U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World
 [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 04-17-2015, 06:43 PM
 
9,185 posts, read 5,401,109 times
Reputation: 8882

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by SE9 View Post
London's an extremely cosmopolitan, vibrant city.
This is obviously true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SE9 View Post
Booming to a far greater extent than Atlanta.
This is quite obviously not true. London isn't even at peak historic population. Atlanta was a nothing village when London was the most important city on the planet.

London is in relative decline while Atlanta is a boomtown. NYC, Tokyo and LA now have considerably larger economies than London, and Paris and Osaka are probably about equal to London.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SE9 View Post
It's vibrancy is directly linked to its pedestrianism and public transport provision which dominates the entire city, not just the center.
Not really. It's vibrancy is due to the fact that it's one of the largest, most important and most cosmopolitan cities on the globe. There are certainly cities with better pedestrian orientation and better transit, yet they are far less vibrant than London.

London and the UK, if anything, are rather sprawling and auto-oriented compared to other cities/countries in Europe. Compare to Paris, Madrid, Rome, etc. London tends to have more single family housing, more auto accomodations, more suburban-style neighborhoods. Places like Paris, Madrid, Rome, Barcelona, etc. tend to be denser, and dominated by large apartment buildings. London is not really an apartment city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SE9 View Post
The best American cities tend to be the ones cited with these attributes (Boston, New York etc), and cities with the worst rep tend to be the car-oriented highway cities (Atlanta, Houston etc).
You're making subjective arguments on "best" and "worst" based on your personal biases, no no. Atlanta and Houston are boomtowns, and some of the fastest growing first world cities on earth. They are obviously judged to be extremely desirable, and are generally more prosperous than the UK (and definitely more prosperous than the UK outside of SE England).
Quote:
Originally Posted by SE9 View Post
The UK isn't dominated by cars either. A significant number of households in UK cities are car-free, such as Manchester (44.5%), Liverpool (46.1%) and Newcastle (41.7%).
In other words, these cities are indeed dominated by cars, as a strong majority of households own cars.

And unlike London, all three cities you cherry-picked have very small municipal boundaries, so if you actually looked at the regional population, you would see much higher car orientation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-17-2015, 07:08 PM
 
Location: Somewhere in Southern Italy
2,986 posts, read 1,668,627 times
Reputation: 1448
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
This is obviously true.

This is quite obviously not true. London isn't even at peak historic population. Atlanta was a nothing village when London was the most important city on the planet.

London is in relative decline while Atlanta is a boomtown. NYC, Tokyo and LA now have considerably larger economies than London, and Paris and Osaka are probably about equal to London.


Not really. It's vibrancy is due to the fact that it's one of the largest, most important and most cosmopolitan cities on the globe. There are certainly cities with better pedestrian orientation and better transit, yet they are far less vibrant than London.

London and the UK, if anything, are rather sprawling and auto-oriented compared to other cities/countries in Europe. Compare to Paris, Madrid, Rome, etc. London tends to have more single family housing, more auto accomodations, more suburban-style neighborhoods. Places like Paris, Madrid, Rome, Barcelona, etc. tend to be denser, and dominated by large apartment buildings. London is not really an apartment city.

You're making subjective arguments on "best" and "worst" based on your personal biases, no no. Atlanta and Houston are boomtowns, and some of the fastest growing first world cities on earth. They are obviously judged to be extremely desirable, and are generally more prosperous than the UK (and definitely more prosperous than the UK outside of SE England).


In other words, these cities are indeed dominated by cars, as a strong majority of households own cars.

And unlike London, all three cities you cherry-picked have very small municipal boundaries, so if you actually looked at the regional population, you would see much higher car orientation.
London actually reached his peak population in 2011, his population has had a growth of 1 million in a decade, the surrounding urban area (which is part of London despite being out of its boundaries) is also at its peak. It can't be denied that London is booming both economically and demographically, Atlanta simply has much more room to grow and despite that it only added 4000 inhabitants in the last decade so you are wrong anyway.

Pedestrianism and public transport actually really result in an increase of vibrancy, ot can be seen especially at a lower level, compare a midsized Spanish or Italian city with an American one of a similar size and in most cases the former will be more vibrant because of this exact reasons.

Rome is a quite sprawling city because of the amalgamation of the surrounding areas during the 30s which has given the city council vast areas to develop. This makes Rome unusual for Italian standards. Single family housing is still much more common in London.

I can't see how Houston and Atlanta are more desiderable places than London. That's asubjective matter but if given the chance to choose most would pick London.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2015, 07:19 PM
 
9,185 posts, read 5,401,109 times
Reputation: 8882
Quote:
Originally Posted by improb View Post
London actually reached his peak population in 2011, his population has had a growth of 1 million in a decade, the surrounding urban area (which is part of London despite being out of its boundaries) is also at its peak. It can't be denied that London is booming both economically and demographically, Atlanta simply has much more room to grow and despite that it only added 4000 inhabitants in the last decade so you are wrong anyway.
No, actually this is all wrong.

London's peak population was in 1939, when it had 8.6 million people. London's current population is lower than nearly a century ago.

In contrast, Atlanta is about 10 times larger than it was in 1939, and is adding population much faster than London. Atlanta grew by 1.5 million people in the last decade, far more than London, I have no idea where you came up with "4,000 residents."
Quote:
Originally Posted by improb View Post
Pedestrianism and public transport actually really result in an increase of vibrancy, ot can be seen especially at a lower level, compare a midsized Spanish or Italian city with an American one of a similar size and in most cases the former will be more vibrant because of this exact reasons.
No, that has nothing to do with vibrancy. LA is one of the most vibrant cities on earth and far more vibrant than any Italian city yet has poor pedestrian realm and poor transit. Rome actually has poor transit and Munich has excellent transit yet Rome is far more vibrant than Munich.
Quote:
Originally Posted by improb View Post
Rome is a quite sprawling city because of the amalgamation of the surrounding areas during the 30s which has given the city council vast areas to develop. This makes Rome unusual for Italian standards. Single family housing is still much more common in London.
That's completely absurd. 100% false.

I cannot seriously believe you live in Italy if you think Rome is dominated by single family homes. That's a laughable statement. Show is these claimed neighborhoods, please.

Rome is almost entirely dominated by apartment blocks, and London is almost entirely dominated by suburban-style terraced homes and detached homes. There are few 5-10 floor apartment block neighborhoods in London, while they are the overwhelming norm in Rome.
Quote:
Originally Posted by improb View Post
I can't see how Houston and Atlanta are more desiderable places than London. That's asubjective matter but if given the chance to choose most would pick London.
I never claimed they were more desirable than London. They are, however, very desirable, and very successful cities, that are both absolutely booming.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2015, 07:34 PM
 
Location: Pennsylvania
1,392 posts, read 1,086,810 times
Reputation: 929
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jorge Bueno View Post
Acajack,

I believe you are correct that N. Americans definitely seems to value private space over public space. I think this may extend to taxes/public works projects as well, like mass transportation. It is odd that we had better passenger trains running 100 years ago in the US and better trolley systems in the cities, the car and airplane alone do not entirely explain the demise of passenger rail as these developments didn't kill of rail in other parts of the world. Portions of Quebec, Ontario, the Great Lakes region of the US and the Northeast all have the density and connectivity to support high speed rail, yet it will take generations to happen if ever most likely. Of course this may have more to do with government policy, none the less many people in the US are vehemently against high speed rail. What comes first government policy, economic interest or the voter's interests.... In my opinion, it is probably a mix, but perhaps generally it is economic interests that influence government policy and the people follow along for the most part.
Let's get real here. Travel across the US before the interstate highway system, mass car ownership, and airplanes became standard travel was a ***** in the United States. Rail Road travel was not a great service and when the car became widely available people drove everywhere. Rail roads were required by law in the US to offer passenger service and usually lost money on the deal. When the government created Amtrak and deregulated the rail roads and no longer required them to offer passenger service they started to recover and are profitable again but that took a few decades of BS for that to happen.

The US has the best freight rail system in the world. It's roughly 75% of all new cars made in the US are transported by rail. Most freight is being put in domestic intermodal containers even with the drop in fuel prices containerization hasn't slowed down for moving freight around in the US. As far as passenger rail in the US goes for traveling between different cities Amtrak only owns a few lines and has to use rail companies lines to travel on. This can cause a problem since a higher speed train can take up the space of 6 slow moving trains hauling coal on a rail line.

Considering moving freight by rail is more important then passenger rail since it makes a much higher profit, takes more commercial trucks off the road, cuts down on pollution more, etc. you can't sacrifice freight rail for passenger rail. So if you want to have a rail transportation system like Europe does that would mean in the US we need to build a separate system for just Amtrak from scratch at this point and that would run into the trillions since some of the construction costs would run up to 2 billion or more per mile like it does with some subway construction through different areas of the country. Personally I'm not against doing that to increase public transportation via rail. What I'm against is doing things half assed like passenger rail is to a large extent done in the United States.

To put this in perspective of the US prioritizing moving freight by train instead of passengers these are what rail road commercials are like in the United States.



Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2015, 07:48 PM
 
Location: Glenn Carbon, IL
187 posts, read 131,166 times
Reputation: 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by iNviNciBL3 View Post
This is happening on a pretty small scale, yes.... but just because you are making somewhere more pedestrian friendly doesn't mean you are making it "European"

Europe is not special in that area, there are walkable places all over the world.... not just Europe.

American suburbs are still booming and they stick to the same model they have been using, spread out single family homes... because that is what people like here. they don't want to live in a "European like city" which is why people aren't building them on a big scale (as in as much as what they are doing in the suburbs)
I totally agree with this post.

I refuse to live on top of other people this is why I live on a little over one acre of land in a semi rural outlying suburb.
I don't want anyone near me. If want or need something I will drive the five miles to the main boulevard where my favorite grocery stores and home improvement centers are located.
I get my exercise as a distance runner and run every day.

You can take your urban lifestyle Bull***t and enjoy it yourself. That's not for me or seemingly the majority of others in the center of the country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2015, 10:30 PM
 
Location: Gatineau, Québec
18,480 posts, read 22,792,236 times
Reputation: 7277
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ladysolitude View Post
. When my cousins visited from London last year, they disliked our suburban life. Although they rented a car they felt you had to drive almost everywhere. They ended up taking the train 45 minutes daily to Manhattan where it is pretty walkable, more entertaining and has the subway.
I read comments like this all the time and I get lots of Europeans visiting me and I live in a fairly auto-dependent area no one has ever said anything negative and many are openly envious of the space we have, the pool, the trees, etc.

Now, where I live isn't like Houston or a place like that, and so there are attractive walkable areas not that far away either in the immediate area or in the major cities that are a couple of hours away from us.

But no one has ever said anything like: "Ewww, we're going to a restaurant and taking the car... that's so... 1957..."

I mean, where they live in outer Paris, Milan or Stockholm they pretty much do the same TBQH.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2015, 02:37 AM
SE9
 
Location: London | Atlanta
219 posts, read 215,760 times
Reputation: 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
This is obviously true.

This is quite obviously not true. London isn't even at peak historic population. Atlanta was a nothing village when London was the most important city on the planet.

London is in relative decline while Atlanta is a boomtown. NYC, Tokyo and LA now have considerably larger economies than London, and Paris and Osaka are probably about equal to London.


Not really. It's vibrancy is due to the fact that it's one of the largest, most important and most cosmopolitan cities on the globe. There are certainly cities with better pedestrian orientation and better transit, yet they are far less vibrant than London.

London and the UK, if anything, are rather sprawling and auto-oriented compared to other cities/countries in Europe. Compare to Paris, Madrid, Rome, etc. London tends to have more single family housing, more auto accomodations, more suburban-style neighborhoods. Places like Paris, Madrid, Rome, Barcelona, etc. tend to be denser, and dominated by large apartment buildings. London is not really an apartment city.

You're making subjective arguments on "best" and "worst" based on your personal biases, no no. Atlanta and Houston are boomtowns, and some of the fastest growing first world cities on earth. They are obviously judged to be extremely desirable, and are generally more prosperous than the UK (and definitely more prosperous than the UK outside of SE England).


In other words, these cities are indeed dominated by cars, as a strong majority of households own cars.

And unlike London, all three cities you cherry-picked have very small municipal boundaries, so if you actually looked at the regional population, you would see much higher car orientation.
A few falsities here.

  • London eclipsed its 1939 peak population in January 2015.
  • London's population is growing faster than Atlanta, and attracts more cross-border investment than any other city worldwide. Hence I state that it's booming to a greater extent than Atlanta. Immediately obvious to those familiar with both.
  • London isn't auto dependent. You can traverse the entire city and beyond with public transport.

Urban vibrancy is a marriage of pedestrianism, density and amenity provision. Good public transport provision is an enabler of densification and encourages pedestrianism. Hence the likes of pedestrian oriented Barcelona are more vibrant than auto Los Angeles.

If Atlanta were to reduce its car dependency (increasing its PT provision), it would become a more desirable city. Hence its not surprising that the most fêted large cities in North America are those with a higher culture of pedestrianism and lower car dependency.

Active sidewalks, streetside stores, al fresco dining, public squares (and so on) are generally considered more desirable than highways, strip malls and endless gated communities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2015, 02:44 AM
 
Location: Windsor, Ontario, Canada
11,269 posts, read 11,313,281 times
Reputation: 13351
Quote:
Originally Posted by SE9 View Post
In Atlanta, residential planners and developers have been ditching the traditional car-first approach and adopting more 'Western European' style spatial planning. Pedestrian-oriented quarters, townhomes, squares, al-fresco joints and all, very unlike the rest of the city.

If the people living in Glenwood Park (below) just had decent, multi-mode public transport links to downtown, midtown and Buckhead, then that's a triumph of pedestrianism and urbanity over car dependency:


Bartram & Garrett Sts. in Glenwood Park, Atlanta by aaron.davidson, on Flickr


Multifamily Street Glenwood park by Brett VA, on Flickr

It's too bad so many North American cities did away with Streetcars when these systems were in their prime, otherwise, the people of Glenwood Park would have one, because it had streetcar, and regular bus service running very near by in 1946.


Last edited by Magnatomicflux; 04-18-2015 at 03:00 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2015, 11:37 AM
 
361 posts, read 273,649 times
Reputation: 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by SE9 View Post
A few falsities here.

  • London eclipsed its 1939 peak population in January 2015.
  • London's population is growing faster than Atlanta, and attracts more cross-border investment than any other city worldwide. Hence I state that it's booming to a greater extent than Atlanta. Immediately obvious to those familiar with both.
  • London isn't auto dependent. You can traverse the entire city and beyond with public transport.

Urban vibrancy is a marriage of pedestrianism, density and amenity provision. Good public transport provision is an enabler of densification and encourages pedestrianism. Hence the likes of pedestrian oriented Barcelona are more vibrant than auto Los Angeles.

If Atlanta were to reduce its car dependency (increasing its PT provision), it would become a more desirable city. Hence its not surprising that the most fêted large cities in North America are those with a higher culture of pedestrianism and lower car dependency.

Active sidewalks, streetside stores, al fresco dining, public squares (and so on) are generally considered more desirable than highways, strip malls and endless gated communities.
Please excuse NOLA.

He/she's always had an interestingly unique take on the global standing of London.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2015, 11:58 AM
 
Location: Somewhere in Southern Italy
2,986 posts, read 1,668,627 times
Reputation: 1448
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
No, actually this is all wrong.

London's peak population was in 1939, when it had 8.6 million people. London's current population is lower than nearly a century ago.
I've taken in consideration only census years and London had more inhabitants in 2011 than it did in 1941.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
In contrast, Atlanta is about 10 times larger than it was in 1939, and is adding population much faster than London. Atlanta grew by 1.5 million people in the last decade, far more than London, I have no idea where you came up with "4,000 residents."
As for Atlanta, i've only used the city borders as you did the same for London, you either use the metropolitan area for both cities or the city borders, anyway even then London showed far more growth both from an economical and political level than Atlanta did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
No, that has nothing to do with vibrancy. LA is one of the most vibrant cities on earth and far more vibrant than any Italian city yet has poor pedestrian realm and poor transit. Rome actually has poor transit and Munich has excellent transit yet Rome is far more vibrant than Munich.

That's completely absurd. 100% false.

I cannot seriously believe you live in Italy if you think Rome is dominated by single family homes. That's a laughable statement. Show is these claimed neighborhoods, please.

Rome is almost entirely dominated by apartment blocks, and London is almost entirely dominated by suburban-style terraced homes and detached homes. There are few 5-10 floor apartment block neighborhoods in London, while they are the overwhelming norm in Rome.
I haven't said that Rome is dominated by single family housing, i've just said that it's more common than you think, it's atypical for Italian standards. Rome's core is far bigger than that of Munich, Rome is more vibrant simply because of that, Rome also has a decent public transportation. If you were to compare two cities of a similar size, i'm still sure that the one with the best public transportation would win.

Single family housing in Rome is found especially south of the city, in neighbourhoods such as Infernetto, Acilia, suburbs such as Ostia, Fiumicino, ecc. Google most neighbourhoods and suburbs South and especially South East of the city and you will find them. This is a street of Infernetto:



Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
I never claimed they were more desirable than London. They are, however, very desirable, and very successful cities, that are both absolutely booming.
Sorry for that, they are indeed desiderable cities for most, some would disagree but the same goes for London, it all comes down to personal preferences.
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 > World Forums > World

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

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 - Top