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.
Baltimore isnt the south. Those southern defintions placing baltimore and D.C in the south were made 150 years ago during the civil war. Maryland is so much more northeastern then southern.
That is simply not true. I know of many people who live just outside of major northern cities, Boston, NYC and Chicago for example, and they all pay very reasonable rents for nice places.
Baltimore isnt the south. Those southern defintions placing baltimore and D.C in the south were made 150 years ago during the civil war. Maryland is so much more northeastern then southern.
I agree, but to avoid turning this into a Civil War, and to prove that the OP was incorrect, I'm gonna say Baltimore is southern.
Lulz. Another thread filled with sweeping generalizations.
I won't touch the "lack of character" comment, because that's just incredibly ignorant.
As other's pointed out, the South (as well as a lot of other Sun Belt cities) developed a lot of their population and area during the auto age. You can pretty clearly see the evolution of the cities when you pass outside the inner ring of neighborhoods from what are (mostly) grid style "traditional" cities to where the auto influence took over. This was a post WWII creation, and some of it links to white flight. A lot of people wanted to get out of the cities, a lot of which were dirty and overcrowded, and filled with crime. Then came the sort of American dream of "owning your own house." Houses could be built quickly and cheaply in the suburbs.
And as Southern cities became more popular as places to move to, there was a need for more housing. A lot more housing. Land was cheap. Most cities weren't hemmed in by a close ring of inner suburbs. A lot of cities added annexed huge areas.
Obviously there are some exceptions to this. But to suggest that there's "nothing but sprawl" is an absolutely ignorant statement.
Look at the cities and metros that grew a lot since the 1950s. The suburbs there sprawl, too. Sure, some of it looks a bit different. But it's still sprawl. Find me cities with new growth suburbs that don't have malls, shopping centers, cul-de-sacs, and cheaply built housing. I would bet that if a lot of the Northern cities were of similar size/makeup of the Southern cities in the 1950s, they would look pretty similar today.
Here's a fun little bit to look at.
Largest Southern cities (1950):
1. Houston - 596,163 - 160.0 sq mi - 3,726 ppsm
2. New Orleans - 570,445 - 199.4 sq mi - 2,861 ppsm
3. Dallas - 434,462 - 112.0 sq mi - 3,879 ppsm
4. San Antonio - 408,442 - 69.5 sq mi - 5,877 ppsm
5. Memphis - 396,000 - 104.2 sq mi - 3,800 ppsm
6. Louisville - 369,129 - 39.9 sq mi - 9,251 ppsm
7. Atlanta - 331,314 - 36.9 sq mi - 8,979 ppsm
8. Birmingham - 326,037 - 65.3 sq mi - 4,993 ppsm
9. Fort Worth - 278,778 - 93.7 sq mi - 2,975 ppsm
10. Miami - 249,276 - 34.2 sq mi - 7,289 ppsm
11. Oklahoma City - 243,504 - 50.8 sq mi - 4,793 ppsm
12. Richmond - 230,310 - 37.1 sq mi - 6,208 ppsm
13. Norfolk - 213,513 - 28.2 sq mi - 7,571 ppsm
14. Jacksonville - 204,517 - 30.2 sq mi - 6,772 ppsm
15. Tulsa - 182,740 - 26.7 sq mi - 6,844 ppsm
16. Nashville - 174,307 - 22.0 sq mi - 7,923 ppsm
17. Charlotte - 134,032 - 30.0 sq mi - 4,468 ppsm
18. Austin - 132,059 - 32.1 sq mi - 4,126 ppsm
19. Chattanooga - 131,041 - 28.0 sq mi - 4,680 ppsm
20. Mobile - 129,009 - 25.4 sq mi - 5,079 ppsm
21. Shreveport - 127,206 - 24.0 sq mi - 5,300 ppsm
22. Baton Rouge - 125,629 - 30.2 sq mi - 4,160 ppsm
23. Knoxville - 124,769 - 25.4 sq mi - 4,912 ppsm
24. Tampa - 124,681 - 19.0 sq mi - 6,562 ppsm
25. Savannah - 119,638 - 14.6 sq mi - 8,194 ppsm
So...these cities were already developed, and at least somewhat dense at this time. A lot of that density (in terms of built environment) certainly still exists over those original boundaries, though some has been lost by the way of freeway construction, urban renewal, and other thoughtful methods.
Had these cities been hemmed in by a close group of suburbs, they would likely not be nearly as populated as they are today. You would probably see similar population loss (at least in a number of them) as you had in the Rust Belt and Northeastern cities that reached their peaks in the 1950s. Instead, with ample open land around them, these cities were able to annex and, rather than lose population to the suburbs, they were able to build a suburban or semi-urban style environment within the city limits themselves.
Think of what many Rust Belt or Northeastern cities would look like had they been able to annex mass amounts of land during the 50s and beyond. Imagine if you took a large chunk of the 1950s-1980s or 90s development and put it in the city limits. They might not have grown a great deal from their 1950s size, but many of them probably wouldn't have lost much population, if any. But...a large portion of their city limits would be considered "sprawl." That shouldn't take away from the incredible cores that they built up before the car and commute were king.
The city makeups are completely different. That's the point I'm trying to make. Just as I imagine that cities that are smaller now but boom in the next 4-5 decades will probably look a bit different than those that boomed in the last 50 years.
Last edited by nashvols; 12-31-2012 at 01:46 AM..
Reason: added cities
That is simply not true. I know of many people who live just outside of major northern cities, Boston, NYC and Chicago for example, and they all pay very reasonable rents for nice places.
Lulz. Another thread filled with sweeping generalizations.
I won't touch the "lack of character" comment, because that's just incredibly ignorant.
As other's pointed out, the South (as well as a lot of other Sun Belt cities) developed a lot of their population and area during the auto age. You can pretty clearly see the evolution of the cities when you pass outside the inner ring of neighborhoods from what are (mostly) grid style "traditional" cities to where the auto influence took over. This was a post WWII creation, and some of it links to white flight. A lot of people wanted to get out of the cities, a lot of which were dirty and overcrowded, and filled with crime. Then came the sort of American dream of "owning your own house." Houses could be built quickly and cheaply in the suburbs.
And as Southern cities became more popular as places to move to, there was a need for more housing. A lot more housing. Land was cheap. Most cities weren't hemmed in by a close ring of inner suburbs. A lot of cities added annexed huge areas.
Obviously there are some exceptions to this. But to suggest that there's "nothing but sprawl" is an absolutely ignorant statement.
Look at the cities and metros that grew a lot since the 1950s. The suburbs there sprawl, too. Sure, some of it looks a bit different. But it's still sprawl. Find me cities with new growth suburbs that don't have malls, shopping centers, cul-de-sacs, and cheaply built housing. I would bet that if a lot of the Northern cities were of similar size/makeup of the Southern cities in the 1950s, they would look pretty similar today.
Here's a fun little bit to look at.
Largest Southern cities (1950):
1. Houston - 596,163 - 160.0 sq mi - 3,726 ppsm
2. New Orleans - 570,445 - 199.4 sq mi - 2,861 ppsm
3. Dallas - 434,462 - 112.0 sq mi - 3,879 ppsm
4. San Antonio - 408,442 - 69.5 sq mi - 5,877 ppsm
5. Memphis - 396,000 - 104.2 sq mi - 3,800 ppsm
6. Louisville - 369,129 - 39.9 sq mi - 9,251 ppsm
7. Atlanta - 331,314 - 36.9 sq mi - 8,979 ppsm
8. Birmingham - 326,037 - 65.3 sq mi - 4,993 ppsm
9. Fort Worth - 278,778 - 93.7 sq mi - 2,975 ppsm
10. Miami - 249,276 - 34.2 sq mi - 7,289 ppsm
11. Oklahoma City - 243,504 - 50.8 sq mi - 4,793 ppsm
12. Richmond - 230,310 - 37.1 sq mi - 6,208 ppsm
13. Norfolk - 213,513 - 28.2 sq mi - 7,571 ppsm
14. Jacksonville - 204,517 - 30.2 sq mi - 6,772 ppsm
15. Tulsa - 182,740 - 26.7 sq mi - 6,844 ppsm
16. Nashville - 174,307 - 22.0 sq mi - 7,923 ppsm
17. Charlotte - 134,032 - 30.0 sq mi - 4,468 ppsm
18. Austin - 132,059 - 32.1 sq mi - 4,126 ppsm
19. Chattanooga - 131,041 - 28.0 sq mi - 4,680 ppsm
20. Mobile - 129,009 - 25.4 sq mi - 5,079 ppsm
21. Shreveport - 127,206 - 24.0 sq mi - 5,300 ppsm
22. Baton Rouge - 125,629 - 30.2 sq mi - 4,160 ppsm
23. Knoxville - 124,769 - 25.4 sq mi - 4,912 ppsm
24. Tampa - 124,681 - 19.0 sq mi - 6,562 ppsm
25. Savannah - 119,638 - 14.6 sq mi - 8,194 ppsm
So...these cities were already developed, and at least somewhat dense at this time. A lot of that density (in terms of built environment) certainly still exists over those original boundaries, though some has been lost by the way of freeway construction, urban renewal, and other thoughtful methods.
Had these cities been hemmed in by a close group of suburbs, they would likely not be nearly as populated as they are today. You would probably see similar population loss (at least in a number of them) as you had in the Rust Belt and Northeastern cities that reached their peaks in the 1950s. Instead, with ample open land around them, these cities were able to annex and, rather than lose population to the suburbs, they were able to build a suburban or semi-urban style environment within the city limits themselves.
Think of what many Rust Belt or Northeastern cities would look like had they been able to annex mass amounts of land during the 50s and beyond. Imagine if you took a large chunk of the 1950s-1980s or 90s development and put it in the city limits. They might not have grown a great deal from their 1950s size, but many of them probably wouldn't have lost much population, if any. But...a large portion of their city limits would be considered "sprawl." That shouldn't take away from the incredible cores that they built up before the car and commute were king.
The city makeups are completely different. That's the point I'm trying to make. Just as I imagine that cities that are smaller now but boom in the next 4-5 decades will probably look a bit different than those that boomed in the last 50 years.
Still, most of the Southern cities don't have as dense pre-WWII areas as in the Northeast. They mostly consist of bungalows as opposed to the rowhouses and apartment buildings of most NE cities.
The pre-WWII areas were built mostly in the early 20th century, when transit already allowed cities to be more expansive than the 19th century pedestrian oriented cities of the NE. This is especially true of cities like Houston and Atlanta, as opposed to say, Louisville. NE cities did undergo expansion with streetcars and subways, but their 19th century areas were much more significant. Southern cities were small enough so that in many cases, downtown and urban renewal/decay swallowed up much of whatever dense urban neighbourhoods existed. I think many Southern pre-WWII homes were also built out of wood instead of brick or stone, so maybe that made them less likely to last. Also important is the fact that Southern cities were much smaller in both the pre-streetcar and the pre-automobile days, so the neighbourhoods built in these periods didn't have to be as dense.
Baltimore isnt the south. Those southern defintions placing baltimore and D.C in the south were made 150 years ago during the civil war. Maryland is so much more northeastern then southern.
Are you saying Maryland is in the north or northerners dominate the southern state of Maryland?
Are you saying Maryland is in the north or northerners dominate the southern state of Maryland?
Please see 1,000-post thread on this topic entitled "Maryland is a Southern State" in the MD forum.
Some questions have no answer.
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.
