Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > Dallas
 [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)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 12-24-2008, 07:41 AM
 
Location: South Carolina
1,991 posts, read 3,956,873 times
Reputation: 912

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by zatires View Post
Well if we go with this argument, we can also conclude many Americans visit European (truly urban) cities, and actually really like the cities, so Americans prefer European cities to suburbia? Of course it is not a good argument.
No, not that Americans prefer European cities to suburbia. Neither in the case of Europeans visiting San Francisco does it mean that Europeans prefer SF to Europe. It's not ABOUT top preference. It's about what characteristics make a place urban. And I say that when you have the various uses (civic, retail, residential, greenspace) in proximity to each other and with quick and safe pedestrian access, you have the characteristics that make a place urban or urban-modeled. Therefore, since SF qualifies as urban, it's sort of pointless to focus on it not being as urban as Europe, just as if somebody said San Antonio is a theme park city because it has a Six Flags and a Sea World, it's sort of pointless to say well Orlando has more theme parks so San Antonio is not Orlando.

So of course what you say there was not a good argument because nobody was making the argument that just because a person vacations to a place that they like that place more than home.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zatires View Post
And the Sears Tower example is well not even relevant....
It is in the sense that if qualifications are met, it's irrelevant that it's not the most extreme example of the thing the qualifications define. That's for skyscraper cities or theme park cities or urban cities. If a city meets the qualifications for being urban, it's just academic, a casual footnote, that they aren't as urban as European cities. It doesn't really mean anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zatires View Post
If you actually read the post above from a person who studied the urban/city development at school, and have listened to speakers that are experts in the field, he even states Europe is decades ahead of SF etc in terms of urbanisation.
And my point is that Orlando is well ahead of San Antonio in theme parks. But big deal. San Antonio is still a theme park city. So likewise big deal Europe is far ahead of SF. SF is still an urban city.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zatires View Post
Yes SF is an urban city in the US, but not in the same degree as the already established truly urban cities of the rest of the world.
And I say that's an academic statement. I say big deal. SF doesn't HAVE to be "as urban" as European cities. That it has as many uses as it does in proximity with pedestrian access to them, makes it have an urban experience that people who like urban experiences can enjoy. Another analogy. Krystal's is a burger place in the US, but not in the same degree as the already established McDonald's and Burger King. Nonetheless, Krystals sells a heck of a lot of burgers and satisfies a wealth of people who enjoy burgers. So just as it's just a casual observation that McDonalds sells more, it's a casual observation that European cities are more urban than SF. True, but academic. You mention NFL teams. Sure some are better than others, but even the teams that are not that good have stadiums and fans that show up to the games and enjoy the authentic NFL experience. Likewise even a SF that is not as far along the urban path as European cities have fans that show up for vacations and enjoy the authentic urban experience. SF doesn't have to be AS urban as Europe to be authentically urban itself just as the Dolphins don't have to be AS strong as the Giants to be authentically NFL itself.

 
Old 12-24-2008, 07:46 AM
 
91 posts, read 329,139 times
Reputation: 55
It's pretty clear that city formation in Europe is vastly different than city formation in the US. They're both urban, one is not "better" in any relevant non-personal-opinion way. City characteristics differ because of history, culture and geography.

Relevant to this post, some of Boston is more European than SD or Dallas.
 
Old 12-24-2008, 07:50 AM
 
Location: South Carolina
1,991 posts, read 3,956,873 times
Reputation: 912
The main issue for American cities is urban/pedestrian focus or suburban/automobile focus. That is where change is needed and where those who have the urban/pedestrian focus are fine examples of city planning. SF urban vs. European urban distracts from that needed debate. It distracts from the issue of whether Dallas needs to inject more pedestrian focus into its city and comparing that to the pedestrian focus of a San Diego or a Boston. If Dallas had the pedestrian focus of a SF, it really wouldn't matter that it doesn't have the pedestrian focus of an Amsterdam. However it DOES matter if Dallas or any other big US city doesn't have pedestrian focus much at all. That's not a comment on whether it does or doesn't, it's a comment on what is important.
 
Old 12-24-2008, 07:54 AM
 
Location: South Carolina
1,991 posts, read 3,956,873 times
Reputation: 912
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdfw View Post
It's pretty clear that city formation in Europe is vastly different than city formation in the US. They're both urban, one is not "better" in any relevant non-personal-opinion way. City characteristics differ because of history, culture and geography.

Relevant to this post, some of Boston is more European than SD or Dallas.
This is very true. At the same time, don't forget the impact to traffic that city planning which includes multiple ways to get from point A to point B has. Multiple ways means walking or biking or public transportation or driving in multiple easy routes rather than everybody on 1 interstate then getting off at 1 exit and travelling on 1 arterial road to get to a group of destinations near to that road. You know, haphazard street design versus grid street design. Planned cities generally DO have better traffic distribution on its corridors than sprawled cities.
 
Old 12-24-2008, 10:17 AM
 
10 posts, read 17,005 times
Reputation: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdfw View Post
It's pretty clear that city formation in Europe is vastly different than city formation in the US. They're both urban, one is not "better" in any relevant non-personal-opinion way. City characteristics differ because of history, culture and geography.

Relevant to this post, some of Boston is more European than SD or Dallas.
Infact America is in so many ways a rejection of Europe, at least in formation.

You know, many people come from Europe and move right out to 'pasture' with the rest of the soccer moms. I know someone from Spain now who lives in a city, a postmdern one without a core, and lives away from the 'urban' life.

Choices. God bless the USA :-)
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.


Closed Thread


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


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 > Texas > Dallas
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top