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.
Most of the Sunbelt cities. Funny how people keep moving there though. I guess people like that element of tackiness. IMO, in a way, it does eliminate an element of pretentiousness.
sprawl is not always tacky. a lot of it is very tastefully done. i'd rather live down here in the sprawled sunbelt than the dense north any day.
sprawl is not always tacky. a lot of it is very tastefully done. i'd rather live down here in the sprawled sunbelt than the dense north any day.
a lot of these "sunbelt" cities are "dense sprawl" however. Jammed packed housing developments with zero lot lines, and plots no larger than 1/6 of an acre. Not much different than the "typical" dense north.
I can revisit several threads that were, in fact, very offensive about Phoenix in reference to how it looks or the fact that it is "sprawled", or ugly, or not a "tall" city. If you think ugly means commercial and residential development blending into the environment around it (mountains), then yes, perhaps it is boring, but ugly, no. I have visited many cities where neighborhoods and commercial developments are certainly not kept up and definitely ugly, but Phoenix would not be at the top of my list.
I don't find it pleasing to the eye and stand by my statement, especially since Phoenix not too long ago was a clean slate and could've been built out much more attractively. Sedona, on the other hand, is much better (maybe because everything's red, not brown ).
a lot of these "sunbelt" cities are "dense sprawl" however. Jammed packed housing developments with zero lot lines, and plots no larger than 1/6 of an acre. Not much different than the "typical" dense north.
Atlanta's "sprawl", for the most part (exception being parts of Gwinnett County), looks pretty good. Why? 1) Atlanta's hilly topography hides a lot of the negative features that may be associated with "sprawl". 2) Atlanta's thick foliage hides a lot of the negative features, and even makes some negative features look okay (much of it is hidden), and 3) lots of Atlanta's shopping centers, new roads, housing is fairly good quality, so it doesn't look bad.
Other cities where the "sprawl" doesn't look bad, or even looks good:
Phoenix, Orlando, Charlotte, Denver, Kansas City, Minneapolis, Seattle, Portland, Raleigh-Durham, Washington D.C. area, San Diego, San Francisco, Birmingham
Cities where the "sprawl" is tolerable:
Nashville, Columbus, Dallas-Fort Worth, Tampa, Miami, Chicago
Places where the "sprawl", in my opinion, is truly tacky.
St. Louis, Houston
Last edited by Scraper Enthusiast; 10-15-2008 at 06:15 PM..
Atlanta's "sprawl", for the most part (exception being parts of Gwinnett County) looks pretty good. Why? 1) Atlanta's hilly topography hides a lot of the negative features that may be associated with "sprawl". 2) Atlanta's thick foliage hides a lot of the negative features, and even makes some negative features look okay (much of it is hidden), and 3) lots of Atlanta's shopping centers, new roads, housing is fairly good quality, so it doesn't look bad.
Other cities where the "sprawl" doesn't look bad, or even looks good:
Phoenix, Orlando, Charlotte, Denver, Kansas City, Minneapolis, Seattle, Portland, Raleigh-Durham, Washington D.C. area, San Diego, San Francisco, Birmingham
Cities where the "sprawl" is tolerable:
Nashville, Columbus, Dallas-Fort Worth, Tampa, Miami, Chicago
Places where the "sprawl", in my opinion, is truly tacky.
St. Louis, Houston
My point, exactly. all the way.
If there is such a thing as cities being blessed with good looks, atlanta is just that.
Atlanta's "sprawl", for the most part (exception being parts of Gwinnett County), looks pretty good. Why? 1) Atlanta's hilly topography hides a lot of the negative features that may be associated with "sprawl". 2) Atlanta's thick foliage hides a lot of the negative features, and even makes some negative features look okay (much of it is hidden), and 3) lots of Atlanta's shopping centers, new roads, housing is fairly good quality, so it doesn't look bad.
Other cities where the "sprawl" doesn't look bad, or even looks good:
Phoenix, Orlando, Charlotte, Denver, Kansas City, Minneapolis, Seattle, Portland, Raleigh-Durham, Washington D.C. area, San Diego, San Francisco, Birmingham
Cities where the "sprawl" is tolerable:
Nashville, Columbus, Dallas-Fort Worth, Tampa, Miami, Chicago
Places where the "sprawl", in my opinion, is truly tacky.
St. Louis, Houston
How are these two cities tackier than the others you listed?
How are these two cities tackier than the others you listed?
"No zoning", wide concrete roads, and the flat topography contributes to some of houston's tackiness.
versus atlanta whose sprawl is hidden by forests and tall hills, the roads are asphalt and there's zoning.
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.