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.
We don't have third world cities in America. Terrible thread.
Terrible thread? You live in America, right? You have the option to not read it. Go about your merry way if you so choose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by annie_himself
Doesn't a city have to be incorporated? Not sure about this one person thing you're talking about.
I don't know all of it, but I will say this with your second sentence in mind:
If a state (or the Census Bureau) decides that a "city" is 10,000 people, you can't argue that that particular place is not a city because 10,001 people live there. And you can't relegate it to lesser a status.
If a state (or the Census bureau) decides that a city is 10,000 people, you can't argue that that particular place is "a city" because it has 9,999 people. And you can't relegate it to a higher status
Think of it this way:
I went into Walmart a 12:00 AM on the date of my birthday and couldn't buy alcohol because the cashier thought I was still "underage". After I showed my ID and told her that I was now "officially" 21 years of age at 12:05 AM of my birthday, she sold me beer.
That's what I was talking about with the "1 person" remark. Hell, even Family Matters, the TV Show, did an episode about that.
You are free to rank San Juan as you wish, or other Puerto Rican cities as high as you want. But I doubt they would make it out of the "1. C." ranking, especially compared to the most populous places in America... It would probably fall into the "2. A." ranking.
Considering America is a first world country, the vast majority of American cities would be considered first world. Maybe only parts of some cities could be considered second or third world ( parts of Detroit, Chicago, LA etc.)
If that's the case, fine; you think of this as "Tiers", but I still think "1st, 2nd, and 3rd World" adjectives still are useful.*
Here are my opinions to get some lists started (some of these places I've never been to):
1. A) New York City, Boston, Chicago, Washington D.C.
1. B) Philadelphia, San Francisco, Seattle, Los Angeles
1. C) Portland, Houston, Dallas, Cleveland
2. A) St. Louis, Atlanta, Minneapolis
2. B) Indianapolis, Columbus, Milwaukee
2. C) Omaha, Las Vegas, Memphis
3. A) Jacksonville, Des Moines
3. B) West Lafayette, IN, Bloomington, IN, South Bend, IN, Muncie, IN
3. C) Muskogee, OK, Lake Zurich, IL, Arkadelphia, AR, Bargersville, IN
So, which cities are the most "city"?
Once again, this is not lumping "suburbs" into the city. This is cities on their own, and how do they stand?
For example: It would be a disservice to Evanston, IL and Cambridge, MA to lump them in with their "main" cities. Those two places by themselves (minus their "host" cities) could be fantastic urban areas on their own legs. No need to bring Chicago and Boston into the conversation when those areas have walkable areas, plentiful public transportation, a mixture of housing styles, etc.
For example: It would be a disservice to Evanston, IL and Cambridge, MA to lump them in with their "main" cities. Those two places by themselves (minus their "host" cities) could be fantastic urban areas on their own legs. No need to bring Chicago and Boston into the conversation when those areas have walkable areas, plentiful public transportation, a mixture of housing styles, etc.
Except they're not. Cambridge is the way it is because the center of Boston is just across the river. It's an extension of Greater Boston, it didn't grow up in isolation, having Boston right there made it very different. Evanston is somewhat similar, though further from downtown Chicago.
Considering America is a first world country, the vast majority of American cities would be considered first world. Maybe only parts of some cities could be considered second or third world ( parts of Detroit, Chicago, LA etc.)
I could see how you think that by reading the book cover, but not the book.
But this is "Urban Planning". This about the built environment, not behavior.
Is Montgomery, AL more "city" than Chicago, IL?
Is Zionsville, IN more "city" than Montgomery, AL?
That's what this thread is about.
I want to know about the cities, that on first glance, look to be "3rd World", but upon closer inspection are more "2nd World" standards.
Except they're not. Cambridge is the way it is because the center of Boston is just across the river. It's an extension of Greater Boston, it didn't grow up in isolation, having Boston right there made it very different. Evanston is somewhat similar, though further from downtown Chicago.
I see your point, but that doesn't matter here. Maybe you should watch this clip?:
Jaden Smith was in a movie only... ONLY... because his dad is Will Smith. Is anyone denying that fact? No. But at some point in time you are held responsible for what you put out there and you are no longer judged by your parents' coattails.
Who did the people of Cambridge vote for mayor last election?
Who did the people of Evanston vote for?
Even easier question to help distill this:
If Cambridge decides to add protected bike lanes to every single inch of roadway in Cambridge... does that mean that every single inch of Boston's roads have protected bike lanes?
Last edited by A2DAC1985; 06-17-2013 at 02:10 PM..
Except they're not. Cambridge is the way it is because the center of Boston is just across the river. It's an extension of Greater Boston, it didn't grow up in isolation, having Boston right there made it very different. Evanston is somewhat similar, though further from downtown Chicago.
Cambridge has Harvard, which nowhere else in the world has, even Boston.
Don't shortchange cities simply because they're "suburbs" or "close to the city".
Last edited by A2DAC1985; 06-17-2013 at 02:12 PM..
Reason: I took out the Evanston reference
If that's the case, fine; you think of this as "Tiers", but I still think "1st, 2nd, and 3rd World" adjectives still are useful.*
Here are my opinions to get some lists started (some of these places I've never been to):
1. A) New York City, Boston, Chicago, Washington D.C.
1. B) Philadelphia, San Francisco, Seattle, Los Angeles
1. C) Portland, Houston, Dallas, Cleveland
2. A) St. Louis, Atlanta, Minneapolis
2. B) Indianapolis, Columbus, Milwaukee
2. C) Omaha, Las Vegas, Memphis
3. A) Jacksonville, Des Moines
3. B) West Lafayette, IN, Bloomington, IN, South Bend, IN, Muncie, IN
3. C) Muskogee, OK, Lake Zurich, IL, Arkadelphia, AR, Bargersville, IN
So, which cities are the most "city"?
Once again, this is not lumping "suburbs" into the city. This is cities on their own, and how do they stand?
For example: It would be a disservice to Evanston, IL and Cambridge, MA to lump them in with their "main" cities. Those two places by themselves (minus their "host" cities) could be fantastic urban areas on their own legs. No need to bring Chicago and Boston into the conversation when those areas have walkable areas, plentiful public transportation, a mixture of housing styles, etc.
Does anyone else have some thoughts?
The title is definitely throwing people off. First world and third world usually mean quality of living and poverty, etc., not world rank. Those are "Alpha vs. Beta" world cities. Anyways, I get what you mean. As far as your list goes, Cleveland and Portland are too high, and Atlanta, Minneapolis, and Las Vegas are too low.
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.
