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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-14-2011, 04:57 PM
 
Location: Aurora, Colorado
5,373 posts, read 7,665,056 times
Reputation: 4328

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nineties Flava View Post
I'll mainly respond to the bolded.


The majority of Oakland actually does not look like 54th Avenue. Looking at other parts of the East Oakland foothills & flatlands (where 54th is) that becomes patently obvious:


Oakland CA - Google Maps


Oakland CA - Google Maps


Oakland CA - Google Maps


Oakland CA - Google Maps


Is it as lush as the Oakland Hills? No. Are the flatlands for the most part as "barren" as you depicted them to be? No. Are the Oakland Hills or the Atlanta neighborhoods for that matter you showed anywhere near as dense as the East Oakland foothill & flatland neighborhoods shown? Definitely not.


Here's the density of each I posted in order.

Reservoir Hills/Meadow Brook: 16,772 people per square mile

Ivy Hill: 22,866 people per square mile

Millsmont: 8,988 people per square mile

Havenscourt: 11,316 people per square mile


And for my own neighborhood:

Upper Dimond: 10,626 people per square mile
Here's the densities for the Atlanta neighborhoods you posted.


Piedmont Heights: 2,982 people per square mile

Morningside-Lenox Park: 2,934 people per square mile

Inman Park: 4,012 people per square mile

Old 4th Ward: 3,161 people per square mile



Any one of the Oakland neighborhoods is at least twice as dense and in some cases 5-10 times as dense. This isn't really comparing apples to apples.
This is crazy. Get out more dude! Atlanta as a whole has many more trees. I've been to Oakland...And the tree cover is nowhere near as noticable as in Atlanta.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-14-2011, 06:46 PM
 
Location: The Magnolia City
8,931 posts, read 11,325,885 times
Reputation: 4853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nineties Flava View Post
I'm arguing that Atlanta's not the only major city with neighborhoods that are heavily forested.
That's not really what you said, and no one was arguing that anyway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-14-2011, 10:41 PM
 
Location: The Bay
6,920 posts, read 11,888,455 times
Reputation: 3043
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nairobi View Post
That's not really what you said, and no one was arguing that anyway.
Yes it is. People were talking up Atlanta as if it's the only city that has a ton of trees in the actual neighborhoods.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2011, 08:21 AM
 
Location: The Magnolia City
8,931 posts, read 11,325,885 times
Reputation: 4853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nineties Flava View Post
Yes it is. People were talking up Atlanta as if it's the only city that has a ton of trees in the actual neighborhoods.
No, what people were saying is that Atlanta is unique in the fact that it is a major city with large trees completely covering the metro. It's a city built into a forest.

Of course there are other cities that have lush PARTS of town. I haven't seen anyone dispute that. But in your first post, it appeared you were denying that Atlanta wasn't greener than most major cities, or your beloved Bay Area.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nineties Flava View Post
I've been to Atlanta and visited various and sundry parts of it, and it didn't particularly stand out to me... maybe it's because I'm from the Bay but it didn't seem to be irregularly full of trees or anything.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2011, 08:44 AM
 
4,229 posts, read 4,117,823 times
Reputation: 3186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nineties Flava View Post
You were trying to argue that Atlanta is somehow "working with less" than Oakland when this is patently false. Oakland is in general has considerably denser construction than Atlanta, including on a neighborhood level. And why do you focus on front yard size? What does that have to do with anything? Are trees incapable of growing out of the sidewalk? Because I see plenty on the sidewalk in those Atlanta streetviews.

Anyway, I'm not arguing that Atlanta has a higher tree coverage percantage than Oakland, I'm arguing that Atlanta's not the only major city with neighborhoods that are heavily forested.
Historically cities were develop denser in the past, the core of cities are first areas to form, so looking the cores

1920
ranked 31... Oakland city, CA......... 216,261 pop... 45.7 sq mi... 4,732 density
ranked 33.... Atlanta city, GA......... 200,616 pop... 26.2 sq mi... 7,657 density

Atlanta was denser

1950
ranked 27... Oakland city, CA......... 384,575 pop... 53.0 sq mi... 7,256 density
ranked 33... Atlanta city, GA......... 331,314 pop... 36.9 sq mi... 8,979 density

Atlanta still was a little denser. Atlanta and Oakland both peak that decade in density.

Oakland have never reach that density of 1950 Atlanta in 36.9 sq mi.

I keep talking about home lot sizes, because that’s how little and tight land developers had to work with. This is how densely neighborhoods are built, by the way I’m trying to point how far homes are from the street in general side walks are between homes and streets right? Anyways, Population density today can be screwed to vacancy, Atlanta was hit harder than most cities by suburban flight from the core. The 50s was the start of urban renewal and large suburban growth. But Atlanta core is actually built a little denser then Oakland. Atlanta neighborhoods around the core have home lots the same size or smaller than Oakland, at the same time being way more greener in the core. That’s why it appears as if forest goes all the way up to Atlanta’s CBDs

This video was posted earlier. It starts with large home lot neighborhoods, and than fly over small, you can't tell the difference it's just green. The neighborhoods around Downtown, and Midtown, 36.9 sq mi once held 331,314 pop with 8,979 density,
Quote:
Originally Posted by S.W.A.T.S View Post
This video really shows how lush Atlanta really is.

And no one said no other city is heavily forest, in fact I been listed a few other cities that are... I even said Oakland, I said Atlanta is the most heavily forested major city. Even high to medium density built neighborhoods are heavily forested.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2011, 11:36 AM
 
Location: Charlotte again!!
1,037 posts, read 1,686,553 times
Reputation: 510
Charlotte has 49% tree coverage according to hpigreen.com! My city wins!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2011, 01:09 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,509 posts, read 27,259,843 times
Reputation: 7566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nairobi View Post
Denver? Maybe I just don't know any better, but I've never really heard it referred to as a very lush city. I'd personally put Houston ahead of them (it's extremely underrated when it comes to greenery). Don't know much about the Twin Cities, but had never heard of them being very lush either.

houston tx - Google Maps

houston tx - Google Maps

houston tx - Google Maps

Houston is probably the most diverse major city in the south when it comes to trees.

I was just gonna say that.

Houston has more trees than many of those he listed as having the most.

and to the poster who said we don't have hills, although we leveled most of ours, there are still some in our metro


http://www.city-data.com/forum/membe...5-panorama.jpg

http://www.north-houston.com/develop...r_Course_8.jpg
and lots of trees.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_UBPbn8Wa_z...0/P4090001.JPG

http://xnomad.files.wordpress.com/20...01126-1357.jpg

http://www.photohouston.com/Houston-...sky-A23-02.jpg

but ATL has the win for this thread tho. lots of big and tall trees all over the darn place.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2011, 01:15 PM
 
Location: Charlotte again!!
1,037 posts, read 1,686,553 times
Reputation: 510
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
I was just gonna say that.

Houston has more trees than many of those he listed as having the most.

and to the poster who said we don't have hills, although we leveled most of ours, there are still some in our metro


http://www.city-data.com/forum/membe...5-panorama.jpg

http://www.north-houston.com/develop...r_Course_8.jpg
and lots of trees.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_UBPbn8Wa_z...0/P4090001.JPG

http://xnomad.files.wordpress.com/20...01126-1357.jpg

http://www.photohouston.com/Houston-...sky-A23-02.jpg

but ATL has the win for this thread tho. lots of big and tall trees all over the darn place.
Nope... Charlotte wins with 49% tree coverage.. Atlanta is second at 43%!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2011, 01:18 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,509 posts, read 27,259,843 times
Reputation: 7566
Quote:
Originally Posted by qc dreamin View Post
Nope... Charlotte wins with 49% tree coverage.. Atlanta is second at 43%!
lol, ok Charlotte wins.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2011, 02:05 PM
 
Location: Charlotte again!!
1,037 posts, read 1,686,553 times
Reputation: 510
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
lol, ok Charlotte wins.
we finally won at something, lord knows we are loosing at nascar hall of fame lol
T
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 $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.

2005-2018, 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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top