Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-13-2016, 04:04 PM
JJG
 
Location: Fort Worth
13,612 posts, read 22,780,976 times
Reputation: 7638

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by NigerianNightmare View Post
It is one of the reasons Houston has a lower density than Arlington, a Dallas suburb. Their are often random large spaces of undeveloped land or between a terrible neighborhood and a decent middle class area their is very little.
*Fort Worth suburb... regardless of the fact that the Cowboys play there.

As for this thread, we all already know which cities will be pegged as "suburban".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-13-2016, 04:17 PM
 
1,851 posts, read 2,148,938 times
Reputation: 1283
Quote:
Originally Posted by biscuit_head View Post
To be fair, the Chicago Loop and the Financial District in Lower Manhattan are pretty dead in the evenings. The active area most people think of "Downtown" Chicago is really River North. Midtown Manhattan is a lot more active though. Even Downtown DC is pretty dead in the evening, but there's a lot of activity in the monuments area and the neighborhoods immediately to the north like Dupont and Logan Circles.
River North is included in the Downtown Area, it's just not the Loop. Downtown Chicago has also made some pretty big strides in the last decade or so in regards to vibrancy after 5 p.m. It still has a ways to go, but it is undoubtedly getting better.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2016, 04:46 PM
 
4,345 posts, read 2,730,575 times
Reputation: 5273
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJG View Post
*Fort Worth suburb... regardless of the fact that the Cowboys play there.
.
Isn't Fort Worth also a Dallas Suburb?
Ha ha, just messing with you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2016, 05:21 PM
 
Location: Katy,Texas
6,441 posts, read 4,002,605 times
Reputation: 4481
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJG View Post
*Fort Worth suburb... regardless of the fact that the Cowboys play there.

As for this thread, we all already know which cities will be pegged as "suburban".
Sorry JJG. Even I sometimes slip up with recognizing that Fort Worth is also it's own independent region/city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2016, 06:00 PM
 
4,345 posts, read 2,730,575 times
Reputation: 5273
Quote:
Originally Posted by NigerianNightmare View Post
It is one of the reasons Houston has a lower density than Arlington, a Dallas suburb. Their are often random large spaces of undeveloped land or between a terrible neighborhood and a decent middle class area their is very little.
Arlingtons weighted density is no where near as dense as Houston.
It basically is uniformly more dense but does not have the spikes that Houston does. Just like the people who make the vision that Mesa is more dense than Atlanta.

Arlington is also more dense than Dallas and far more dense than Fort Worth. So what? Both cities have more areas of non residential land than Arlington, which like Mesa is packed with residential.

Fort Worth - 2,181.0/sq mi (812,238 people)
Dallas - 3,645/sq mi (1,300,092 people)
Houston - 3,662/sq mi (2,239,558 people)

To me that is why Houston in its city limits feel larger than Dallas. It had only a slightly larger density but it carries it for twice as far. To capture the number of people in Houston you would pretty much have to encapsulate all of Dallas county, but then again the density of that county is 1000 ppsm less than Houston.

All of this is meaningless.
Arlington is about the size of inner loop Houston.
Peer down Houston to just the inner loop and It yields more people than Arlington in the same 96 sq miles even though just about all of its eastern half is industrial.

Arlington simply doesn't have the industry in its limits that the inner loop has. Not a fair comparison at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2016, 06:48 PM
 
Location: Washington D.C. By way of Texas
20,500 posts, read 33,311,608 times
Reputation: 12109
Quote:
Originally Posted by atadytic19 View Post
.

All of this is meaningless.
Arlington is about the size of inner loop Houston.
Peer down Houston to just the inner loop and It yields more people than Arlington in the same 96 sq miles even though just about all of its eastern half is industrial.

Arlington simply doesn't have the industry in its limits that the inner loop has. Not a fair comparison at all.
According to this link below, Houston's inner loop population as of 2014 was 490,000 people.http://www.harriscountytx.gov/CmpDoc...on%20Study.pdf

If so, that puts the density of the inner loop at 5,104 ppsm. Arlington, like you said, has a population density of 3,810 sq. miles. Very good comparison looking at both being about the same size and this was as of 2014. I'm sure it is now over 500,000 people if not a bit closer. I've said it plenty of times, I wish Houston was nothing more than just the Inner Loop as that is the only part of the city that gives a city-like or urban atmosphere in the entire region and has the potential to become even greater. The majority of the rest of the city outside loop, forget about it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2016, 07:23 PM
 
2,639 posts, read 1,977,718 times
Reputation: 1988
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckeye614 View Post
I don't get why people complain about downtown districts being "dead" outside of work hours on the week day. Typically most Central Business Districts house government workers, some corporate headquarters and places where they can stop in for lunch or maybe a work reception.
Because a number of people who respond to these threads are urban-philes. They are looking for urbanity...for the urbane

It is a disappointment when "downtown" is just a glorified office park.

Last edited by Tim Randal Walker; 06-13-2016 at 07:47 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2016, 07:49 PM
 
8,745 posts, read 6,664,611 times
Reputation: 8469
The organizations that advocate for those office-park-like downtowns are generally obsessing about making them more mixed-use. And generally they're succeeding, whether slowly or quickly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2016, 07:50 PM
 
2,639 posts, read 1,977,718 times
Reputation: 1988
Mhays, that brings up a question-just what is "downtown" for?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2016, 09:54 PM
 
8,745 posts, read 6,664,611 times
Reputation: 8469
Good question.

One response is that from a business sense, it's really helpful if it's mixed-use, because a lot of people want to work in mixed-use downtowns.

The best downtowns (or "greater downtowns" more broadly) are good at a bunch of things at once -- they're the top local centers for offices, tourism, business travel, shopping, high-density residential, entertainment, and so on. These typically include areas that are predominantly offices with only ancillary hotels and retail, plus areas where retail dominates or housing dominantes.

Synergy is a huge factor. That can be synergy within an industry, access to services, access to transit (always a big factor), and the ability to live/work/play in the same district.

For example in my region, the construction companies (including mine), architects, and developers are mostly in greater Downtown, because we work closely together. Most of us also put a lot of value on being close to transit.

A lot of other companies are moving closer-in to take advantage of these synergies and what workers want, particuarly young workers. For example Amazon is building a constant flow of buildings in Downtown Seattle, and they say 20% of their workers (often young and well-paid) walk to work. Other companies like Weyerhaeuser, Google, and Expedia are moving closer in in Seattle and also talking about this being useful for attracting workers.

This isn't ideal in every sense of course. Land is rarely cheap when multiple sectors compete for it, and our land prices are going off the charts. Residents and bar districts don't mix well. Night use of loading docks (hard to get around), hotel taxi whistles (easy to get around), and other factors don't always mix.
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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top