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 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-30-2009, 07:33 AM
 
Location: West Seattle, WA
12,880 posts, read 19,589,592 times
Reputation: 5780

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by PDX_LAX View Post
Every city has people in it who want to be there and people who don't. I'm sure many people do want to move to Houston or Dallas. I'm sure some people want to move to Detroit too. All I'm saying is that, by and large, young educated professionals would rather live in places like Boston and San Francisco than Houston. But for people who like warm weather and don't mind humidity, Houston is attractive.

But don't kid yourself. Do you actually believe people would be leaving California and the north en masse to Texas if the economy was no better and housing was just as expensive? Please.
As a matter of fact, they have been doing it for decades, and regardless of the economic cycle.
The lower housing cost is just the icing on the cake.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-30-2009, 08:30 AM
 
116 posts, read 145,114 times
Reputation: 118
Let's start talking some actual facts. Here's the information that we have for these cities from the last official Census. Now keep in mind this thread is also about "urban." Not sure in what universe places like Denver, Houston, Atlanta, and Dallas are considered "urban." If those cities are "urban" than what the hell do you call places like New York, Chicago, Boston and Philadelphia. No doubt they are "popular" cities though and fantastic places to live, but it sounds like some people on this forum need to do a lot more travelling.

---


Last edited by yoyobubba; 09-30-2009 at 08:40 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2009, 09:06 AM
 
Location: West Seattle, WA
12,880 posts, read 19,589,592 times
Reputation: 5780
Quote:
Originally Posted by yoyobubba View Post
Let's start talking some actual facts. Here's the information that we have for these cities from the last official Census. Now keep in mind this thread is also about "urban." Not sure in what universe places like Denver, Houston, Atlanta, and Dallas are considered "urban." If those cities are "urban" than what the hell do you call places like New York, Chicago, Boston and Philadelphia. No doubt they are "popular" cities though and fantastic places to live, but it sounds like some people on this forum need to do a lot more travelling.
Urban:
1.Of, related to, or located in a city.
2. Characteristic of the city or city life.

So what is it about Denver, Houston, Atlanta and Dallas that does not fit this definition?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2009, 10:38 AM
 
116 posts, read 145,114 times
Reputation: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by LovinDecatur View Post
Urban:
1.Of, related to, or located in a city.
2. Characteristic of the city or city life.

So what is it about Denver, Houston, Atlanta and Dallas that does not fit this definition?
I guess McDonald's and Morton's Steakhouse are both considered "restaurants." Have you BEEN to cities like New York or Chicago?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2009, 11:24 AM
 
7,852 posts, read 12,754,268 times
Reputation: 2611
Quote:
Originally Posted by yoyobubba View Post
I guess McDonald's and Morton's Steakhouse are both considered "restaurants." Have you BEEN to cities like New York or Chicago?
Yes, we've all been to Chicago and New York...and even in the South we know what "urban" means. What do you think any large-city downtown IS? Suburban? It sounds like you're the one who needs to travel and update his education.

The areas outside of New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Houston, Atlanta, Baltimore, Dallas, Boston, Denver, L.A., etc...those are SUBURBAN areas. All cities have them. The inner city areas of those same cities are called URBAN. They aren't all exactly cookie-cutter replicas of each other, but they are still URBAN.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2009, 11:56 AM
 
Location: West Seattle, WA
12,880 posts, read 19,589,592 times
Reputation: 5780
Quote:
Originally Posted by yoyobubba View Post
I guess McDonald's and Morton's Steakhouse are both considered "restaurants." Have you BEEN to cities like New York or Chicago?
Honey, I had probably visited these cities several times at the same time you were in diapers. I lived in NYC, matter of fact. You?
What is clear is that if you don't consider Denver, Dallas, Houston and Atlanta 'urban', you don't know squat about any of them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2009, 11:57 AM
 
5,335 posts, read 4,606,175 times
Reputation: 4725
Default Enough of this..

Quote:
Originally Posted by yoyobubba View Post
I guess McDonald's and Morton's Steakhouse are both considered "restaurants." Have you BEEN to cities like New York or Chicago?
..older American city parochialism; NYC, Boston, Philly, Chicago, et al., are not better because they're older, and more densely-populated ( I live in the Boston area, BTW).The older NE/MW cities have their charms, to be sure, but they certainly don't have a monopoly on class. You could certainly argue that the Northeast cities represent a little of the Old World Europe in the New World, which would explain the appearance ( and density) of cities like Boston, NYC, Philly, etc. As the years have passed, other cities have developed ( and yes, sprawled a bit) in other parts of the country, and their pattern of settlement is more relaxed and "spread-out", more suburban in nature, and maybe, JUST MAYBE, represent a lifestyle that many American actually prefer, instead of living in a sardine can, with your neighbors sharing all of your walls.

Let me make this clear: I'm not in favor of McMansions; they're a complete waste of increasingly scarce resources. But I'm not talking about McMansions; I'm talking about small, suburban ranch homes or somewhat older homes on the edges of cities. If you want a little sense of space and freedom, or simply want a yard that the kids can enjoy, there's nothing wrong with these homes, and, frankly, quite a bit that's good about them. Otheerwise, how do explain the growth of bungalows in the 1920's in Chicago, before the great suburban push in the late '40's and '50's? How do you account for the growth of the Levittowns on Long Island? All of these were considered to be a "step up" in the world, a little more privacy, a little more peace and quiet at night, a little more of something that you could call your own.

I like Boston, and it certainly has its charms, but it's not the only game in town--and neither is NYC, Philly, Baltimore, etc. And when considering what the conditions of the inner cities of Philly and Baltimore have deteriorated to, there's not much of anything to be proud of there.

This post is getting too long, so I'll just end it. I just felt that some of us are hearing a little too much from the "amen" chorus of the Church of Urban Density, and that the rest of the congregation needed to be heard, as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2009, 01:50 PM
 
116 posts, read 145,114 times
Reputation: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeaconJ View Post
Yes, we've all been to Chicago and New York...
Somehow I doubt everyone in here has been to Chicago and New York. It certainly doesn't sound like it.

Quote:
and even in the South we know what "urban" means. What do you think any large-city downtown IS? Suburban? It sounds like you're the one who needs to travel and update his education.
I have been to all of those cities and lived in three of them. That's what happens when you used to be a travelling DJ. Yes, Atlanta and Dallas's "urban" areas are less dense and more suburban than many of Chicago and New York's actual suburbs. That's the problem. Some people are getting all hung up on words and not the actual realities.

Quote:
The areas outside of New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Houston, Atlanta, Baltimore, Dallas, Boston, Denver, L.A., etc...those are SUBURBAN areas. All cities have them. The inner city areas of those same cities are called URBAN. They aren't all exactly cookie-cutter replicas of each other, but they are still URBAN.
Just like McDonald's and Morton's Steakhouse are both called "restaurants" I guess.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2009, 01:58 PM
 
7,852 posts, read 12,754,268 times
Reputation: 2611
Quote:
Originally Posted by yoyobubba View Post
Somehow I doubt everyone in here has been to Chicago and New York. It certainly doesn't sound like it.



I have been to all of those cities and lived in three of them. That's what happens when you used to be a travelling DJ. Yes, Atlanta and Dallas's "urban" areas are less dense and more suburban than many of Chicago and New York's actual suburbs. That's the problem. Some people are getting all hung up on words and not the actual realities.



Just like McDonald's and Morton's Steakhouse are both called "restaurants" I guess.
Whatever you say...you're the boss, the rest of us are not lucky enough to be a "traveling DJ".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2009, 01:58 PM
 
116 posts, read 145,114 times
Reputation: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by LovinDecatur View Post
Honey, I had probably visited these cities several times at the same time you were in diapers. I lived in NYC, matter of fact. You?
What is clear is that if you don't consider Denver, Dallas, Houston and Atlanta 'urban', you don't know squat about any of them.
Are we going to play the "whose penis is larger game?" I'll let you win that one ahead of time. But I have lived in, in this order, Milwaukee (18 years), Madison (3 years), Raleigh (2 years), Tallahassee (1 year), Carrborro (NC) (4 years), Gastonia (NC) (1 year), Miami (1 year), London (England, EC1N) (1 year), New York City (Clinton/Houston) (1 year), Oakland (1 year), Alpharetta (GA) (1 year), Chicago (4 years).

And no, I don't consider those cities you listed "urban." They are VERY nice cities and I would live in any of them in a second. But as far as being "urban" they are not if you want to also call places like New York and Chicago "urban." Then you will need an entirely new definition. There are probably more people walking around outside in Boston than all of those cities you listed combined for instance. There are suburbs of Chicago like Evanston that are more urban than most of the city of Atlanta. It's just the way things are. A couple of you are awfully sensitive about this. It doesn't make your penis smaller you know.
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 $84,000 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
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, 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 - Top