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 07-03-2017, 02:19 PM
 
27,946 posts, read 25,000,374 times
Reputation: 16614

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunion Powder View Post
I'd say it's still of the Sunbelt. I don't know why people here like to pretend that the city is nothing more than Uptown and the French Quarter. Outside of those areas you still have the same suburban sprawl and autocentric layout that is characteristic of the region; bad public trans included. It may not be as large as other cities but neither is Memphis, Birmingham, etc.
But that's the case everywhere, to some extent or another.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-03-2017, 05:05 PM
 
Location: San Antonio
5,286 posts, read 3,845,766 times
Reputation: 4294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutiny77 View Post
But that's the case everywhere, to some extent or another.
Likewise, other Sunbelt cities aren't completely suburban in build, and a greater percentage of the New Orleans area is suburban compared to most cities outside of the South.

NO may not have boomed at the time Houston did, but its growth still bears enough similarities to other Sunbelt cities in development patferns and especially architecture.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2017, 05:53 PM
 
Location: New Orleans
797 posts, read 1,107,216 times
Reputation: 622
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunion Powder View Post
Likewise, other Sunbelt cities aren't completely suburban in build, and a greater percentage of the New Orleans area is suburban compared to most cities outside of the South.

NO may not have boomed at the time Houston did, but its growth still bears enough similarities to other Sunbelt cities in development patferns and especially architecture.
New Orleans was the largest city in the South pre-1950 and has had one of the slowest growth rates since then. Thus you have a city in the Sunbelt/South with the largest historic core and least post-war growth. It's a pretty striking difference in growth and development patterns to most Sunbelt cities that have seen their populations increase 5+ times since 1950s. Sure parts of suburban New Orleans look like Houston, that is not really saying much, all American cities have large suburbs. Plus the fact that about 75%-80% of metro New Orleans lives in a 175-200 square mile area in and around New Orleans, the only really sprawling part is in St. Tammany Parish, which is New Orleans' little slice of Sunbelt development.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2017, 07:05 PM
 
Location: San Antonio
5,286 posts, read 3,845,766 times
Reputation: 4294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo_1 View Post
New Orleans was the largest city in the South pre-1950 and has had one of the slowest growth rates since then. Thus you have a city in the Sunbelt/South with the largest historic core and least post-war growth. It's a pretty striking difference in growth and development patterns to most Sunbelt cities that have seen their populations increase 5+ times since 1950s. Sure parts of suburban New Orleans look like Houston, that is not really saying much, all American cities have large suburbs. Plus the fact that about 75%-80% of metro New Orleans lives in a 175-200 square mile area in and around New Orleans, the only really sprawling part is in St. Tammany Parish, which is New Orleans' little slice of Sunbelt development.
Right. Nothing here contradicts my point. I never said New Orleans was nothing but a smaller Houston, but it is a more suburban area than most people apparently realize.

Most of the New Orleans urban area might be contained within 200 sq miles, but even then the area's density is only ~700 ppsm greater than Houston's. That's less than the difference between Houston and Atlanta.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2017, 07:11 PM
 
Location: Atlanta and St Simons Island, GA
21,126 posts, read 33,109,510 times
Reputation: 12791
Quote:
Originally Posted by EmeraldCity56 View Post
With the exception of Los Angeles, on a scale from 1 to 10, 10 being the best and 1 being the worst, I'd give half a 1 and the other half a 2.
Translated: I have no earthly idea what I'm talking about.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2017, 07:34 PM
 
Location: New Orleans
797 posts, read 1,107,216 times
Reputation: 622
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunion Powder View Post
Right. Nothing here contradicts my point. I never said New Orleans was nothing but a smaller Houston, but it is a more suburban area than most people apparently realize.

Most of the New Orleans urban area might be contained within 200 sq miles, but even then the area's density is only ~700 ppsm greater than Houston's. That's less than the difference between Houston and Atlanta.
Okay. Two cities that were virtually the same size in 1950 (saying nothing of pre-1920) but Houston is now 5 times the size of New Orleans, both somehow have similar cores, development, and growth patterns that makes them both sunbelt cities (not just Houston but Atlanta, Raleigh, Charlotte, Nashville, Phoenix, Las Vegas, etc.). If that is the case there might as well not be a sunbelt or you might as well call Hartford, Cincinnati, Providence, Baltimore, Milwaukee, etc. sunbelt cities. I mean what is your point? That since New Orleans has suburbs and is not all urban that makes it a sunbelt city? Most metro areas are majority suburban. Let's just say you have a weird definition of sunbelt.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2017, 08:13 PM
 
Location: San Antonio
5,286 posts, read 3,845,766 times
Reputation: 4294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo_1 View Post
Okay. Two cities that were virtually the same size in 1950 (saying nothing of pre-1920) but Houston is now 5 times the size of New Orleans, both somehow have similar cores, development, and growth patterns that makes them both sunbelt cities (not just Houston but Atlanta, Raleigh, Charlotte, Nashville, Phoenix, Las Vegas, etc.). If that is the case there might as well not be a sunbelt or you might as well call Hartford, Cincinnati, Providence, Baltimore, Milwaukee, etc. sunbelt cities. I mean what is your point? That since New Orleans has suburbs and is not all urban that makes it a sunbelt city? Most metro areas are majority suburban. Let's just say you have a weird definition of sunbelt.
I don't know, your definition seems incomplete. I've never seen or heard of a description of the Sunbelt that was limited to the amount of suburban development or lack thereof. Every definition that I can recall seeing listed mild, warmer weather as the primary factor. This would no doubt include New Orleans.

Would other stagnant cities in the south like Jackson and Shreveport be included in your definition of the Sunbelt?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2017, 09:38 PM
 
Location: New Orleans
797 posts, read 1,107,216 times
Reputation: 622
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunion Powder View Post
I don't know, your definition seems incomplete. I've never seen or heard of a description of the Sunbelt that was limited to the amount of suburban development or lack thereof. Every definition that I can recall seeing listed mild, warmer weather as the primary factor. This would no doubt include New Orleans.

Would other stagnant cities in the south like Jackson and Shreveport be included in your definition of the Sunbelt?
Discussions like these are obviously talking about development and growth patterns, not weather. Extreme post-war growth, most of which is in a sprawly suburban fashion, and lack of a strong pre-war core are things that typify sunbelt development and cities. That is why this is the first time you have brought up weather, it was obviously not part of the discussion.

You can say that there are different types of sunbelt cities if you will. I just think, and seemingly others do too, that when discussing sunbelt cities (as in growth patterns and type), it is ridiculous and inaccurate to put cities like New Orleans in the same category as Charlotte or Raleigh or even Houston. I've heard a somewhat similar argument made for Los Angeles, it is a different breed of a sunbelt city, since it had extreme pre-1940 growth and increased density. Similarly, I've heard Columbus, Ohio and Indianapolis called a sunbelt type cities for their growth and development and obviously not for the weather. You could possibly not call Shreveport and Jackson sunbelt too, I don't really know their post-war growth rates, of course they don't really have much of a historic core or density to differentiate them from other sunbelt cities anyway, so that might be pointless, whereas New Orleans was the largest city in the South. Nothing is ever too cut and dry.

Let's just say there are cities that typify sunbelt growth and development and ones that don't, even if they are all located in the weather Sunbelt. Charlotte, Atlanta, Orlando, Phoenix, etc. typify it, New Orleans doesn't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2017, 10:17 PM
 
Location: San Antonio
5,286 posts, read 3,845,766 times
Reputation: 4294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo_1 View Post
Discussions like these are obviously talking about development and growth patterns, not weather. Extreme post-war growth, most of which is in a sprawly suburban fashion, and lack of a strong pre-war core are things that typify sunbelt development and cities. That is why this is the first time you have brought up weather, it was obviously not part of the discussion.

You can say that there are different types of sunbelt cities if you will. I just think, and seemingly others do too, that when discussing sunbelt cities (as in growth patterns and type), it is ridiculous and inaccurate to put cities like New Orleans in the same category as Charlotte or Raleigh or even Houston. I've heard a somewhat similar argument made for Los Angeles, it is a different breed of a sunbelt city, since it had extreme pre-1940 growth and increased density. Similarly, I've heard Columbus, Ohio and Indianapolis called a sunbelt type cities for their growth and development and obviously not for the weather. You could possibly not call Shreveport and Jackson sunbelt too, I don't really know their post-war growth rates, of course they don't really have much of a historic core or density to differentiate them from other sunbelt cities anyway, so that might be pointless, whereas New Orleans was the largest city in the South. Nothing is ever too cut and dry.

Let's just say there are cities that typify sunbelt growth and development and ones that don't, even if they are all located in the weather Sunbelt. Charlotte, Atlanta, Orlando, Phoenix, etc. typify it, New Orleans doesn't.
I think this is all that really needs to be said.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-04-2017, 11:50 AM
_OT
 
Location: Miami
2,063 posts, read 1,316,920 times
Reputation: 1676
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo_1 View Post
Discussions like these are obviously talking about development and growth patterns, not weather. Extreme post-war growth, most of which is in a sprawly suburban fashion, and lack of a strong pre-war core are things that typify sunbelt development and cities. That is why this is the first time you have brought up weather, it was obviously not part of the discussion.

You can say that there are different types of sunbelt cities if you will. I just think, and seemingly others do too, that when discussing sunbelt cities (as in growth patterns and type), it is ridiculous and inaccurate to put cities like New Orleans in the same category as Charlotte or Raleigh or even Houston. I've heard a somewhat similar argument made for Los Angeles, it is a different breed of a sunbelt city, since it had extreme pre-1940 growth and increased density. Similarly, I've heard Columbus, Ohio and Indianapolis called a sunbelt type cities for their growth and development and obviously not for the weather. You could possibly not call Shreveport and Jackson sunbelt too, I don't really know their post-war growth rates, of course they don't really have much of a historic core or density to differentiate them from other sunbelt cities anyway, so that might be pointless, whereas New Orleans was the largest city in the South. Nothing is ever too cut and dry.

Let's just say there are cities that typify sunbelt growth and development and ones that don't, even if they are all located in the weather Sunbelt. Charlotte, Atlanta, Orlando, Phoenix, etc. typify it, New Orleans doesn't.
Pretty much what I've been explaining for a minute.
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