U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-19-2014, 07:22 AM
 
3,567 posts, read 2,375,283 times
Reputation: 2729

Advertisements

Why not? Oftentimes the inner suburbs and the outer portions of the city are differentiated only by the political decisions of some mayor a hundred years ago on whether or not to annex X neighborhood or Y neighborhood.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-19-2014, 08:26 AM
 
1,593 posts, read 1,830,986 times
Reputation: 3353
Skyscrapers in the suburbs!

Done.

Austin
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2014, 10:37 AM
bg7
 
7,697 posts, read 8,179,574 times
Reputation: 15093
Quote:
Originally Posted by armory View Post
How much of the nation uses rail for travel these days? It is cost prohibitive. If one can hop on a $69 SW Airlines flight which only takes half of one day, what would make them want to spend more than double than for an entire day?

Train travel isn't the romantic notion it was 70 years ago.

You can recline your seat without causing a major international incident. You can get up and stroll around at all times. You have more leg room. You don't go through ten screenings to get on the train. You can bring any amount of liquid on the train - your 16 oz coffee? ok. etc. etc.

Its just a more civilized way to travel for many distances. I'll admit that time is a big factor and will lean most people in favor of air travel - but for some the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. Plus the pollution is controlled centrally at the electricity-producing plant - much less pollution than the same amount of passengers being transported by air.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2014, 10:52 AM
 
Location: Durm
5,876 posts, read 8,856,052 times
Reputation: 6618
We have one - it's weird. But helped me find my way home when I first moved here.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2014, 03:21 PM
 
Location: Sodo Sopa at The Villas above Kenny' s House.
2,492 posts, read 2,372,934 times
Reputation: 3869
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorasMom View Post
We have one - it's weird. But helped me find my way home when I first moved here.
Yes, good ole 15-501 Durham/Chapel Hill. I use it as a marker as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2014, 04:23 PM
 
1,478 posts, read 2,004,090 times
Reputation: 1579
Quote:
Originally Posted by armory View Post
How much of the nation uses rail for travel these days? It is cost prohibitive. If one can hop on a $69 SW Airlines flight which only takes half of one day, what would make them want to spend more than double than for an entire day?

Train travel isn't the romantic notion it was 70 years ago.

It is cost prohibitive mainly due to the fact that metros have sprawled as much as they have. This has taken away the advantage of trains. If 50% of the people lived at a reasonably robust density of about 10,000 psm, then a fairly robust public transit system would also be there. This means that someone can get to the train station without a car quickly, hop on a train, and go 180 miles in about 2 hours to another central city, where they could take transit to their destination. This is vastly preferable to air travel, because it's probably 3-3.5 hours door to door without lugging around a car.

At today's densities, the same trip by air would be an hour gate to gate, plus an hr at least of waiting and going through security (minimum), plus 30 minutes to an airport, plus another 30 minutes from an airport. You're already at 3 hours if there are no delays, you don't need to wait for baggage, and if you don't need to stop at the airport to get a rental (another 45 minutes at least). For the pleasure of sitting in a more cramped space. Plus on a train, I can actually get some work done because I have space.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2014, 08:53 PM
 
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
3,988 posts, read 3,468,076 times
Reputation: 2461
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmo View Post
A very tall building in the DC area is only 20 stories. What do you consider to be a skyscraper?
Tysons Corner just broke ground on a new 470' tower Monday:

Ground broken for region's 2nd tallest building - WTOP.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2014, 11:27 AM
 
Location: M I N N E S O T A
14,800 posts, read 17,729,874 times
Reputation: 9029
The skyscrapers in suburbs are usually very small office buildings and hotels.

Bloomington Minnesota sort of has its own skyline with the offices that line the freeway.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2191/...8e7c8a692c.jpg
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2014, 11:40 AM
 
Location: The City
22,341 posts, read 32,187,488 times
Reputation: 7744
Quote:
Originally Posted by the resident09 View Post
Tysons Corner just broke ground on a new 470' tower Monday:

Ground broken for region's 2nd tallest building - WTOP.com
where is the current tallest in the DC area - 470 feet is pretty tall, esp in Tysons
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2014, 01:44 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 13,122,648 times
Reputation: 3982
Los Angeles has quite a few suburban skyscraper zones - Glendale, Long Beach, Century City, Warner Center. Sherman Oaks are the ones with the tallest towers. Pasadena, Santa Monica and even Santa Ana have sort of low-rise skylines that have a few true skyscrapers.

For some reason it seems like in LA suburban skyscraper growth has slowed down, but perhaps that is because the revitalized DTLA is essentially a construction free-for-all with almost no NIMBYs while the outer neighborhoods are full of obstacles. In the past DTLA was a dead zone so building in more suburban areas was worth it for developers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top