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 with that. I think the whole "urban" thing is a ploy by East Coast people to boost their area.
True, urban means city but urbanity takes on many different forms. You can TELL THE DIFFERENCE between the City and Suburbs in almost any city in America. There has to be a healthy mix of population density and urban development and culture IMO. I think a lot of people from the East Coast look down on west coast or sunbelt cities for no other reason than the difference in asthetics. It's very arrogant. They claim "sprawl" is why sunbelt cities aren't as urban yet New York sprawls a lot more than Los Angeles. But cities like LA aren't "real cities" because sunlight actually reaches the street
I'm not from the East Coast nor do I think the only urban cities are on the East Coast. I think many cities in America are urban (New Orleans, Portland, SF, Seattle, Chicago, Minneapolis, etc...). I do not think a city that has only one or 2 urban neighborhoods is truly a city. In New Orleans, I spend most of my time in many neighborhoods that are not the CBD or French Quarter (there are tons of neighborhoods all over the 20 square mile urban core (my own definition) that are walkable and accessible by bus or streetcar or even a bike). A city is a place where people are constantly walking around, interacting, rather than sitting in a car on a freeway. I know this is a stereotype of New South cities but I have been to Atlanta, Houston, and Dallas and they are NOT walkable by any means. The beautiful skyscrapers seem idle and there seems to be no one in the sidewalks. These cities have no life outside of the car. Look at the cities of the ENTIRE WORLD and ATL, Houston or Dallas have nothing in common with them. Throughout history, cities have been places where people interacted and walked to do their business. This type of lifestyle is not possible outside of 1 or 2 neighborhoods in these cities.
I'm not saying these are horrible places to live or to spend your life, I just think that they are not truly cities. They are basically suburban places with a "city" name.
Also, if you can TELL THE DIFFERENCE between city and suburbs anywhere in America, you should be able to tell that there is a huge difference between car cities and urban cities.
And about sunlight hitting the street, my statements have nothing to do with huge skyscrapers and the like.
In fact, urbanity is the epitome of what it means to be a city. If a city is not urban, it is SUB-urban. Just because a place has the moniker of "city," does that mean it is truly a city?? The whole reason the word suburb exists is because development started happening with the car in mind, thus creating places that were "sub-urban," or not like the urban "city".
I think that for casual conversation, sure Atlanta or Houston can be called cities. But in academic arenas, I don't think these places should be called cities on the fact that they are not urban. The fact that they were for the most part built entirely for the car makes them "sub-urban" places, or suburbs.
A city is a city no matter how it's built. I hate when people say that.
With that said, this is about New Orleans and New York, not Atlanta.
A city is a place where people are constantly walking around, interacting, rather than sitting in a car on a freeway. I know this is a stereotype of New South cities but I have been to Atlanta, Houston, and Dallas and they are NOT walkable by any means. The beautiful skyscrapers seem idle and there seems to be no one in the sidewalks. These cities have no life outside of the car. Look at the cities of the ENTIRE WORLD and ATL, Houston or Dallas have nothing in common with them. Throughout history, cities have been places where people interacted and walked to do their business. This type of lifestyle is not possible outside of 1 or 2 neighborhoods in these cities.
You may have been to these cities, but I don't think you know them all that well.
Atlanta does it better than Houston and Dallas but compared to other cities its not that great of a pedestrian atmosphere outside of pockets like downtown.
Atlanta does it better than Houston and Dallas but compared to other cities its not that great of a pedestrian atmosphere outside of pockets like downtown.
It's far from being New York or New Orleans, true, but it's not true that pedestrian activity is limited to downtown. You have other intown neighborhoods like Inman Park, Castleberry Hill, East Atlanta, Virginia-Highlands, Little 5 Points, Downtown Decatur, etc., New Urbanist developments like Glenwood Park, and Atlantic Station (despite essentially being an open-air mall) where there is respectable walkability.
I think that for casual conversation, sure Atlanta or Houston can be called cities. But in academic arenas, I don't think these places should be called cities on the fact that they are not urban. The fact that they were for the most part built entirely for the car makes them "sub-urban" places, or suburbs.
That's ridiculous and a bit snobbish might I add. They may look suburban. But they are NOT suburbs. Pasadena and College Park functions as suburbs. Houston and Atlanta does not.
Atlanta does it better than Houston and Dallas but compared to other cities its not that great of a pedestrian atmosphere outside of pockets like downtown.
Atlantas' core is better than Houstons' and Dallas' core. Houston and Dallas rapidly catch up with Atlanta outside of their cores though.
It's far from being New York or New Orleans, true, but it's not true that pedestrian activity is limited to downtown. You have other intown neighborhoods like Inman Park, Castleberry Hill, East Atlanta, Virginia-Highlands, Little 5 Points, Downtown Decatur, etc., New Urbanist developments like Glenwood Park, and Atlantic Station (despite essentially being an open-air mall) where there is respectable walkability.
I know that, but Houston has these too that compare to Atlanta's. Their downtowns are the clear differences.
I know that, but Houston has these too that compare to Atlanta's. Their downtowns are the clear differences.
Houston is more filled in, due largely to it's grid, but some of Atlanta's pockets of neighborhoods have more activity and ease of walkability than ours. There's no Glenwood Park in Houston. MARTA also makes a bit of a difference, as well.
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.
