Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [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)
View Poll Results: Which cities' fabric is the most urban?
LA 66 52.38%
NOLA 36 28.57%
Miami 24 19.05%
Voters: 126. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-27-2012, 10:22 AM
 
640 posts, read 1,225,708 times
Reputation: 459

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiatldal View Post
By yall arguments New Orleans is more urban by fabric then, Chicago, Detroit, DC San Fransico, Most of New York and etc too. umm no
.[/b]

New Orleans is certainly closer to DC or SF than LA is. Detroit doesnt belong on that list as it is a car-driven sprawl. Chicago is better than NOLA inside the core but the rest of the metro is suburbs.

Also, as I have said before, a bigger city doesn't automatically have a better urban fabric. It's like all of you are entranced by the fact that more people live in an area and make that your end all verdict. That's ridiculous. Seriously, do places like Prague have a worse urban fabric than LA because it's "tiny" in comparison and is less dense??!?! Actually, and to prove that point even more, NOLA's urban area and Prague's city area/population are almost identical in population and density. However, Prague has a better urban fabric.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-27-2012, 10:23 AM
 
640 posts, read 1,225,708 times
Reputation: 459
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives View Post
New Orleans = not San Francisco
I meant that he admitted that places like SF have a better urban fabric even though other cities might have the same density/more people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-27-2012, 10:28 AM
 
Location: In the heights
37,127 posts, read 39,371,920 times
Reputation: 21212
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanologist View Post
Agreed

Something like this type of urban fabric design with more emphasis on people. This is what LA lacks over all.

Boston

New Orleans



Here's an example of attached housing on the right along with a narrow street.
Right, LA does lack that save for a few districts that are mostly retail. The argument is dependent on how the little of that counts against the very, very large mass of areas LA has that are less built on a pedestrian scale but are very vibrant and walkable just the same. I think you guys are basically talking past each other and it's all mostly a matter of preference. I do think in some of your previous posts that it seems like you might perceive LA as far more lacking than it actually is though. When was the last time you went to LA and tried walking and taking transit? I'll tell you that there have been some significant changes in recent years.


Quote:
Originally Posted by polo89 View Post
On a metro level, can NO really be compared to Miami? C'mon, seriously? Compare Broward to Metarie or Morrero.
No, not on the metro level. I had stated that this is on the level of just judging by very urban neighborhoods that are very cohesive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-27-2012, 10:31 AM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,078 posts, read 15,851,756 times
Reputation: 4049
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcp11889 View Post
I meant that he admitted that places like SF have a better urban fabric even though other cities might have the same density/more people.
That is not what I meant at all I was speaking specifically about the statement about SF and LA (which are comparably dense). New Orleans does not equal SF. It's hilarious that you have the hubris to think anyone thinks that is true.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-27-2012, 10:37 AM
 
640 posts, read 1,225,708 times
Reputation: 459
Apparently some people do.

//www.city-data.com/forum/city-...ast-coast.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-27-2012, 10:40 AM
 
8,289 posts, read 13,561,719 times
Reputation: 5018
We should be comparing districts than cities then! The French Quarter to South Beach.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-27-2012, 10:48 AM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,078 posts, read 15,851,756 times
Reputation: 4049
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcp11889 View Post
Just a note, most of those "some people" are the same ones in this thread.

New Orleans occupies a very unique slot - it is too large and structural dense to be a peer with Savannah or Charleston, but is not at the level of sustained or peak density to be a peer with a place like San Francisco or Boston.

Los Angeles also occupies a very unique slot - far too dense and transit-oriented to be a peer with Houston or Phoenix, but too disjointed structurally and with too many car-accommodated areas to be a peer with NYC or Chicago.

For both of these I'm just talking from an urban fabric point of view.

When two of the most unique US cities (and two vastly different cities) there is just no way to come to any sort of consensus.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-27-2012, 10:53 AM
 
Location: In the heights
37,127 posts, read 39,371,920 times
Reputation: 21212
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup View Post
That is not what I meant at all I was speaking specifically about the statement about SF and LA (which are comparably dense). New Orleans does not equal SF. It's hilarious that you have the hubris to think anyone thinks that is true.
I think on a certain scale (quaint, dense parts of town) New Orleans is actually pretty comparable to some extent. The same way that Quebec City is comparable though it's tiny. New Orleans also gets points for demolishing a relatively small amount of its historic areas (which are pretty big since New Orleans was formerly one of the US's largest cities/metros) for parking lots and highways compared to many other cities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-27-2012, 10:58 AM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
18,980 posts, read 32,640,365 times
Reputation: 13630
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiatldal View Post
By yall arguments New Orleans is more urban by fabric then, Chicago, Detroit, DC San Fransico, Most of New York and etc too. umm no
DC, SF, and NY all have areas with really narrow streets and that much smaller human scale on par with NOLA. So do cities like Baltimore, Philly, and Boston from what I know. But they are also much larger and more urban than NOLA while also having a similar urban fabric in areas. Chicago I believe lacks any area that has that initimate, pedestrian feel like the French Quarter but it has continious urban fabric. LA does not have CONTINIOUS urban fabric, it's spread out and DISCONNECTED.
Quote:
But one thing that is a sharp difference LA has way more people living in actually Walkable areas
That's nice, it's just a shame that those areas are seperated by auto-centric development and that's a point you keep glossing over. It's walkable areas are fairly attractive for the most part but it's seperated by some butt ugly auto-oriented development with no vibrancy. The amount of ugly 2 story strip malls and gas stations you see at major intersections doesn't help with it's "urban fabric".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-27-2012, 11:04 AM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
18,980 posts, read 32,640,365 times
Reputation: 13630
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup View Post
New Orleans occupies a very unique slot - it is too large and structural dense to be a peer with Savannah or Charleston, but is not at the level of sustained or peak density to be a peer with a place like San Francisco or Boston.

Los Angeles also occupies a very unique slot - far too dense and transit-oriented to be a peer with Houston or Phoenix, but too disjointed structurally and with too many car-accommodated areas to be a peer with NYC or Chicago.

For both of these I'm just talking from an urban fabric point of view.

When two of the most unique US cities (and two vastly different cities) there is just no way to come to any sort of consensus.
Very well said, I agree with this. This is probably why some people have trouble comparing these two.
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 > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top