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.
Atlanta closer to Philadelphia than Houston??? How did you reach that conclusion?
Didn't say it was like Philly. I meant that Atlanta is "closer" to a Philly than a Houston.
I think Atlanta gets sort of a bad rap. Sure, it's a large sprawling city, but it has a very urban gritty side to it as well. The city has subways, interesting urban districts etc. The topography of Atlanta is also very different from Houston, closer to Philly. It has some very dense areas etc, at least more than Houston.
So, in general, it's no Philly, but it's not anywhere near a Houston.
Houston is total sprawlville. The city has "some" good urban districts, but for the most part the metro is very different from Atlanta.
I mean, Buckhead vs Galleria pretty much sums up the differences.
That’s my opinion anyway.
And Houston people don’t take that wrong. I like Houston. It’s a fun city to visit and there are some great places to live there (urban and suburban). It’s near the Gulf etc.
It offers some things Atlanta doesn’t. But Atlanta is not quite like Houston or Phoenix or even Dallas other than the fact that it is a super fast growing area that has massive sprawl issues.
Let me help you out since you don't understand what I said.This was my quote exactly:
I was making reference to history and culture.Savannah DEFINITELY HAS MORE HISTORY AND CULTURE THAN MANY CITIES,including CHARLOTTE.Hell even has more than Atlanta.
And another thing....."HUGE SCALE URBANITY" has nothing to with SIZE.It is SCOPE.I know some busy cities with less than 10,000 people.They are compact and vibrant.So please stop being so sensitive.
History and culture does not equal "urban", just ask the folks who live in Cowpens, SC. The problem is this corny notion of “grit†and a correlation to urbanity. When you talk about grit, you're talking about aesthetics, a particular cosmetic appeal. But that’s not true urbanity. For example, let’s supposed my definition of “urban†was being able to walk out of my townhouse, jump on a train, and ride to my city’s downtown area to catch a professional sports game? I can’t do that in Richmond or Savannah, but I can in Charlotte or Atlanta. Or suppose my definition of urban is something as simple as being able to live in a highrise condo tower? Can you do that in Savannah, ugh, no…and you barely can in Richmond, but not to the extent you could in Charlotte given the number of highrise condo buildings and their comparable heights, and certainly not to the extent of a city like Atlanta by a mile. I'm not being sensitive, we just disagree.
History and culture does not equal "urban", just ask the folks who live in Cowpens, SC. The problem is this corny notion of “grit” and a correlation to urbanity. When you talk about grit, you're talking about aesthetics, a particular cosmetic appeal. But that’s not true urbanity. For example, let’s supposed my definition of “urban” was being able to walk out of my townhouse, jump on a train, and ride to my city’s downtown area to catch a professional sports game? I can’t do that in Richmond or Savannah, but I can in Charlotte or Atlanta. Or suppose my definition of urban is something as simple as being able to live in a highrise condo tower? Can you do that in Savannah, ugh, no…and you barely can in Richmond, but not to the extent you could in Charlotte given the number of highrise condo buildings and their comparable heights, and certainly not to the extent of a city like Atlanta by a mile. I'm not being sensitive, we just disagree.
Ok.I never said any ONE thing equals anything.I said many factors play into whether a city is sterile in some people opinion.I then said some or all can lead to that notion of those cities that fit into that category.You are picking apart some things I sad one by one instaed of the whole context.I never said"history and culture" aloneequals anything.So I don't understand your argument to something I never said in the first place.
I also may ad that to be urban does not mean anything more than access to a city and being apart of the city.It has nothing to do with size,however people do associate it with that at times.Also do you really think a city cannot be urban because it does not have any type of rail or mass transit? Because if thats what you are saying I do disagree.Cities where you can walk out of your house and go to a grocery,clothing store,go to church,then walk to the library or school,meet neighbors in the town square;is what real urbanity is about.All without use of any mechanical conveyance
Ok.I never said any ONE thing equals anything.I said many factors play into whether a city is sterile in some people opinion.I then said some or all can lead to that notion of those cities that fit into that category.You are picking apart some things I sad one by one instaed of the whole context.I never said"history and culture" aloneequals anything.So I don't understand your argument to something I never said in the first place.
I also may ad that to be urban does not mean anything more than access to a city and being apart of the city.It has nothing to do with size,however people do associate it with that at times.Also do you really think a city cannot be urban because it does not have any type of rail or mass transit? Because if thats what you are saying I do disagree.Cities where you can walk out of your house and go to a grocery,clothing store,go to church,then walk to the library or school,meet neighbors in the town square;is what real urbanity is about.All without use of any mechanical conveyance
I didn't say mass transit "alone" defines urban. But to your point above highlighted, you actually prove my point about grit being merely about aesthetics. Because you can do all of the above in Charlotte to the same extent, if not more, than you can in Richmond or Savannah. Add in things like mass transit, more highrises, and more entertainment options, and I'm having a hard time grasping your notion that those places are more urban than Charlotte.
I didn't say mass transit "alone" defines urban. But to your point above highlighted, you actually prove my point about grit being merely about aesthetics. Because you can do all of the above in Charlotte to the same extent, if not more, than you can in Richmond or Savannah. Add in things like mass transit, more highrises, and more entertainment options, and I'm having a hard time grasping your notion that those places are more urban than Charlotte.
Well, highrises and entertainment options are unrelated to urbanity. They may give a place more of a big city vibe, but they don't determine whether a place is urban or not. Richmond and Savannah have much more continuity within their historic urban fabrics. They don't have the gaps in their urban fabric that Charlotte does due to the wholesale demolition of several historic structures in the past. Some were demolished to make room for parking lots, and others were demolished to make room for highrises with absolutely nothing to attract pedestrians at the street level. I mean honestly, those who are really familiar with all three cities and know what all goes into making an urban environment wouldn't really argue this point. Charlotte has its strong suits, which we enjoy, but we're a bit low on the urbanity totem pole. Overall, Richmond and Savannah are significantly more walkable than Charlotte. That's just a fact. Doesn't make us a bad city, especially since we're working to correct the issue, but at this point, it is what it is.
Well, highrises and entertainment options are unrelated to urbanity. They may give a place more of a big city vibe, but they don't determine whether a place is urban or not. Richmond and Savannah have much more continuity within their historic urban fabrics. They don't have the gaps in their urban fabric that Charlotte does due to the wholesale demolition of several historic structures in the past. Some were demolished to make room for parking lots, and others were demolished to make room for highrises with absolutely nothing to attract pedestrians at the street level. I mean honestly, those who are really familiar with all three cities and know what all goes into making an urban environment wouldn't really argue this point. Charlotte has its strong suits, which we enjoy, but we're a bit low on the urbanity totem pole. Overall, Richmond and Savannah are significantly more walkable than Charlotte. That's just a fact. Doesn't make us a bad city, especially since we're working to correct the issue, but at this point, it is what it is.
Yeah, I think we're going to just disagree on this. To me, "urban" is more than just looks, which is much of the argument being made. Savannah might be more walkable, i.e., more sidewalks, more grid patterns, etc, but what are you walking to? And what are you walking to that you couldn't walk to in Charlotte? For example, one thing you can't do in downtown Savannah apparently is walk to a movie theater: Downtown Savannah could use a movie theater : District | The Student Voice of SCAD,
I didn't say mass transit "alone" defines urban. But to your point above highlighted, you actually prove my point about grit being merely about aesthetics. Because you can do all of the above in Charlotte to the same extent, if not more, than you can in Richmond or Savannah. Add in things like mass transit, more highrises, and more entertainment options, and I'm having a hard time grasping your notion that those places are more urban than Charlotte.
Grit was used as a metaphor.Meaning a mix of old,used,and tried.It also means people.A mix of blue collar.Not poor.Take NYC and Houston.NYC is smaller land wise than Houston by more than 200 sq mi.Yet its population is only 1/4 the population of NYC.Same with Atlanta and Charlotte.Charlotte is more than twice the size of Atlanta's land area.Yet its population density for Charlotte is - Density 2,515.7/sq mi (971.3/km2) and for Atlanta is - Density 4,018/sq mi (1,514/km2).Which is almost twice the density of Charlotte.The density in Richmond is considerably more than Charlotte 3,211.1/sq mi (1,239.8/km2).Richmond is a lot smaller than Charlotte.Charlotte simply does not have a whole lot of "urban" areas.Atlanta went through the same thing until the last decade.I cannot explain it anyt cleare than that.
Grit was used as a metaphor.Meaning a mix of old,used,and tried.It also means people.A mix of blue collar.Not poor.Take NYC and Houston.NYC is smaller land wise than Houston by more than 200 sq mi.Yet its population is only 1/4 the population of NYC.Same with Atlanta and Charlotte.Charlotte is more than twice the size of Atlanta's land area.Yet its population density for Charlotte is - Density 2,515.7/sq mi (971.3/km2) and for Atlanta is - Density 4,018/sq mi (1,514/km2).Which is almost twice the density of Charlotte.The density in Richmond is considerably more than Charlotte 3,211.1/sq mi (1,239.8/km2).Richmond is a lot smaller than Charlotte.Charlotte simply does not have a whole lot of "urban" areas.Atlanta went through the same thing until the last decade.I cannot explain it anyt cleare than that.
Richmond is more dense than Charlotte. And yet, when I visited Richmond for work on numerous occasions, we would "drive" to their baseball stadium, "drive" to Carytown, "drive" to the little resturants on the waterfront, then "drive" back to our hotel.
I'm sure Savannah is more dense than Charlotte. But when I'd visit my friend from college who moved there, we would "drive" to downtown, then drive back to his apartment complex that frankly looked like what you'd find in any southern city. And in the mornings he would "drive" to work because apparently there are very few jobs in downtown Savannah other than hospitality.
My point is, what does this "grit and density" do for these cities as far as true urbanity other than apperance? Especially when at the end of the day, they're both places that are just as dependant on cars as places like Charlotte.
Yeah, I think we're going to just disagree on this. To me, "urban" is more than just looks, which is much of the argument being made. Savannah might be more walkable, i.e., more sidewalks, more grid patterns, etc, but what are you walking to? And what are you walking to that you couldn't walk to in Charlotte?
It's not all about looks, but it's not a coincidence that the more historic cities in America--that is, those that have most of their historic urban fabric still intact--are the most urban in terms of walkability. That's because most post-WWII development is highly autocentric in nature, whereas the pre-WWII stuff was built with people in mind and is thus more pedestrian-friendly. Also, historic architecture just has more character and gives more of a sense of place to an area. That's something that can only come with time.
You ask in Savannah, what exactly are you walking to? For starters, we can say restaurants. Charlotte has restaurants Uptown, you might say, but at least half of them are buried inside office towers and have absolutely no street presence. Savannah beats the crap out of Charlotte when it comes to that. Secondly, you're walking to more open spaces. Charlotte doesn't have anything comparable to the Squares of Savannah and doesn't have a signature urban park like Forsyth Park in Savannah. Thirdly, there's the Savannah College of Art and Design (SCAD) downtown. Yeah, we have JWU, but it's not nearly anywhere as integrated into the rest of downtown like SCAD is for Savannah. Fourthly, you're walking to the riverfront which is an attraction in itself. I know that's something that Charlotte can't help that it doesn't have, but it's worth noting since most older urban centers developed around a river. Those are just for starters. And unlike in Charlotte, you're much less likely to have to pass by several vacant surface lots to get to those destinations. You're going to have blocks and blocks of structures pulled up to the sidewalk that engage the pedestrian. And when you compare a similarly developed city like Charleston to Charlotte (and Charleston is by far the most urban city in the Carolinas), you've got even more options.
Here's an aerial shot of downtown Savannah (courtesy of Wikipedia) with the squares in green. Especially notice the density. I really envy Savannah for this:
At present, there are just way too many gaps in Charlotte's urban fabric to render it highly walkable overall. We've got it in spurts and pockets, but we lack that connectivity that other older urban centers have. I'm glad we're getting the infill that we are, but we've got a lot of ground to make up.
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.
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.
