"Suburban" style cities like L.A., SD, Seattle, Atlanta vs. "urban" like Miami, NYC, SF..which one do u prefer????? (moving to, suburbs)

[ainulinale]

Originally Posted by gladt

PHX, Charlotte, Nashville, Indy and Tampa are no where near as urban as Dallas and Houston.

So what do you want to call them? Rural? Or move Dallas and Houston up to "semi-urban"?

[johnatl]

Originally Posted by ainulinale

I know everyone has been waiting anxiously for my immaculate opinion.
Anyway, I shall now cure your incessant worry. The way I see it, here's how cities stack up (only urban cities are ranked):

Urban Cities (basically the Northeast)

(1) New York City
(2) Boston
(3) Philadelphia
(4) San Francisco
(5) Chicago
(6) Washington DC
(7) Baltimore
(8) Pittsburgh
(9) New Orleans
(10) Cincinnati


Semi-Urban Cities (basically the Midwest)
St. Louis
Buffalo
Los Angeles
Seattle
Columbus
Miami
Cleveland
Detroit
Milwaukee
Portland


Sub-Urban Cities (Basically the Sunbelt)

Charlotte
Atlanta
Tampa
Nashville
Indianapolis
Kansas City
Minneapolis
Dallas
Houston
San Antonio
Denver
Phoenix
Las Vegas
San Diego

Disagreement is welcome.

You need a sub-category for Failed Urban

[ainulinale]

Originally Posted by johnatl

You need a sub-category for Failed Urban

And what cities would be under that category?

[john_starks]

i like urban - skyscrapers and concrete as far as the eye can see......

[Katiana]

I would move both Denver and Minneapolis up to semi-urban. I'm more familiar with Denver, so I will present my case:

Denver has a central core with a fairly dense downtown. The city neighborhoods are single family houses, duplexes, short little rows of one story row houses and low-rise apt. buildings. The houses and duplexes are on smallish lots. There are several walkable (to the neighbors, anyway) shopping areas away from downtown, such as S. University Blvd, Old South Pearl, etc. I feel Denver is at least on a par with Columbus as far as urbanity is concerned.

I have spent less time in Mpls, but have seen enough of it to know it has a central core area and some other in-town shopping areas as well (Uptown?).

[ainulinale]

Originally Posted by Katiana

I feel Denver is at least on a par with Columbus as far as urbanity is concerned.

I completely disagree. I don't see anything dense about Denver, while Columbus has some neighborhoods in its south side that look like the dense parts of St. Louis.

Anyway, I realize I've taken this thread off topic and I apologize.

[garmin239]

Urban.
I like the culture, history, ethnic enclaves, architecture, street life associated with it.
I find the atmosphere of suburban cities to be boring. If I wanted to be in a suburb, I'd go to a suburb.

[jluke65780]

Originally Posted by missionhome

I do not think Houston and L.A. are that structurally similar. Los Angeles' most urban areas are a good amount denser than Houston's most urban areas and Los Angeles' most suburban areas are much denser than Houston's most suburban areas.

The aerial pictures seem to show how Los Angeles is much more continuous. It is a low rise density (hence urban sprawl, but it is much more packed in). There isn't an acre that isn't covered in development while Houston seems to be more spread out. Please correct me if I am wrong, please do.

Los Angeles Development:





Even the non-dense "San Fernando Valley" it dense looking for being the most suburban part of the city against Houston's suburban regions.



As you can see, lots of Los Angeles is packed in with 3-10 story apartment complexes and duplexes with tiny bungalows spread between.

Here is Houston for a comparison:
Seems like there are more single family lots with yards in the front and back.






I personally don't think they are that similar, but maybe I am missing a perspective you would like to share. Los Angeles is sort of alone as the only place that is so dense, but still sprawling. Miami might be the other city in that category, not sure.

Houston is very dense within it's core and parts of it are built like LA. Those aerial shots don't show the true Houston. Go Look at Google Maps and type in Houston and tell me it is not dense around it's core. The highways is what messes it up, also you have to remember Houston has lots of trees, tall trees while LA don't have as much as Houston. You also have the big bayous, which the city tries to not built up around too much due to flooding. Where there is development in Houston, it is very dense.

[Rachael84]

Originally Posted by jluke65780

Houston is very dense within it's core and parts of it are built like LA. Those aerial shots don't show the true Houston. Go Look at Google Maps and type in Houston and tell me it is not dense around it's core.

lol the NYC suburbs have more people per square mile than Houston does.

[vdy1985]

Houston population density: 3,828/sq mi
Los Angeles population density: 8,205/sq mi

The numbers speak. Look, Houston has big bayous that are not built up around, but Los Angeles has huge mountainous/hilly regions in it's city limit which cannot be developed either.