I agree with you’re interpretation of it. That being said the “from” usually proceeds the “function.” You can’t have have access to all those amenities if there not built in a way that doesn’t promote said urban living.
Which is why east coast cities win these polls based on nothing other than confirmation bias. At this point I wouldn't be surprised to see people start bringing up the fact that it doesn't get cold enough in Los Angeles to be truly urban.
East Coast cities, along with Chicago and SF, win these polls because they were among the largest cities in the country for at least a century in the pre-war era and retain much of their urban fabric and vernacular from that period which are simply much more conducive to walking and rail-transit usage. I don't know why this seems to be such a controversial perspective here at times. The simple eye test tells you that outside of the downtown core, LA is simply built differently than the others--with much consideration for vehicles which became the dominant means of transportation but, due to geographical factors constraining development, dense and gridded enough to make walking and transit usage feasible and practical.
I’m not being obtuse. I’m saying your examples of barbershops, liquor stores, laundromats aren’t what makes a city a bigger or more urban or vibrant city. They are commodities. They can be found anywhere where there is people. It’s a ridiculously low bar to have. I don’t care if they are essential. Third world countries have them. Maybe it’s a little elitist for me to say, but I kind of want my city to have better and more enriching amenities than that. That’s why I live in a city, otherwise I could live in Duncan Oklahoma. I also care about F500 companies because my job opportunities are tied with the economic outlook and growth of my city.
And what makes a city “bigger, more urban or vibrant” in your opinion?
You’re right they can be found where people “are”, the quantity and or ease of accessibility to the people they serve however is not in any shape or way comparable. That’s what makes a city a city, a suburb a suburb and the sticks the sticks.
Ridiculously low bar for who? Maybe you.... but you don’t speak for all 600k people in Baltimore or the 1.5 million people in Philly or the 8.3 million people in NYC. Those “low bar commodities” are essential because millions of people either a) can’t afford to live in the suburbs where a car is required to get to the “low bar commodities” or b) people
simply like the ease of being a 2 minute walk from the grocery store instead of a 15 minute car/bike ride irregardless of their social/economic status.
That’s great you care about F500 companies, a lot of people who live in cities don’t. It doesn’t make you better then them any more than them better than you. Different boats for different folks.
East Coast cities, along with Chicago and SF, win these polls because they were among the largest cities in the country for at least a century in the pre-war era and retain much of their urban fabric and vernacular from that period which are simply much more conducive to walking and rail-transit usage. I don't know why this seems to be such a controversial perspective here at times. The simple eye test tells you that outside of the downtown core, LA is simply built differently than the others--with much consideration for vehicles which became the dominant means of transportation but, due to geographical factors constraining development, dense and gridded enough to make walking and transit usage feasible and practical.
As my kids would say - you ain't never lied!
It's really not a hard concept that having massive investment for over a century will create a different style of infrastructure and set of amenities than ones that just started popping off over the past 30-or-so years.
Also, being a boomtown in the late 1800s or very early 1900s is a totally different level of investment than being a boomtown in 2000 or 2020. The country is in a much different place.
Seattle is a unique one. It feels more big city than LA, DC in its CBD. Like tall buildings, transit lines, pedestrians, etc ..
But Outside there a ton of SFH. I'd wager that Seattle has a more urban feeling core than all three, but when you include city limits... not so much, definitely falls down a few notches.
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.
