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.
Why do you keep acting like you do not read what people have stated.
Urban DOES NOT equate to Density beyond the limit of a rural area becoming urbanized.
Urban = OPPOSITE of RURAL.
Urban DOES NOT EQUAL Higher Density of urbanized area.
What makes you think such? Have you changed the definition of urban?
By the way, a few years ago, I drove around Baltimore's loop, 695. If this isn't suburban development, I don't know what is. However, a mere five to seven miles, maybe not even that far, west of 695 along I-70, and you're looking out down into what looks like a valley, and hills into the distance, surrounded by non-developed rural area. Do you honestly think that this scene can be recreated five miles from I-285 in Atlanta?
You also want to act like the highly dense area of Baltimore goes on for miles and miles, and that is not the case. It extends only a few miles from downtown Baltimore, admittedly farther than Atlanta's downtown-midtown strip, but come, on, metro Baltimore is a much smaller region.
Smaller freeways
Smaller skyline
Smaller population
Smaller urbanized area
Less dynamic
No large media presence
Less exposure
You're comparing a much smaller city to a much larger region, and I think that it's laughable. Simply because you view Baltimore as "northeastern", though it's debateable, and such can be debated in another forum, you and your northern, anti-southern personalities will always choose a northern city over a northern city, if you think that there's at least a little chance that someone will believe you. However, it's laughable. Imagine if the roles were reversed and both cities were in the other's area, you'd be laughing at us, and reasonably so, for saying that Baltimore could compare with Atlanta. In my opinion, it's northeastern elitism and introverted attitudes which elude reality.
While I agree the suburban ares are similar - they are the same basically everywhere. On urbanity I am talking about the city not the metro. Baltimore as a city is more Urban than is Atlanta. On the developed areas Baltimore is part of region that is continuously developed and larger than Atlanta - my point originally
I truly have nothing against Atlanta, truly but a urban enclave (yes i guess my definition and i am not the only one) it is not. it has pockets of urbanity and some are very good IMHO but not the cohesion
I also do not equate highways or even skyscapers with urbanity - they can factor but to me are very low on the what makes a place feel urban to me.
Philly has small and horrible highways, does this make it not urban?
How is Baltimore less dynamic? just curious?
And for the record - Baltimore is the larger city - by population and in about half the sq milage - if you add the parts to get to 134 sq miles the disparity only increases
While I agree the suburban ares are similar - they are the same basically everywhere. On urbanity I am talking about the city not the metro. Baltimore as a city is more Urban than is Atlanta. On the developed areas Baltimore is part of region that is continuously developed and larger than Atlanta - my point originally
You equate higher density with urban, and that is not the meaning. Why you keep choosing to act like I haven't mentioned this, I do not know.
I've also mentioned that Baltimore's urbanized area only slightly connected to Washington D.C.'s urbanized area by a very thin strip of development relative to the two blob masses of each's respective metro area. These two metros only slightly linked in the mid to late 90s. The fact that they've only slightly linked can be seen in the fact that they are only connected in close proximity to I-95, but as you move away, it becomes rural. Such is what I mentioned with I-70 away from I-695. Are you acting like you didn't hear me mention such?
Looking at the urbanized area maps, look how little, itty bitty, Baltimore is to Atlanta. It's like a cute little town. Being serious, though, it reminds me of an urbanized area about the size of Orlando, maybe slightly smaller, which is decent-sized, but not anything near the size of Atlanta.
Please do not add DC to the discussion, as it only makes your argument weaker.
I have never stated that the city proper of Atlanta is more dense than the city proper of Baltimore. However, that's not the definition of urban. So, under that account, Baltimore can't be called "more urban". Atlanta's a larger area with a larger urbanized area, hence we have objective criteria or data for calling a place more "urban". You have a more dense area in the city proper, and that's it.
Quote:
I truly have nothing against Atlanta, truly but a urban enclave (yes i guess my definition and i am not the only one) it is not. it has pockets of urbanity and some are very good IMHO but not the cohesion
The whole developed/built-up area IS urban environment, not only those that are the most dense. Again, you have the wrong definition.
Quote:
I also do not equate highways or even skyscapers with urbanity - they can factor but to me are very low on the what makes a place feel urban to me.
I equate it to the dynamic factor of a city. It makes a city feel much larger, and gives it more clout.
Quote:
Philly has small and horrible highways, does this make it not urban?
No, it doesn't. It makes it feel smaller, though it doesn't make it so. It makes it less dynamic, in my opinion, on some measures. Philly's built-up area is comparable to Atlanta's, so it's urban area is similar to Atlanta's. However, I won't contend that Atlanta's built-up area is quite as dense as Philadelphia's, as it's not.
Quote:
How is Baltimore less dynamic? just curious?
Let's see.
Has it held an Olympic Games?
Is it home to the World's Busiest Airport?
Is it home to CNN or HLN?
Is it home to the Weather Channel?
Is it home to other cable networks, including TBS, TNT, Cartoon Network, TCM, Boomerang, or TruTv?
Is its convention business higher than what's held in Atlanta?
Does it have a comparable skyline?
Is its freeways and freeway system larger?
Is its urbanized area as large?
Does it have the four major league sports teams?
Is it the premier city of a region?
Quote:
And for the record - Baltimore is the larger city - by population and in about half the sq milage - if you add the parts to get to 134 sq miles the disparity only increases
For the city limits, and that's it. It's not as if the development of a city region stops at the city limits. In reality, Atlanta is over two times larger than Baltimore.
The general consensus is that the definition of "urban" means, in part, higher population density. As for Washington DC and Baltimore, their metropolitan areas are connected. They have overlapping labor markets. We often call it the Baltimore-Washington metropolitan area (though it's not technically the same MSA, but it is the same CSA). We even have a major airport and connecting highway by that name. So, there you go.
U make up defintions to support your case.. i see that u danced around the word "suburban" which exactly what atlanta is. U also danced around my question. Then, u say has tons of sprawl, then say 5 miles outside of 695 is rural, but
fail to mention that rural patch is a valley with a river flowing through it and that suburbs pick up imediately afterward. Then u say baltimore is a small city, when in fact, it is bigger than atlanta. then ur saying atlanta is more urban because it sprawls more. Then u use atlanta's freeway as a example of how urban atl. Atlanta is the poster child for sprawl. Then u talk about dynamics mention a couple tv stations, an airport, and the olympics...atlanta must be more dynamic than NYC, LA, DC, CHI. Uve been contradicting your self since this thread started...u dont know what hell ur talking about
and black Baltimoreans, well its different. They pronounce words like two as "tew" or avenue as "avenew". Kinda wierd, sounds like some sort of California stoner dialect.
Why do you keep acting like you do not read what people have stated.
Urban DOES NOT equate to Density beyond the limit of a rural area becoming urbanized.
Urban = OPPOSITE of RURAL.
.
Dude, urban is not the just the opposite of rural. I'd say developed land or suburban is the opposite of rural.
Urban, in a city vs city context, usually means density, walkable, pedestrian friendly, parking behind developments, buildins up to the sidewalk, mass transit, etc.
Where have I "made up definitions" to support my case. In fact, I've actually provided the definition of urban, from sources. Actual definitions only say a dense area with a higher population. It does not say how dense, or how populated per given unit of area. Suburban areas have relatively high population densities to the rural countryside.
Anything that is suburban is urban, only that it is on the less dense side of urban.
There is "urban" and then there is "rural". The word "suburban" is a twentieth century creation to refer to less dense urban areas. It doesn't negate the fact that such areas are urban, only that they are less dense urban areas, characterized by a different development pattern than traditional urban areas.
Quote:
i see that u danced around the word "suburban" which exactly what atlanta is.
Most of metro Atlanta is in the suburban form of urban, yes, but so is every metro area in the country. Parts of the actual city are classically urban in the more dense sense.
Quote:
U also danced around my question.
What question is that?
Quote:
Then, u say has tons of sprawl
I only used the word "sprawl" in the context of pointing out the ridiculousness of attributing a verb to a noun's place.
Quote:
then say 5 miles outside of 695 is rural, but
fail to mention that rural patch is a valley with a river flowing through it and that suburbs pick up imediately afterward.
Not I-70 westward. The "suburbs" don't pick up at all. In fact, I didn't see any real development until Frederick.
Quote:
Then u say baltimore is a small city, when in fact, it is bigger than atlanta.
Your city limits may be a bit larger, but what does that mean? Really, nothing. Metro Atlanta is over two times the size of metro Baltimore, both in population and developed area (more like three times the size according to this).
Quote:
then ur saying atlanta is more urban because it sprawls more.
Atlanta has a much larger developed area, which is the urbanized area. An urbanized area is an urban area, for it is not rural. This is not hard to figure out.
Quote:
Then u use atlanta's freeway as a example of how urban atl.
I mentioned the freeway size as a rebuttal to explain how more DYNAMIC of a region that Atlanta is in comparison to Baltimore.
Quote:
Atlanta is the poster child for sprawl.
What growing region doesn't sprawl? Not everyone wants to live like sardines in a can. Thus, you have to make room for people and their single family homes, and the hinterlands provide the room necessary for that growth.
Quote:
Then u talk about dynamics mention a couple tv stations
A couple tv stations? What other cities outside New York and L.A., and perhaps Washington (for political media), have anywhere near the media exposure as Atlanta.
CNN, while I disagree with their ideological slant, is a worldwide cable network. Add on its affiliate station, HLN.
The Weather Channel is the primary weather information source for the entire nation.
Then the networks of TBS, TNT, Cartoon Network, Boomerang, TCM, and TruTv.
Seriously, what other metro even comes close? That's 9 stations.
Quote:
an airport
Yeah, only the world's busiest airport, and a mammoth one at that. A new international concourse is set to open in the coming years. That's pretty dynamic.
Quote:
and the olympics
Not many cities get that opportunity. That's dynamic.
Quote:
...atlanta must be more dynamic than NYC, LA, DC, CHI.
I never claimed such. In fact, I'd say no to all of them. Atlanta would be more dynamic than DC if it weren't the nation's capital, but it is. Thus, DC is more dynamic.
Quote:
Uve been contradicting your self since this thread started...u dont know what hell ur talking about
Where have I contradicted myself? I've kept the same message from the start.
Dude, urban is not the just the opposite of rural. I'd say developed land or suburban is the opposite of rural.
If you knew anything about terminology, you'd know that the opposite of rural is urban, and you'd know that suburban was invented to refer to a low density urban characterized by a different form of development.
Quote:
Urban, in a city vs city context, usually means density, walkable, pedestrian friendly, parking behind developments, buildins up to the sidewalk, mass transit, etc.
Those are characteristics that are attributed to city life, of which is found in an urban environment. However, urban is the opposite of rural, relating to a more densely built physical environment (of which suburbs are), and of which have a higher population, relative to rural areas.
You do realize that many of the stations you reference are actually owned by a Phildelphia company which also owns NBC among many many cable channels
Please explain, kid.
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.
