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)
 
 
Old 08-12-2017, 07:08 PM
 
2,089 posts, read 1,402,456 times
Reputation: 2099

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiatldal View Post
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.

.
You left out Pittsburgh which still has a large amount of rowhouse neighborhoods. Also to a lesser extent , St. Louis and Cincinnati, but I'm sure have more than Charleston and Savannah .
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-12-2017, 07:17 PM
 
4,431 posts, read 4,345,377 times
Reputation: 3478
Quote:
Originally Posted by RocketSci View Post
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
Yes I mean area, whole blocks and neighborhoods. 2 apartments building may make most of a neighborhood but areas wise it mostly dense single family homes.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2017, 07:20 PM
 
4,431 posts, read 4,345,377 times
Reputation: 3478
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Buster View Post
You left out Pittsburgh which still has a large amount of rowhouse neighborhoods. Also to a lesser extent , St. Louis and Cincinnati, but I'm sure have more than Charleston and Savannah .
I wouldn't call them row house cities but your right, This is true..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2017, 07:30 PM
 
2,089 posts, read 1,402,456 times
Reputation: 2099
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiatldal View Post
I wouldn't call them row house cities but your right, This is true..
Pittsburgh is definitely a rowhouse city in the urban core and even some areas outside the city. The other two I'm not as familiar with but they do have a substantial amount.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2017, 07:42 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,213 posts, read 11,628,041 times
Reputation: 10319
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Buster View Post
You left out Pittsburgh which still has a large amount of rowhouse neighborhoods. Also to a lesser extent , St. Louis and Cincinnati, but I'm sure have more than Charleston and Savannah .
He also left out DC, which has a significant rowhouse core.

While Cinci and St. Louis lost a lot of their rowhouses to urban renewal, they maintained "rowhouse-like" building forms. Both cities built large numbers of houses with zero setback from the street which were only detached by a breezeway of a few feet, along with multi-story mini-apartment buildings - both of which, like rowhouses, helped to give the feeling of a continual street wall when on the sidewalk.

Obviously urbanity is on a spectrum though, as by Manhattan standards many Philadelphia neighborhoods would be seen as "suburban." But my original point was replying to an Atlanta poster who said the claims of Atlanta being suburbs right outside of Downtown/Midtown are false because there is prewar housing in Atlanta. My point is the prewar housing typology is mostly detached single-family houses, with some 2-3 units mixed in, set back from the street generously and set a good distance from the neighboring houses as well. In a Pittsburgh context, I'd compare it to somewhere like Highland Park - which I don't think of as particularly urban. Only the buildings in a similar neighborhood in Atlanta are spaced even further apart.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2017, 10:19 AM
 
Location: Tampa - St. Louis
1,032 posts, read 1,588,187 times
Reputation: 1392
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiatldal View Post
You got times a little mixed up you 1900s that mean 1800 - 1899 not 1800s
No when somebody says 1800s they mean 1800-1899, 19th century also means 1800-1899. Saying 1800s and 19th century are interchangeable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiatldal View Post
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.
An East Coast city can very well be a Gilded Age city if a great deal of their growth in development took place in that era. There is no rule that says a city cannot be a Colonial city and a Gilded Age city. New York is a Colonial, Gilded Age, and Modern City, because it has experienced a significant amount of development in all of these eras.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiatldal View Post
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.
No, Gilded Age is a specific part of the 19th century. The Gilded Age is a period of time between 1870-1900.

Atlanta was barely a top 50 city in 1870, at around 20,000 residents. Cleveland the 15th largest, but was still a rather smallish city of 92,000 at that time. Kansas City was a third of the size of Cleveland. Minneapolis, Birmingham, Seattle, Akron were not even top 100 cities when this era started. Chicago was slightly smaller than St. Louis at around 300,000 residents. New York did not even have 1 million people yet and it wasn't too much bigger than Philadelphia.

By 1900, Cleveland had caught the tale end of the Gilded Age and grew into the top 10 cities. By 1900, Atlanta was about the size of Cleveland when the era started, less than 100,000 people and not even a top 40 city. By the the time 1900 came around the streetcar era was in full swing and Atlanta began to pick up steam, but the Southern region was losing a lot of population from African-Americans fleeing North to escape the Klan and Jim Crow laws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiatldal View Post
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.
I never said that Atlanta did not have prewar development or was all suburban. I also never said that cities formed at once. Cities are a continuum of many different era of development, that's what makes them dynamic and keeps them growing.

My point is that Atlanta has a good amount of streetcar urbanism at it's core, but 90% of the metropolitan area is the product of car-oritented development.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiatldal View Post
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.
Again Atlanta was never a substantial Gilded Age city, it was burned to the ground during the Civil War and really didn't start growing again until the early 20th century. There was no need for Atlanta to reinvent itself in any real way because it never was a heavy industry city, you cannot find any true heavy industry cities in the South because it was an agrarian slave society pre-Civil War and by the time the American Industrial Revolution reached it's Gilded Age apex, the South was shedding population, needing to rebuild from the Civil War, and more concerned with Jim Crow politics than real economic development at that time. Most of the South, including Atlanta, did not start to truly take off until after the Civil Rights Movement when many African-Americans could return to their American homeland and it was seen as open to development.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiatldal View Post
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.
Again, no city in the South had over a million people in their metropolitan area pre-war II or the 1950 suburban sprawl. Atlanta, Houston, and Dallas were about the size of present-day Little Rock, AR or Charleston, SC. My grandparents are still amazed at how much Atlanta has grown in stature and influence since they were young. Think about it, my grandparents were from the South and moved to St. Louis as young kids. By 1950, the St. Louis Metro was about 3x the size of Atlanta, now Atlanta is easily 2x the size of St. Louis. St. Louis like Cleveland has experienced most of it's growth prior to 1950, while Atlanta has experience an even more disproportional amount of its growth after 1950. Obviously the cities are going to function different and have a totally different layout and feel.


Nice neighborhoods, but just to put it in perspective. These neighborhoods are common on the edge of city limits and inner ring suburbs of St. Louis.

The point people are trying to make is that there are not too many blocks like this in Atlanta, while St. Louis is typified by blocks like this.

Benton Park - 2.5 miles from downtown

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.5987...7i13312!8i6656

Dutchtown - about 6 miles from downtown

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.5670...7i13312!8i6656

With that said there are benefits to being a high growth city in the 21st century. I would love to see some Buckhead styled development like this intertwined in St. Louis' existing urban fabric. Which is one of the reasons I love the DC Metro area, because it kind of looks like Atlanta and St. Louis had a baby.

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8379...7i13312!8i6656
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2017, 03:41 PM
 
4,431 posts, read 4,345,377 times
Reputation: 3478
Quote:
Originally Posted by goat314 View Post
No when somebody says 1800s they mean 1800-1899, 19th century also means 1800-1899. Saying 1800s and 19th century are interchangeable.
No you say the number afterward to represent the who century before. but this is pointless cause it has nothing to do with our debate. As long as we are on the same time line.


Quote:
An East Coast city can very well be a Gilded Age city if a great deal of their growth in development took place in that era. There is no rule that says a city cannot be a Colonial city and a Gilded Age city. New York is a Colonial, Gilded Age, and Modern City, because it has experienced a significant amount of development in all of these eras.
I said when cities originally layout their cores, East coast cities are colonial pre Gilded Age cities, they can redevelop later but I'm not taking about that. I 'm saying when cities originally made their core street scapes and etc. Colonial is a denser age then the gilded aged.

Quote:
No, Gilded Age is a specific part of the 19th century. The Gilded Age is a period of time between 1870-1900.
I just said The Gilded Age is the later part of that century, your just disagreed and literally said what I said.



Quote:
Atlanta was barely a top 50 city in 1870, at around 20,000 residents. Cleveland the 15th largest, but was still a rather smallish city of 92,000 at that time. Kansas City was a third of the size of Cleveland. Minneapolis, Birmingham, Seattle, Akron were not even top 100 cities when this era started. Chicago was slightly smaller than St. Louis at around 300,000 residents. New York did not even have 1 million people yet and it wasn't too much bigger than Philadelphia.
I taking specially there cores this means downtowns and neighborhhoods around there downtown


With cities you plan ahead you look at development though the period not the start of it, Atlanta went from 1870 20k to over 150k by 1910. this means Atlanta core neighborhoods develop in gilded age.

Cabbagetown Atlanta 1881

Sweet Auburn 1865

Grant Park Atlanta 1858

Midtown Historic District 1885

etc, etc, etc, etc,

Neighborhoods that develop 1920's, 1950's, 1970's. All would reflect the time frame.

Quote:
By 1900, Cleveland had caught the tale end of the Gilded Age and grew into the top 10 cities. By 1900, Atlanta was about the size of Cleveland when the era started, less than 100,000 people and not even a top 40 city. By the the time 1900 came around the streetcar era was in full swing and Atlanta began to pick up steam, but the Southern region was losing a lot of population from African-Americans fleeing North to escape the Klan and Jim Crow laws.
Again Atlanta core neighborhoods where develop during the Gilded Age, "during".... "during" I didn't say before I said during, Atlanta went from a small city at start of the gilded age to 100k by the end.

Atlanta Street car history 1871


Quote:
I never said that Atlanta did not have prewar development or was all suburban. I also never said that cities formed at once. Cities are a continuum of many different era of development, that's what makes them dynamic and keeps them growing.

My point is that Atlanta has a good amount of streetcar urbanism at it's core, but 90% of the metropolitan area is the product of car-oritented development.
I never said you said it did, I was responding to another post

This why I jump in, the bold is false.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
But Cleveland has a prewar urban form that can't be found in Atlanta. In Atlanta it looks like the suburbs right outside of downtown. Even Midtown feels kinda suburban right off Peachtree.

Cleveland has a nice legacy urbanism that can't be duplicated in a sprawly Sunbelt city.
^^^^^^^^

Quote:
Again Atlanta was never a substantial Gilded Age city, it was burned to the ground during the Civil War and really didn't start growing again until the early 20th century. There was no need for Atlanta to reinvent itself in any real way because it never was a heavy industry city, you cannot find any true heavy industry cities in the South because it was an agrarian slave society pre-Civil War and by the time the American Industrial Revolution reached it's Gilded Age apex, the South was shedding population, needing to rebuild from the Civil War, and more concerned with Jim Crow politics than real economic development at that time. Most of the South, including Atlanta, did not start to truly take off until after the Civil Rights Movement when many African-Americans could return to their American homeland and it was seen as open to development.
Again I said Atlanta core develop during Gilded Age, I didn't say before.

Atlanta is 132 sq mi today but cities didn't develop at once........ Atlanta core neighborhoods downtown and neighborhhods surround in where develop during the gilded age............. before the cities later started expanding to rest of the 132 sq mi in more car oriented way.

This contradicts what NOLA said......

Also I can tell you don't much about the city of Atlanta history..

New Orleans, Savanah and etc where agrarian cities, Atlanta and Birmingham are meant to be opposite new Orleans.

Birmingham AL is name after Birmingham UK for a reason. Atlanta is name after and was founded by the railroad,

during the civil war the south lack industry and railroads, Which made Atlanta still a small town serve a greater importance

Atlanta Rolling Mill

immediately After the civil war in 1870's...... Atlanta is the the birth place of the concept "New South"

New South

Atlanta 1889

https://wdanielanderson.files.wordpr...9/1889view.jpg


Quote:
Again, no city in the South had over a million people in their metropolitan area pre-war II or the 1950 suburban sprawl. Atlanta, Houston, and Dallas were about the size of present-day Little Rock, AR or Charleston, SC. My grandparents are still amazed at how much Atlanta has grown in stature and influence since they were young. Think about it, my grandparents were from the South and moved to St. Louis as young kids. By 1950, the St. Louis Metro was about 3x the size of Atlanta, now Atlanta is easily 2x the size of St. Louis. St. Louis like Cleveland has experienced most of it's growth prior to 1950, while Atlanta has experience an even more disproportional amount of its growth after 1950. Obviously the cities are going to function different and have a totally different layout and feel.
This called a straw man

I said a million before the sunbelt boom after 1960 - 1970's.

Dallas, Atlanta, and Houston where already a million before the "Sunbelt" boom even happen. So they are non sunbelt cities that latter became sunbelt cities.

A lot of posters speak like Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston are the same age as Orlando, Charlotte, Tampa.

Atlanta downtown during the 1920's was more infill

http://sites.gsu.edu/rcagle2/files/2...0s-2jx5edw.jpg


basically Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston went to town on themselves during urban renewal on the 50's -60's.

https://wdanielanderson.files.wordpr...pg?w=750&h=761

Quote:
Nice neighborhoods, but just to put it in perspective. These neighborhoods are common on the edge of city limits and inner ring suburbs of St. Louis.

The point people are trying to make is that there are not too many blocks like this in Atlanta, while St. Louis is typified by blocks like this.

With that said there are benefits to being a high growth city in the 21st century. I would love to see some Buckhead styled development like this intertwined in St. Louis' existing urban fabric. Which is one of the reasons I love the DC Metro area, because it kind of looks like Atlanta and St. Louis had a baby.

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8379...7i13312!8i6656
This a new Orleans Ariel, outside of THE CBD, and the french quarter most of the city is single home, most of most Americans cities are single family not just edge but most there city.


And most chicago outside of it's Downtoewn look like this.


New Orleans largely looks like this

Cleveland

Chicago

Chicago


Atlanta Gilded Age neighborhoods, in Atlanta core are develop like other Gilded Age neighborhoods.






"The suburban" city of Atlanta neighborhoods are further out and develop later.

My point was never Atlanta is a urban as Cleveland of course not.

My point was towards "But Cleveland has a prewar urban form that can't be found in Atlanta. In Atlanta it looks like the suburbs right outside of downtown. Even Midtown feels kinda suburban right off Peachtree. "

Mean while.............. Correction ............. right outside of Downtown Atlanta are literally are pre war gilded historic neighborhoods. With small home plots similar Cleveland.

What Atlanta doesn't have that Cleveland does have, are further away from the core neighborhoods that still urban.

Basically a sunbelt taking point was told, like hey it's a sunbelt city....... so let just say stuff.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2017, 03:53 PM
 
4,431 posts, read 4,345,377 times
Reputation: 3478
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
He also left out DC, which has a significant rowhouse core.
I said DC as East coast cities.

but my point was most American cities urban neighborhoods aren't rowhouses only a few have a significant stock that you can compare to an East coast city. of course there a few exceptions.

Most American cities are dense single family homes, with multi family units here and there.

Dense single family homes look a lot different than single family homes with large or medium yard plots. In cities like Chicago even single family homes create a canyon.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2017, 05:30 PM
 
Location: Tampa - St. Louis
1,032 posts, read 1,588,187 times
Reputation: 1392
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiatldal View Post
No you say the number afterward to represent the who century before. but this is pointless cause it has nothing to do with our debate. As long as we are on the same time line.



I said when cities originally layout their cores, East coast cities are colonial pre Gilded Age cities, they can redevelop later but I'm not taking about that. I 'm saying when cities originally made their core street scapes and etc. Colonial is a denser age then the gilded aged.


I just said The Gilded Age is the later part of that century, your just disagreed and literally said what I said.





I taking specially there cores this means downtowns and neighborhhoods around there downtown


With cities you plan ahead you look at development though the period not the start of it, Atlanta went from 1870 20k to over 150k by 1910. this means Atlanta core neighborhoods develop in gilded age.

Cabbagetown Atlanta 1881

Sweet Auburn 1865

Grant Park Atlanta 1858

Midtown Historic District 1885

etc, etc, etc, etc,

Neighborhoods that develop 1920's, 1950's, 1970's. All would reflect the time frame.


Again Atlanta core neighborhoods where develop during the Gilded Age, "during".... "during" I didn't say before I said during, Atlanta went from a small city at start of the gilded age to 100k by the end.

Atlanta Street car history 1871



I never said you said it did, I was responding to another post

This why I jump in, the bold is false.

^^^^^^^^


Again I said Atlanta core develop during Gilded Age, I didn't say before.

Atlanta is 132 sq mi today but cities didn't develop at once........ Atlanta core neighborhoods downtown and neighborhhods surround in where develop during the gilded age............. before the cities later started expanding to rest of the 132 sq mi in more car oriented way.

This contradicts what NOLA said......

Also I can tell you don't much about the city of Atlanta history..

New Orleans, Savanah and etc where agrarian cities, Atlanta and Birmingham are meant to be opposite new Orleans.

Birmingham AL is name after Birmingham UK for a reason. Atlanta is name after and was founded by the railroad,

during the civil war the south lack industry and railroads, Which made Atlanta still a small town serve a greater importance

Atlanta Rolling Mill

immediately After the civil war in 1870's...... Atlanta is the the birth place of the concept "New South"

New South

Atlanta 1889

https://wdanielanderson.files.wordpr...9/1889view.jpg



This called a straw man

I said a million before the sunbelt boom after 1960 - 1970's.

Dallas, Atlanta, and Houston where already a million before the "Sunbelt" boom even happen. So they are non sunbelt cities that latter became sunbelt cities.

A lot of posters speak like Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston are the same age as Orlando, Charlotte, Tampa.

Atlanta downtown during the 1920's was more infill

http://sites.gsu.edu/rcagle2/files/2...0s-2jx5edw.jpg


basically Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston went to town on themselves during urban renewal on the 50's -60's.

https://wdanielanderson.files.wordpr...pg?w=750&h=761



This a new Orleans Ariel, outside of THE CBD, and the french quarter most of the city is single home, most of most Americans cities are single family not just edge but most there city.


And most chicago outside of it's Downtoewn look like this.


New Orleans largely looks like this

Cleveland

Chicago

Chicago


Atlanta Gilded Age neighborhoods, in Atlanta core are develop like other Gilded Age neighborhoods.






"The suburban" city of Atlanta neighborhoods are further out and develop later.

My point was never Atlanta is a urban as Cleveland of course not.

My point was towards "But Cleveland has a prewar urban form that can't be found in Atlanta. In Atlanta it looks like the suburbs right outside of downtown. Even Midtown feels kinda suburban right off Peachtree. "

Mean while.............. Correction ............. right outside of Downtown Atlanta are literally are pre war gilded historic neighborhoods. With small home plots similar Cleveland.

What Atlanta doesn't have that Cleveland does have, are further away from the core neighborhoods that still urban.

Basically a sunbelt taking point was told, like hey it's a sunbelt city....... so let just say stuff.
How is it a strawman to point out that pre-war Atlanta was a relatively smallish metropolitan area? This is fact and Atlanta was never a major metropolitan area until well after the post-war suburban boom. I for one do not think that makes Atlanta a lesser city. In fact, it probably helped Atlanta that it was not a major industrial city before the Sunbelt boom, or else it would have definitely been hindered by the same legacy issues that have stagnated Cleveland, St. Louis, Detroit, Pittsburgh etc.

In 1950, The metros of Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston were a lot closer in size to Tampa, Phoenix, San Diego, and Miami etc. than Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis. I think that is really evident in the development patterns and core neighborhoods of each city. Atlanta is rather suburban (even somewhat rural in areas) once you get outside of the core high rise areas of the city. There is a tremendous amount of infill going on in Atlanta, but even the street layout of Atlanta doesn't allow for significant residential density outside certain nodes. There is a lack of sidewalks and urban infrastructure even in core neighborhoods, but as I mentioned before this is changing and Atlanta has plenty of new urbanist developments that looks fantastic.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2017, 09:04 PM
 
2,963 posts, read 1,404,364 times
Reputation: 2151
Quote:
Originally Posted by goat314 View Post
How is it a strawman to point out that pre-war Atlanta was a relatively smallish metropolitan area? This is fact and Atlanta was never a major metropolitan area until well after the post-war suburban boom. I for one do not think that makes Atlanta a lesser city. In fact, it probably helped Atlanta that it was not a major industrial city before the Sunbelt boom, or else it would have definitely been hindered by the same legacy issues that have stagnated Cleveland, St. Louis, Detroit, Pittsburgh etc.

In 1950, The metros of Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston were a lot closer in size to Tampa, Phoenix, San Diego, and Miami etc. than Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis. I think that is really evident in the development patterns and core neighborhoods of each city. Atlanta is rather suburban (even somewhat rural in areas) once you get outside of the core high rise areas of the city. There is a tremendous amount of infill going on in Atlanta, but even the street layout of Atlanta doesn't allow for significant residential density outside certain nodes. There is a lack of sidewalks and urban infrastructure even in core neighborhoods, but as I mentioned before this is changing and Atlanta has plenty of new urbanist developments that looks fantastic.
This is all fine and good. But in sunbelt cities as Dallas, Houston and possibly Atlanta too from its metro? Are ALL GROWING MORE SPRAWLY then URBAN in Metro's..... with suburbs still spreading wildly. Ironically, Chicago is getting more urban as #2 by states in % rise with Seattle #1 in % rise in Urbanity.

https://chicago.curbed.com/2017/5/24...lation-density

They didn't include Atlanta in this chart?

Metro Areas Heading in Opposite Directions
Change in average neighborhood density, 2010 to 2016.

~Metropolitan areas that became MORE dense~

Seattle --------- +3.0%
Chicago -------- +1.2%
Minneapolis ---- +0.8%
Washington ---- +0.7%
Boston ----------+0.6%
New York -------+0.5%
Philadelphia ---- +0.5%
Charlotte ------- +0.5%
Portland -------- +0.4%
Hartford -------- +0.3%

~Metropolitan areas that became LESS dense~

Raleigh ----------- -2.4%
Salt Lake City --- -2.8%
Dallas ------------ -2.8%
Orlando ---------- -2.9%
Jacksonville, Fla.- -3.1%
Las Vegas --------- -3.2%
Houston ----------- -3.8%
Oklahoma City ---- -4.1%
Austin -------------- -5.0%
San Antonio ------- - 5.3%

*Source: Source: Analysis of 2016 Census county population estimates and occupied housing unit data from the U.S. Postal Service

Now a Houston inner-Loop neighborhoods .... are growing denser with infill. But overall they have sprawling Metro's still and other sunbelt NON-LEGACY CITIES .... Just probably Atlanta is in the metro MORE TO SPRAWLING LIST I'D SAY .... because of its suburban sprawl growth. Though inner-areas could be getting denser with new infill too.

Last edited by DavePa; 08-14-2017 at 09:41 PM..
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.


 

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.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

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