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 think the OP is asking about sprawling cities that serve as the focal points of metro areas, not about literal suburbs.
I'd go with Phoenix, Houston, or San Diego. I think raw size of the metro area matters to me more in the long run than density, anyway - any metro area will at least have some dense neighborhoods. I just don't want to have nothing to do by living in a small city.
I think the OP is asking about sprawling cities that serve as the focal points of metro areas, not about literal suburbs.
I'd go with Phoenix, Houston, or San Diego. I think raw size of the metro area matters to me more in the long run than density, anyway - any metro area will at least have some dense neighborhoods. I just don't want to have nothing to do by living in a small city.
I think we need clarification on what the OP is intending here.
If it's a suburban city that is the focal point of an MSA, I'd probably choose somewhere in the Midwest like Omaha or Columbus.
If we're talking about a literal suburb of an urban city - that's kind of a tricky one. Is Pasadena a suburb of LA? Is Tacoma considered a suburb of Seattle? In many places in the Western US especially, the lines between secondary cities, suburbs, and edge cities can be a bit blurry.
In other words, which suburban city would offer enough compromise to satisfy an urban person who needs to live in a suburban city for various needs (raising a family, costs, safety, etc)?
Hrrm...probably San Diego. Because if I can't have an urban city, at least I'm going to have 70-degree weather year round.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheTimidBlueBars
I think the OP is asking about sprawling cities that serve as the focal points of metro areas, not about literal suburbs.
I'd go with Phoenix, Houston, or San Diego. I think raw size of the metro area matters to me more in the long run than density, anyway - any metro area will at least have some dense neighborhoods. I just don't want to have nothing to do by living in a small city.
Come on now! San Diego has almost 300k living in areas above 9000/ppsm, Pittsburgh has about 52k, Houston has 125k and Phoenix has none.
[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]
Yeah, Pittsburgh has ‘officially’ a higher population density than San Diego at 5400/ppsm vs 4400/ppsm but Pittsburgh is only 55 square miles and San Diego is 372 square miles.
The city of San Diego has a relatively dense, compact downtown and urban core surrounded by lots of moderately to low density suburban neighborhoods, sprawling military bases and agricultural areas- in the city boundaries
Pick an actual sprawling sunbelt city and leave San Diego out of it.
and you know how much I love Pittsburgh- one of my favorite cities so I’m not tit for tatting- just speaking some truth.
I don’t think actual top ten cities in population is what the OP is talking about here.
In other words, which suburban city would offer enough compromise to satisfy an urban person who needs to live in a suburban city for various needs (raising a family, costs, safety, etc)?
For me, I would do any of the top 50 other than Phoenix, Oklahoma City, Orlando, Tampa, Las Vegas, or VA Beach/Norfolk/Newport News.
Hrrm...probably San Diego. Because if I can't have an urban city, at least I'm going to have 70-degree weather year round.
Native Pittsburgher here who also has to LOL at San Diego being smeared as suburban in this thread.
Considering the average major city in the U.S. is still trying to "get serious" about things like bus transit and having more than one Amtrak departure a day, I'd say San Diego is light years ahead the vast majority of the country in things like...being an urban city.
The census bureau has begun recognizing "weighted density" in urban areas.
If you are talking about urban suburbs, then by far the best options are outside of Philadelphia, New York, Chicago and DC. those cities have best collection of walkable, dense towns. No sunbelt city comes close.
If you mean an actual city that is suburban in design, then Charlotte, Raleigh, Atlanta to an extent would be good options.
Native Pittsburgher here who also has to LOL at San Diego being smeared as suburban in this thread.
Considering the average major city in the U.S. is still trying to "get serious" about things like bus transit and having more than one Amtrak departure a day, I'd say San Diego is light years ahead the vast majority of the country in things like...being an urban city.
The census bureau has begun recognizing "weighted density" in urban areas.
San Diego comes in ahead of D.C. and Seattle, Pittsburgh is beneath Omaha.
You realize these weighted densities are based on metro and not city? The fact that Pittsburgh is in an MSA with five largely rural counties does not make the city itself any less urban.
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.
[/IMG]
[/IMG]
