U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Celebrating Memorial Day!
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 08-11-2017, 06:30 PM
 
52,659 posts, read 75,502,369 times
Reputation: 11628

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiatldal View Post
You got times a little mixed up you 1900s that mean 1800 - 1899 not 1800s

East coast cities are not gilded cities, East coast cities, New Orleans, Savanah, Charleston are colonial cities they pre dated the industrial revolution itself 1600 to 1800 are when there original layouts were formed.

Gilded age are cities that rose with industrial and rail road development 1800 - 1899 more specific the latter half is the gilded age. Chicago, Pittsburgh, Cleveland. St. Louis, Minneapolis were the large ones, Atlanta, Seattle, Birmingham, Kansas City, Akron and etc were the smaller ones. While LA, Dallas and Miami are early modern which why LA has wider roads then Atlanta.

I'm talking about their cores not there whole cities, their core their original layout how wide the streets are, there architecture styles and how large their home plots are, street car development

I didn't say Atlanta was as large as Cleveland then I said Akron, Youngtown and etc there all grilage cities of different sizes.

Cities don't form at once, outer Atlanta didn't really start growing until after the 1930s but Atlanta core, Downtown, midtown, sweet Aurburn, cabbagetown, Inman park, castleberry and etc Start booming right after the civil war. That why Atlanta core is Largely Victorian because it was develop largely during the Victorian era. Besides a few areas that had Victorian mansions a lot are Victorian gunshots or double decks and etc.

Most of the industrial buildings besides a few were on the west side. They closer resemble a midwestern city then southern but most of the homes shot guns and etc are a southern thing following New Orleans which was the bigger southern city than blacks why cabbagetown look like it could be in New Orleans.

After the 60s and 50s Atlanta went though a major urban renewal shift that removed neighborhoods for freeways and building into parking lot etc. Some neighborhoods of the west side fell into despair after white flight like vine city and some homes were razed.

In 1950 Atlanta has over 300k just in 32 sq mi... compare today 400k in 132 sq mi. With industry and rail road delinced, as well as white flight. The city sort behaved like a rust belt city 1960 - 1990 expect with the suburb growing rapidly. As Atlanta revenited itself as mid tier gilded age city to a large sunbelt city.

Posters are saying Atlanta core is suburban that is false, outside Atlanta core is suburban. Atlanta was not born a sunbelt city. Atlanta was 3rd largest city in the South 1910 and oddly enough 31st which higher than city is now.

Saying Sunbelt cities core are Suburban is a talking point... cause unless your talking about Chicago, SF, New Orleans or an East coast city most American cities are develop with dense single family homes on small lots. The talking point comes cause people generalize sunbelt cities like LA, Dallas, Houston, and Atlanta weren't already a million before the sunbelt sprawl boom.

Atlanta

http://images.centerdigitaled.com/im...n-atlanta2.jpg

http://archive.pba.org/dictator/imag...abbagetown.jpg

http://debsellshouses.com/wp-content...0-c-center.jpg

Is Cleveland more urban certainly, but does it make Atlanta neighborhoods next to Downtown and midtown Atlanta look suburban?.... no


Cleveland

http://www.travelthewholeworld.com/w...ighborhood.jpg

http://www.nhlink.net/neighborhoodto...ics/fair14.jpg


https://www.urbanohio.com/thepope/uni/uni%20081.jpg
Perhaps there is a loss in translation in regard to what the core is. Some may view it as inner city neighborhoods and some may view it as the city proper.

Also, if anything "Legacy" cities were hurt more by the one-two punch of annexation limitations and urban renewal. Many of these cities haven't annexed anything in several decades, if not over a century. So, one could argue that said cities may not get enough credit for the urban neighborhoods that are still intact in those cities with less land to relatively work with.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-11-2017, 07:16 PM
_OT
 
Location: Miami
2,051 posts, read 1,295,791 times
Reputation: 1661
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
No, you have it reversed. Euclid is much more urban than Peachtree. Been to Atlanta for work a million times, and Peachtree isn't remotely as urban as Euclid. Even right downtown Peachtree is mostly blank walls, parking garages, dead spaces and the like, and there's little historic fabric.

Cleveland has huge prewar buildings, grand old department store buildings, 700-ft. prewar towers and the like. There's nothing like that in Atlanta.

Honestly, the only southern cities with real prewar urban character are New Orleans, Richmond, Savannah and Charleston. That's it. And only New Orleans has it over a large(ish) geography.
New Orleans, Richmond, Savannah, Charleston AND Louisville, Mobile, Birmingham, and Galveston.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2017, 05:58 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
11,910 posts, read 10,999,570 times
Reputation: 9823
As I said in another thread, I consider the cutoff between "core urban" and "semi urban" to have begun in some cities as early as the 1890s when the electric streetcar was perfected. In many areas this moved residential construction towards detached single-family homes with yards. There might still have been sidewalks, some local businesses within walking distance, and mass car ownership was still 30 years away, but fundamentally streetcar suburbia was an early form of suburbs, not a late form of the urban core. Thus I don't really give cities like Atlanta (or Cleveland, for that matter) much credit for urbanity for having swathes of streetcar suburbia.

Built environment was also very different in the country depending upon area. In the 19th century some portions of the country (Mid Atlantic, Ohio River Valley, San Francisco) were very much into attached housing, which provided a more cohesive urban feel with a continual street wall. In contrast, both areas to the north (New England and the Upper Midwest) and the south (the South proper) tended to build detached houses (or 2-3 unit structures) with setbacks from the street even during this period, making the areas feel less intensely urban from a street level.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2017, 10:55 AM
 
9,701 posts, read 6,676,246 times
Reputation: 9775
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiatldal View Post
No, most of intown Atlanta neighborhoods are on the national historic register places list and are built 1870 to 1940 this isn't an opinion this a fact.
I don't care if they were built in 400 BC. They aren't urban, and they're oriented towards the car. There are even inner city streets without sidewalks.

And 1940 isn't "historic", LOL. That's considered the modernist era already. We aren't talking horse-and-buggy. Half of the suburbs in the Northeast were established by WW2.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2017, 10:57 AM
 
9,701 posts, read 6,676,246 times
Reputation: 9775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutiny77 View Post
You forgot Louisville. And I'd throw Asheville and maybe two or three other smaller cities into the bunch.
Yeah, I forgot Louisville, though, to me, Lousiville was always a "border" city, not real "South". It's like a smaller Cincy culturally, very German and Catholic. Few Baptists and Methodists and Scotch Irish like the "real" South.

And, yeah, there are some smaller cities, like Mobile, but we're talking a few blocks here and there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2017, 01:19 PM
 
6,297 posts, read 13,182,702 times
Reputation: 2789
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutiny77 View Post
You forgot Louisville. And I'd throw Asheville and maybe two or three other smaller cities into the bunch.
Louisville has every bit as much prewar structures as the others, particularly when you include the "Falls Cities"....the 19th century metropolis of Louisville, KY and New Albany, Jeffersonville, and Clarksville, IN
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2017, 01:53 PM
 
4,229 posts, read 4,117,823 times
Reputation: 3186
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckhthankgod View Post
Perhaps there is a loss in translation in regard to what the core is. Some may view it as inner city neighborhoods and some may view it as the city proper.

Also, if anything "Legacy" cities were hurt more by the one-two punch of annexation limitations and urban renewal. Many of these cities haven't annexed anything in several decades, if not over a century. So, one could argue that said cities may not get enough credit for the urban neighborhoods that are still intact in those cities with less land to relatively work with.
My comment was a reply to posters saying right out side of downtown and midtown Atlanta is suburban. And that's false and what I was replying to.

Right outside of Downtown and midtown Atlanta are still Atlanta inner ring neighborhoods that are historic and were originally develop 1870 to 1940. The street are narrow because they develop with Atlanta historic street car line and for horse and carriage.

Besides Ansley Parks, and A few areas in Iman Park that are Victorian mansions, most neighborhoods surrounding Downtown and midtown Atlanta have small lots size very similar to Cleveland. Atlanta does start to get suburban but that further north in Buckhead or futher to the southwest and south. Not right outside of Downtown. The east side is more develop and unfortunately going through gentrification and west is more industrial and blight, and was a huge victim of white flight. The biggest difference is architecture Atlanta being in the south it would be similar to New Orleans with shoot guns, and more traditional wooden Victorian and crafts man homes then what you see in the Midwest.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2017, 02:09 PM
 
4,229 posts, read 4,117,823 times
Reputation: 3186
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
I don't care if they were built in 400 BC. They aren't urban, and they're oriented towards the car. There are even inner city streets without sidewalks.

And 1940 isn't "historic", LOL. That's considered the modernist era already. We aren't talking horse-and-buggy. Half of the suburbs in the Northeast were established by WW2.
I'm not use your definition or opinion....I'm litteally using national register of historic places, most of the neighborhoods around downtown and midtown were built are on the national register of historic places litteally because they are pre WW2. And I said 1870-1940 not 1940, the neighborhoods were originally built
In that time frame most of which before WW2.

Also stop..... that is litteally a lie....Atlanta core has very narrow street and most don't have drive ways litteally because they were develop before popular use of car. The homes have small plots similar to the Midwest near the street.

At this point your litteally lying while being completely oblivious to the neighborhoods history, names and development and trying to get as far as you can with talking points.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2017, 03:00 PM
 
4,229 posts, read 4,117,823 times
Reputation: 3186
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
As I said in another thread, I consider the cutoff between "core urban" and "semi urban" to have begun in some cities as early as the 1890s when the electric streetcar was perfected. In many areas this moved residential construction towards detached single-family homes with yards. There might still have been sidewalks, some local businesses within walking distance, and mass car ownership was still 30 years away, but fundamentally streetcar suburbia was an early form of suburbs, not a late form of the urban core. Thus I don't really give cities like Atlanta (or Cleveland, for that matter) much credit for urbanity for having swathes of streetcar suburbia.

Built environment was also very different in the country depending upon area. In the 19th century some portions of the country (Mid Atlantic, Ohio River Valley, San Francisco) were very much into attached housing, which provided a more cohesive urban feel with a continual street wall. In contrast, both areas to the north (New England and the Upper Midwest) and the south (the South proper) tended to build detached houses (or 2-3 unit structures) with setbacks from the street even during this period, making the areas feel less intensely urban from a street level.
Only New York, Philly, New Orleans, Chicago, Boston, Baltimore and San Francisco and maybe Savanah and Charleston fit you defination of urban

Most American cities do not have row houses only the east coast cities have a large stark.

90% of Americans cities from Seattle, Minneapolis and even most of Chicago are single family homes. Even most of New Orleans outside the French quarter is most single family homes.

Suburb and looking suburbia are too different things. Brooklyn was a suburb at first so is Brooklyn suburban of course not. A suburb can be urban. During that time 1880 - 1910 most American cities were just 10 to 50 sq mi. Basically just there downtowns, So they later annex the dense areas around their downtown which are now inner neighborhoods. The street car or trolley suburbs weren't suburban. While some did have larger yard most of which wasn't that different than the development that was already in the city.

What we identify as suburban today didn't start until the 1920s neighborhoods develop for cars, but the prototype for today suburbs didn't happen until levittown NY 1947.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2017, 03:56 PM
 
1,039 posts, read 1,051,700 times
Reputation: 2355
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiatldal View Post
90% of Americans cities from Seattle, Minneapolis and even most of Chicago are single family homes. Even most of New Orleans outside the French quarter is most single family homes.
I assume you mean based upon land area? Even in cities like Houston, only 60% of the population live in single family homes. Chicago is 48% single family. Seattle metro is 61% single family, Minneapolis is 66% single family.

https://www.census.gov/prod/1/statbrief/sb94_15.pdf
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