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.
I disagree. The word urban means "relating to or concerned with a city or densely populated area". Therefore, to say something is more urban, means that it's more dense and more developed. Therefore, it's not a black or white argument. Something can be more urban than something else (hence Atlanta and SF).
When the word "density" is referred to, it is used in relation to the surrounding rural area, which is of a low density. Hence, anything not rural is is dense and urban. This refers to any urbanized area, whether suburban or extremely dense urban.
Thank u stars&stripes u made my job a lot easier.....so im asking, as far as city limits are concerned, are jacksonville, phoenix, okc, LA, dallas, and houston more urban than the city of new york?
No, most are not.
With Jacksonville, you have a few areas within the city limits, courtesy of a city-county consolidation, that are rural. So, as a whole, obviously Jacksonville is less urban.
With Dallas, LA, and Phoenix it is not less urban than New York, only less dense.
With Houston, given very liberal annexation laws, the city has annexed many areas. There is a small almost rural-like area, a fraction of the overall city of Houston area, that can be found. If you want to make light of liberal annexation laws, then I suppose, given this terminology, that Houston as a whole is less urban than New York City as a whole. However, for the developed area of the Houston city limits, it is not less urban, only less dense.
When the word "density" is referred to, it is used in relation to the surrounding rural area, which is of a low density. Hence, anything not rural is is dense and urban. This refers to any urbanized area, whether suburban or extremely dense urban.
We may be saying the same thing, but in different ways. I guess I just disagree that if it's not rural, it's dense. There are defined levels of density that define an urban area. Therefore, anything in the urban area is of a minimum level of density that the government came up with.
In terms of this argument, I think the OP is trying to get to the fact that at higher levels of density (greater than 10,000/sq.mile), there is a different feel and different characteristics of an urban area. This is what some people prefer, but many people do not (hence choices like Houston, Atlanta, Denver, etc.). It's not good or bad, it's just a choice. The frustrating thing (for me) is that people can't just say, yes cities like SF are very dense and offer an environment that is different than Atlanta. Now, Atlanta is a great city, it's just not what high-density-lovers prefer. Does Atlanta have some higher density areas? Yes! However, for someone who loves getting lost in a maze of seemingly endless density and urbanity (at the very dense level), it's just different.
So, I guess what I'm saying is that in terms of this argument, to say "whatever is not rural is dense", is not the point of the thread.
We may be saying the same thing, but in different ways. I guess I just disagree that if it's not rural, it's dense. There are defined levels of density that define an urban area. Therefore, anything in the urban area is of a minimum level of density that the government came up with.
In terms of this argument, I think the OP is trying to get to the fact that at higher levels of density (greater than 10,000/sq.mile), there is a different feel and different characteristics of an urban area. This is what some people prefer, but many people do not (hence choices like Houston, Atlanta, Denver, etc.). It's not good or bad, it's just a choice. The frustrating thing (for me) is that people can't just say, yes cities like SF are very dense and offer an environment that is different than Atlanta. Now, Atlanta is a great city, it's just not what high-density-lovers prefer. Does Atlanta have some higher density areas? Yes! However, for someone who loves getting lost in a maze of seemingly endless density and urbanity (at the very dense level), it's just different.
So, I guess what I'm saying is that in terms of this argument, to say "whatever is not rural is dense", is not the point of the thread.
I agree with you that Atlanta does not have nearly the mass of density that San Francisco does. I clearly saw that on my visit to San Francisco, and it does offer a different vibe than what can be felt in Atlanta. It is neat to ride the cable cars up and down those massive hills, while wall to wall development is all around you. With this, I can clearly say that Atlanta can not compare. However, this is merely a very dense area. It doesn't make even Atlanta's suburbs not urban, it simply makes it a less dense urban area.
Not everything that is not rural is very dense. It's simply dense enough to be classified as not rural and, hence, urban.
I agree with you that Atlanta does not have nearly the mass of density that San Francisco does. I clearly saw that on my visit to San Francisco, and it does offer a different vibe than what can be felt in Atlanta. It is neat to ride the cable cars up and down those massive hills, while wall to wall development is all around you. With this, I can clearly say that Atlanta can not compare. However, this is merely a very dense area. It doesn't make even Atlanta's suburbs not urban, it simply makes it a less dense urban area.
Not everything that is not rural is very dense. It's simply dense enough to be classified as not rural and, hence, urban.
I agree with everything you said there.
As a side note, I was looking up Barcelona because I have this distinct love for it (from multiple visits). I was very surprised to see that its density of the city as a whole was 40,000/sq. mile...without many skyscrapers!!! It didn't feel overwhelming when I was there, but so much of the city is built for walking and cycling that there are an infinite number of enclaves that you can get lost in.
I can't believe people are even arguing this. It's like asking "which city has a bigger subway system? Miami or New York?" then having people arguing that Miami's heavy rail cars are larger in size.
People, a question was asked (albeit with an obvious answer). Everyone knew what the OP was talking about. Don't make things more complicated then they need to be.
In the case of Atlanta, not really. We wouldn't call Marietta, Sandy Springs, Dunwoody, et al 'The City'.
Hey LD just saw you responded. Uhh, I guess I didn't take into account the ITP/OTP sorta attitude and I did reference all OTP areas. Atlanta was a bad example and to some extents so is any major metro with lots of suburbs because even in Orlando we don't call outlying burbs the city. So I'm willing to modify and relate it to what I should have just said in the beginning which is that in places with few suburbs like Greenville, suburban areas within the actual city proper are considered the city since one, they are city proper & two, they are developed even if only to a suburban/exurban standard. Now go ask anyone from South Carolina where I used to live if the Atlanta metro (developed area only, not rural patches) is the city and they will certainly say yes. I shift into my "Piedmont Perspective" anytime I discuss Atlanta on CD and you should know that the place was worshiped by the country folk I knew in the Upstate. I met some friends once near Suwanee coming in from 85, and when I got back to SC everyone asked so how was the city? I said I was in an Atlanta suburb but they still acted amazed since, as you well know, the suburbs there are pretty sweet, have busy highways, and sometimes even quite a bit to do. Where I was, not so much, but places closer in could be considered the city.
Actually, San Francisco is more DENSE, not more urban, for urban relates to the opposite of rural. You can't be "more urban". You're either in an (urban)ized area, or you're not (rural). Simple as that.
Urbanized, or developed area is one thing, but "urban" in the context of this conversation is something else.
Yet technically, you are correct. Perhaps a better title would have been: SF or Atlanta, Which is a more Vibrant Urban Environment?--I don't know.
Its just a lot of fun to go into The City and walk around, with tons of people everywhere enjoying the sights and sounds, the shopping, the entertainment, the bustle of office workers, its always cool to take visitors there... http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3253/...f786c6f8_z.jpg
Someone mentioned being packed in like sardines. Well Id be bold enough to say the majority of the people in the pics above probably live in Suburbs or in outlying metro areas but they come into SF because it provides them with the best urban experience where they can not only find the best shopping, but the best overall time wandering up and down streets and neighborhoods they don't have where they live.
And then once they get their city fix, they go home to their suburban areas.
Urbanized, or developed area is one thing, but "urban" in the context of this conversation is something else.
Yet technically, you are correct. Perhaps a better title would have been: SF or Atlanta, Which is a more Vibrant Urban Environment?--I don't know.
Its just a lot of fun to go into The City and walk around, with tons of people everywhere enjoying the sights and sounds, the shopping, the entertainment, the bustle of office workers, its always cool to take visitors there...
Someone mentioned being packed in like sardines. Well Id be bold enough to say the majority of the people in the pics above probably live in Suburbs or in outlying metro areas but they come into SF because it provides them with the best urban experience where they can not only find the best shopping, but the best overall time wandering up and down streets and neighborhoods they don't have where they live.
And then once they get their city fix, they go home to their suburban areas.
I can't disagree with what you've said. Obviously San Francisco is more vibrant compared to the city of Atlanta. However, at the metro level, namely speaking of suburbs, it's fairly comparable in terms of vibrancy.
Which city is more urban? San Francisco. But WHO CARES? It just means you're more likely to see a bum pissing on a street while you are walking by in San Francisco than Atlanta. Someone please explain the significance of this thread. They are both great cities that have great qualities which attract people, but there seems to be this implicit presumption (based on people thinking this is an Atlanta-bashing thread) that "more urban" is necessarily "more desirable". Not everyone wants to be packed in like sardines, but some wouldn't have it any other way.
It was created as another means of slamming sun belt cities by density freaks
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.
