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.
I would NOT put walkability on that list. If you look at any ad for an apartment in any core city in 2015, it usually reads something like "Restaurants, bars, and public transportation only steps away!" Walkability shows up in very real ways in terms of your property value (or the rent you may have to pay).
The spiritual death of not living in a densely urban environment. That's a cultural trope actually but it needs to take a fatal pratfall on a billion rolled eyes.:roll eyes:...
Except I think Americans in general are so density-averse that the notion of living in a home without a front AND back yard is "packing them in like sardines". So although many "urbanists" here would prefer to live in a more walkable/densely-populated environment, Americans as a whole are the opposite, and definitely consider density (and seek open space) when it comes to where they live.
I disagree about skylines. A lot of people really care about them and its not just a City-Data thing. Your city's skyline is a symbol of community pride in a lot of cities.
I almost said walkability but that is something a lot of younger people actually do care about whether or not they are on City-Data. Same with diversity.
I would say the biggest one here is public transportation. For a certain segment of the population its very important, but most Americans are still in love with their automobiles.
There's a market for living in walk-able neighborhoods with amenities(otherwise it'd still be cheap to buy in all those old close-in neighborhoods with old apartments and houses in most major cities that are now popular and pricey). There's also a market for people wanting to live in huge houses in cul-de-sacs and wide streets with commercial big box stores and chain restaurants. It's more a demographic divide in many ways in terms of who is choosing to live where though-and you can see it in metros that have both styles of development(go from inner older cores to outer suburbs and you can find both in a lot of places).
Skylines are kind of like signifies of civic pride--in the old days people built temples and cathedrals, now we build temples to commerce. I don't know if anyone moves to a city based solely on the presence of them, but it sort of factors into the image of a city in some ways.
If people live somewhere with a lot of diversity and move somewhere else that doesn't have a lot of diversity, they'll often mention it a lot(either as good or bad). Likewise for many people who live in very diverse places, they're often there because their specific group is there, not necessarily because of diversity(my Chinese relatives in Toronto are excited because there's a lot of Chinese people there, they're not there because of Jamaican and Portuguese restaurants). And a lot of places that have gotten more diverse though, aren't always because people wanted to move somewhere diverse---it's because they moved somewhere with a dynamic economy--and then it's also a plus if other people of their cultural group are already there. I think though for more assimilated middle-class/upper class educated people, diversity is seen as sort of a pleasant novelty--I mean who doesn't like having food from almost every continent available to eat? I sure enjoy it.
I disagree about skylines. A lot of people really care about them and its not just a City-Data thing. Your city's skyline is a symbol of community pride in a lot of cities.
I almost said walkability but that is something a lot of younger people actually do care about whether or not they are on City-Data. Same with diversity.
I would say the biggest one here is public transportation. For a certain segment of the population its very important, but most Americans are still in love with their automobiles.
It doesn't dictate where one lives though (usually)....but I realize that's not necessarily what the OP is asking for, even though that's sort of how I viewed this topic when initially answering.
*It's interesting, though, that somebody from OKC mentions how important skylines are, since it fairly recently has received a new-tallest building downtown. It makes me wonder how much emphasis the local reporting agencies gave to skylines and downtown, and whether or not the public bought in.
Out of curiousity -- possibly proving my point -- was that building heavily subsidized?
Being considered northeastern, or being "Just like New York."
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.
