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.
Not really; if you used a broader criteria than lots of cities outside of the Northeast would qualify, and then saying "built like a Northeastern city" would be rather meaningless. I would never call anything west of Pennsylvania northeastern; that just sounds odd to me.
Anyway, what I think makes San Francisco look more like a northeastern city is the way the dense neighborhoods are built up. San Francisco housing looks (or is ) row houses or continuous low-rise apartment buildings. Like these two:
Los Angeles housing looks like a combination of big apartment complexes that are separated from each other. Still can be very dense; but looks very different. The street widths are wider, too.
Chicago has housing built like some of the San Francisco photos I showed; so maybe one could say San Francisco is built like an old midwestern city. But outside the center, Chicago has a lot of single family homes, more than a northeast city would. San Francisco has lots of single family homes, too, but they don't really have much space in between.
I never said anything west of Pennsylvania was the NE. Most Pennsylvanians feel Ohio and Michigan are solid midwestern states. But a poster was talking about the western half of the US. Omaha is 1600 miles from SF via I-80, and less than that as the crow flies. I think it qualifies as being in the western half of the US.
I guess it would be helpful to define what we should all think a northeastern city looks like. Topics brought up were density, multi-family homes, width of streets, setbacks, etc. People on this forum have even declared that Pittsburgh and Syracuse, NY are not northeastern cities! I can't imagine anything more quintessentially northeastern than New York, and Pennsylvania is northeast as well. When I think of a northeastern city, I think of a city with a definable downtown, and neighborhoods that have their own shopping areas. By that definition, both Denver and Omaha qualify. Now when I asked my husband, a native Omahan, if he thinks Omaha looks like a NE city he said, "No. Omaha's streets are orthoganal", e.g. built on a grid. This is in fact, true. It is also true of Denver and Salt Lake City. One could say SLC is like a European city b/c it has a central areal built around a church.
I never said anything west of Pennsylvania was the NE. Most Pennsylvanians feel Ohio and Michigan are solid midwestern states. But a poster was talking about the western half of the US. Omaha is 1600 miles from SF via I-80, and less than that as the crow flies. I think it qualifies as being in the western half of the US.
I guess it would be helpful to define what we should all think a northeastern city looks like. Topics brought up were density, multi-family homes, width of streets, setbacks, etc. People on this forum have even declared that Pittsburgh and Syracuse, NY are not northeastern cities! I can't imagine anything more quintessentially northeastern than New York, and Pennsylvania is northeast as well. When I think of a northeastern city, I think of a city with a definable downtown, and neighborhoods that have their own shopping areas. By that definition, both Denver and Omaha qualify. Now when I asked my husband, a native Omahan, if he thinks Omaha looks like a NE city he said, "No. Omaha's streets are orthoganal", e.g. built on a grid. This is in fact, true. It is also true of Denver and Salt Lake City. One could say SLC is like a European city b/c it has a central areal built around a church.
I agree with him. It looks nothing like a northeastern city.
Doesn't mean it's not a city, doesn't mean it's not dense or it doesn't have vibrant mixed-use districts or whatever. It's just midwestern, not northeastern. Your husband was right -- it's laid out differently. Same goes for Denver, Chicago, Kansas City, etc.
I agree with him. It looks nothing like a northeastern city.
Doesn't mean it's not a city, doesn't mean it's not dense or it doesn't have vibrant mixed-use districts or whatever. It's just midwestern, not northeastern. Your husband was right -- it's laid out differently. Same goes for Denver, Chicago, Kansas City, etc.
How can you say such a thing? (J/K)
Funny though, many urbanists on this forum think a grid system is the best for cities, and yet you don't see that in many NE cities. I should add that DH's experience with NE cities is mainly through Pittsburgh, and Albany NY. Two points of interest: My hometown in Pennsylvania west of Pittsburgh IS built on a grid, and Washington, DC, designed by a French architect, is well known as a low-density city b/c it doesn't have a lot of tall buildings. What say you, urbanists? Is it remotely possible there can be more than one "type" of city?
When I think of a northeastern city, I think of a city with a definable downtown, and neighborhoods that have their own shopping areas.
Heck, Kat, most of the midwestern cities I've lived in/visited would qualify as well: Cincinnati, Cleveland, Indy, Detroit, Dayton, Madison, Milwaukee, Toledo, Akron, Columbus ... yes, even Fort Wayne ...
How about Barrington Hills IL, zoned for minimum five acre lots? Legally it is incorporated as a "village," which is the same as a city except in name.
A city is a defined term. A city of 0 is still a city.
Los Angeles, San Diego, Sacramento, San Jose, these are all suburban sprawl metropolises. In the biggest, most populous state in the country only San Francisco seems to come close to the definition of a 'city' in the traditional sense. Pretty sad. The whole state is like one giant suburban strip mall.
Come to think of it, I can think of only three 'cities' in the entire western half of the United States that come close to being considered more or less genuine, traditional urban places: Portland, Seattle and San Francisco (and the last two kind of fall short IMO). Are there any others?
By your definition (as opposed to the legal definition), what about these places?
Heck, Kat, most of the midwestern cities I've lived in/visited would qualify as well: Cincinnati, Cleveland, Indy, Detroit, Dayton, Madison, Milwaukee, Toledo, Akron, Columbus ... yes, even Fort Wayne ...
Yes, and Chicago, Minneapolis, St. Paul, Rochester and others.
unny though, many urbanists on this forum think a grid system is the best for cities, and yet you don't see that in many NE cities. Two points of interest: My hometown in Pennsylvania west of Pittsburgh IS built on a grid, and Washington, DC, designed by a French architect, is well known as a low-density city b/c it doesn't have a lot of tall buildings. What say you, urbanists? Is it remotely possible there can be more than one "type" of city?
Umm...yes. But I can't speak for all the urbanist posters; we're not all the same you know.
I prefer ungridded cities myself. I think you can have more variation in the streetscape. Cities like Boston or London or more fun to walk around and feel kinda maze-like. Also much easier to get lost and a horror to navigate by car. But sure, gridded cities can work well, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81
Heck, Kat, most of the midwestern cities I've lived in/visited would qualify as well: Cincinnati, Cleveland, Indy, Detroit, Dayton, Madison, Milwaukee, Toledo, Akron, Columbus ... yes, even Fort Wayne ...
That's why I thought your definition was too broad.
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.
(J/K)
