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.
However, when I think of urbanity, it has more to do with people than it does buildings and infrastructure.
For example. There are areas of Long Island that are more dense than ANYWHERE in the south. However, the mentality of the folks that live in these areas of LI are VERY suburban (the cars they drive, where they shop, their hobbies, where they WON'T send their kids to school, their bias against certain areas of NYC, etc).
In the South, there are MANY areas in some cities that are almost rural when it comes to density. However, the mentality of the folks that live in these areas are very "urban". In Atlanta, some of the areas of town with the least density (ie, the corridor along Bankhead Hwy heading west of downtown) has an urban mentality that is superior to the folks living in Buckhead (an area of town with some of the highest densities).
I guess what I am saying is that density (to me) doesn't always mean "urban". Sprawl doesn't always mean "suburban". You are more likely to be mugged in Atlanta's most "sprawled" development than you are in the most developed parts of the Atl.
Culturally, Atlanta is by far the most "urban" of the cities named on this thread (eventhough it has the lowest density of the four). I hope this makes sense.
That actually does make sense. For example, in DC, Dupont Circle (One of the most tony nabes in the City), has a higher density (Ppsm and structural) than say, Anacostia. However, the mentality of the residents in Anacostia is definitely more "urban" or "street" than the residents in Dupont Circle.
Not gonna vote because I've never been to these cities except for Miami and that was just for the beach. Probably North Miami Beach (This was back in '06 when I was in middle school. Me and the fam were vacationing in Ft. Lauderdale).
I am interested in architecture and high rise construction, so I am always browsing around in www.Skyscraperpage and also www.Skyscrapercity. In the last few years I was shocked to find it was Miami (of all the Sunbelt metropolises mentioned here) that rated the "best skyline." In fact Miami seems to make it in the top 5 of all US cities for impressive skylines ... surprising because Houston and Atlanta has buildings by famous architects.
Atlanta, Houston, and Dallas are older, established, and more historic cities. They are each wonderful in their own way. Fifty years ago, Miami would not even be on a list of important southern metropolises. Somehow, Miami captured something the other cities don't have: glamor, mystique, excitement, international cachet, tourist popularity. Visitors from Europe, Asia, and South America want to see Miami. More movies and TV shows are made in Miami, than the other three.
I am interested in architecture and high rise construction, so I am always browsing around in www.Skyscraperpage and also www.Skyscrapercity. In the last few years I was shocked to find it was Miami (of all the Sunbelt metropolises mentioned here) that rated the "best skyline." In fact Miami seems to make it in the top 5 of all US cities for impressive skylines ... surprising because Houston and Atlanta has buildings by famous architects.
Atlanta, Houston, and Dallas are older, established, and more historic cities. They are each wonderful in their own way. Fifty years ago, Miami would not even be on a list of important southern metropolises. Somehow, Miami captured something the other cities don't have: glamor, mystique, excitement, international cachet, tourist popularity. Visitors from Europe, Asia, and South America want to see Miami. More movies and TV shows are made in Miami, than the other three.
So my vote went for Miami.
Europe and South America for sure, but Miami gets very few visitors from Asia. Orlando gets far more.
Also, since when are Dallas and Houston historic cities? Atlanta sure, but Dallas and Houston developed even later than Miami did.
I think Miami was only incorporated as a town in something like 1896 ... that makes it barely more than one hundred ten years old. I think both Houston and Dallas pre-date the US Civil War.
Europe and South America for sure, but Miami gets very few visitors from Asia. Orlando gets far more.
Also, since when are Dallas and Houston historic cities? Atlanta sure, but Dallas and Houston developed even later than Miami did.
I don't even count Atlanta as a historic city. Historic cities to me are cities that were of great importance back in the 19th century or earlier. Atlanta didn't really even rise to prominence arguably until the 90s. That's literally how young this city is when it comes to development and status.
I don't even count Atlanta as a historic city. Historic cities to me are cities that were of great importance back in the 19th century or earlier. Atlanta didn't really even rise to prominence arguably until the 90s. That's literally how young this city is when it comes to development and status.
You have got to be kidding me!? Atlanta has been the main overland and air transportation link between the North and the South East for over 150 years.
I think Miami was only incorporated as a town in something like 1896 ... that makes it barely more than one hundred ten years old. I think both Houston and Dallas pre-date the US Civil War.
Houston was incorporated in the 1830s. Dallas was incorporated in the 1856. But Dallas, Houston, and Miami all didn't really start rapidly growing until after WWII.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ant131531
I don't even count Atlanta as a historic city. Historic cities to me are cities that were of great importance back in the 19th century or earlier. Atlanta didn't really even rise to prominence arguably until the 90s. That's literally how young this city is when it comes to development and status.
Wow. The 90s? What about the pre-Civil War days or how Atlanta was a major rail hub between the North and South for a lot longer than "the 90s"?
I don't even count Atlanta as a historic city. Historic cities to me are cities that were of great importance back in the 19th century or earlier. Atlanta didn't really even rise to prominence arguably until the 90s. That's literally how young this city is when it comes to development and status.
Atlanta has been plenty important for a while now. It was pretty important in the Civil War. I learned about Atlanta's importance by walking through the tunnels at the Atlanta Airport recently. Nice little exhibit there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peterlemonjello
Europe and South America for sure, but Miami gets very few visitors from Asia. Orlando gets far more.
Also, since when are Dallas and Houston historic cities? Atlanta sure, but Dallas and Houston developed even later than Miami did.
Miami is one of the youngest major world metro areas in the world. I am pretty sure it is the young Alpha city in the world. The speed in which Miami has become a world player is nothing short of remarkable. \
As for Asians, Orlando does get more but really a ton of those Asians also make their way down to Miami too. No reason to not see both when so far away from Home. Also Miami has seen a major uptick in Asian tourist and residents the past few years. I have never seen so many Asian tourist in Miami before and the numbers keep going up. Wont be too long before Miami has a non-stop Miami-Tokyo flight.
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.
