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've been asking this question for years, including in the old New Orleans vs Richmond threads, and I've yet to get a definitive estimate on how large the core of New Orleans is...
I've yet to see or hear any reason why Nola has the larger urban core or is the more urban of the two...if Nola has a larger urban spread, it isn't by a significant margin, and as gladhands said, I wouldn't say New Orleans is "more" urban than Richmond at all. I'll double check the exact figures later, but Richmond's urban core is roughly ~100,000 people in the core 17-18 square miles of the city. That core has every measure of urbanity found in many a Northern city that isn't NY, Philly, Chicago or Boston...
New Orleans just has a cache and name recognizance that Rich doesn't have, so people naturally default to New Orleans...
I think it goes a little beyond that. New Orleans was one of the country's 10 largest cities nearly every decade in the 19th century; as important as Richmond was historically, it never cracked the top 10. New Orleans is more uniformly gridded throughout the city than Richmond. Also New Orleans projects more of a big city image and competes with major cities for big events in a way Richmond doesn't. New Orleans has the infrastructure and venues to accommodate large numbers of people which makes it an overall busier city. I truly believe this is one instance where you actually have to visit a place in person for a firsthand experience to grasp the differences between the two places.
They're all real cities just built differently due to being established during different times so it's truly comparing apples to oranges.
Boston, NYC, Philly, Baltimore & DC (which I'm assuming are the northern cities we are referring to) were constructed in times before the car and thus grew around hyper dense urban cores with walkability and physical density as a buy product of it.
Southern cities blew during the age of the car and hence they sprawled significantly more because the residents could commute further and still be able to reach their urban cores.
Atlanta & Washington DC for example have virtually identical urban populations of ~4.5 million, yet Atlanta requires 2,645 sq/mi to achieve this while DC requires 1,321 sq/mi.
Baltimore and DC aren't northern cities, however, they would be considered "real cities" by northerners. For one, I don't understand, nor accept that northern cities are the 'gold standard' for cities. Furthermore, we don't have to accept what they consider a real city. The south has the most diverse array of cities in the country.
Baltimore and DC aren't northern cities, however, they would be considered "real cities" by northerners. For one, I don't understand, nor accept that northern cities are the 'gold standard' for cities. Furthermore, we don't have to accept what they consider a real city. The south has the most diverse array of cities in the country.
Again by official Mason-Dixion line geographic designation sure. That being said they have always been been lumped into the greater Northeast Megalopolis / Eastern Seaboard / Boston-Washington corridor etc.. etc.. because the cities are far more culturally, physically, economically and demographically similar to Boston/Philly/NYC then they are too Sun Belt cities.
They're used as the "gold standards" for urbanity because up until the invention of the car, they were the first and only truly urban cities in the country (SF, New Orleans, etc.. being outliars)
Yes the Sunbelt cities are diverse, yes there is no metric that defines what a real city is and is not.. but there is a very clear difference in urban structure/density between cities in on region vs. another, hence why the thread was made.
Again by official Mason-Dixion line geographic designation sure. That being said they have always been been lumped into the greater Northeast Megalopolis / Eastern Seaboard / Boston-Washington corridor etc.. etc.. because the cities are far more culturally, physically, economically and demographically similar to Boston/Philly/NYC then they are too Sun Belt cities.
They're used as the "gold standards" for urbanity because up until the invention of the car, they were the first and only truly urban cities in the country (SF, New Orleans, etc.. being outliars)
Yes the Sunbelt cities are diverse, yes there is no metric that defines what a real city is and is not.. but there is a very clear difference in urban structure/density between cities in on region vs. another, hence why the thread was made.
Yeah, and, look, your urban experience--the way you experience a particular place and its way of life--is going to differ dramatically in a sprawling, newer, car-centric, highly commercialized, low-density sunbelt metro or an older, denser, transit-oriented metro. Living in Atlanta is incredibly different than living in Philly or even Washington. And the things people love about northern cities (patchwork of neighborhoods, communal lifestyle, history and architecture that helps you feel rooted, use of space, etc.) you do not find in the South. You probably find more money, more glitz, more space, more commercial opportunity. But what if you're looking for sonething a little (or a lot) more than that?
Yeah, and, look, your urban experience--the way you experience a particular place and its way of life--is going to differ dramatically in a sprawling, newer, car-centric, highly commercialized, low-density sunbelt metro or an older, denser, transit-oriented metro. Living in Atlanta is incredibly different than living in Philly or even Washington. And the things people love about northern cities (patchwork of neighborhoods, communal lifestyle, history and architecture that helps you feel rooted, use of space, etc.) you do not find in the South. You probably find more money, more glitz, more space, more commercial opportunity. But what if you're looking for sonething a little (or a lot) more than that?
What a complete load of pure BS. Keep telling yourself this if it makes you feel better about where you live.
Again by official Mason-Dixion line geographic designation sure. That being said they have always been been lumped into the greater Northeast Megalopolis / Eastern Seaboard / Boston-Washington corridor etc.. etc.. because the cities are far more culturally, physically, economically and demographically similar to Boston/Philly/NYC then they are too Sun Belt cities.
They're used as the "gold standards" for urbanity because up until the invention of the car, they were the first and only truly urban cities in the country (SF, New Orleans, etc.. being outliars)
Yes the Sunbelt cities are diverse, yes there is no metric that defines what a real city is and is not.. but there is a very clear difference in urban structure/density between cities in on region vs. another, hence why the thread was made.
The Mason Dixon line isn't official, but the US Census is and Baltimore and DC are (and have always been) as classified as Southern:
The official Northern Cities that would fit the definition in this thread would be: New York, Chicago, Philly, Boston, Cleveland, Detroit, Milwaukee, Newark, Providence, and few others.
Although, for purposes of this thread, I'm guessing the OP is considering Baltimore and DC as northern since they aren't on the list of Southern cities. If they were considered southern in this thread, they would win the polls in a landslide.
For one, I don't understand, nor accept that northern cities are the 'gold standard' for cities. Furthermore, we don't have to accept what they consider a real city.
Man, say that again. The prejudice on this weird ass site is systemic. I will never understand the conformity of people on here have towards the Northeast (because that's what they really mean when they say "northern", the Midwest is a throw-in), and most people in the real world aren't beholden to this idea that Northeast cities are the gold standard...
I'm definitely not, and they definitely aren't, and I appreciate the Northeast as much as anyone...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutiny77
I think it goes a little beyond that. New Orleans was one of the country's 10 largest cities nearly every decade in the 19th century; as important as Richmond was historically, it never cracked the top 10. New Orleans is more uniformly gridded throughout the city than Richmond. Also New Orleans projects more of a big city image and competes with major cities for big events in a way Richmond doesn't. New Orleans has the infrastructure and venues to accommodate large numbers of people which makes it an overall busier city. I truly believe this is one instance where you actually have to visit a place in person for a firsthand experience to grasp the differences between the two places.
Fair points, but there also isn't a city larger than New Orleans for 350 miles. It contextualizes why New Orleans is able to compete for events typically reserved for big cities, as its always been the biggest city in a hundreds of miles radius...
Maybe I do need to visit New Orleans, but the fact that there are people who have experienced both cities who have shared my perspective online means maybe visiting New Orleans wouldn't change my mind...
The draw of bigger events, which helped make Nola the tourist destination it is, is the big thing New Orleans seems to have over Richmond. That doesn't mean more urban and every other aspect of urbanity seems to be a draw between the two; again Richmond has the type of urbanity virtually all northern cities besides the big four (NY, Chi, Philly, Bos) have. A couple years ago I detailed my exploits to Pittsburgh and Cleveland and while those cities certainly are larger, I was pleasantly surprised at the similarities in urbanity Richmond has to both...
I think it goes a little beyond that. New Orleans was one of the country's 10 largest cities nearly every decade in the 19th century; as important as Richmond was historically, it never cracked the top 10. New Orleans is more uniformly gridded throughout the city than Richmond. Also New Orleans projects more of a big city image and competes with major cities for big events in a way Richmond doesn't. New Orleans has the infrastructure and venues to accommodate large numbers of people which makes it an overall busier city. I truly believe this is one instance where you actually have to visit a place in person for a firsthand experience to grasp the differences between the two places.
To elaborate upon this, the 1900 population of New Orleans was 287,104. The population of Richmond was 85,050. Thus New Orleans was at the time over three times the size of Richmond. I wouldn't be surprised if urban renewal meant that less of New Orleans 1900 urban fabric survived proportionately, but it was starting from so much of a higher point it's hard to believe that the two cities reached parity.
Another way to do it which I like is to compare the walkscore of cities neighborhood by neighborhood:
New Orleans:
90+: French Quarter, Central Business District, Marigny, Touro, Iberville, Lower Garden District, East Riverside. Total Pop: 22,541
89-80: Garden District, Irish Channel, St. Thomas Development Neighborhood, West Riverside, Uptown, East Carrollton, Central City, Bywater, Milan, Treme - Lafitte, City Park, Leonidas. Total Pop: 55,899
79-70: Mid-City, Bayou St. John, St. Claude, Tulane - Gravier, Audubon, Black Pearl, Seventh Ward, Freret. Total Pop: 57,931
Richmond:
90+: VCU, Monroe Ward, Carytown, Carver, The Fan. Total Pop: 24,600
89-80: Shokoe Bottom, Jackson Ward, The Museum District, Shokoe Slip, Church Hill. Total Pop: 13,814
79-70: Union Hill, Oregon Hill, Manchester, Fairmount, Northern Barton Heights, Blackwell: Total Pop: 9,261
Thus measured by walkscore Richmond is also much smaller than New Orleans, with about 48,000 residents in 70+ walkscore neighborhoods, versus 136,000 in New Orleans.
Of course, urbanity is not just about size. There are relatively small cities, like Lancaster Pennsylvania, which are basically urban across their entire land area. However, my general feeling is the built intensity of Richmond and New Orleans aren't that far apart - and that they both have suburban neighborhoods on their fringes - meaning New Orleans gets the nod due to sheer size, even though they both have traditionally urban cores.
To elaborate upon this, the 1900 population of New Orleans was 287,104. The population of Richmond was 85,050. Thus New Orleans was at the time over three times the size of Richmond. I wouldn't be surprised if urban renewal meant that less of New Orleans 1900 urban fabric survived proportionately, but it was starting from so much of a higher point it's hard to believe that the two cities reached parity.
Another way to do it which I like is to compare the walkscore of cities neighborhood by neighborhood:
New Orleans:
90+: French Quarter, Central Business District, Marigny, Touro, Iberville, Lower Garden District, East Riverside. Total Pop: 22,541
89-80: Garden District, Irish Channel, St. Thomas Development Neighborhood, West Riverside, Uptown, East Carrollton, Central City, Bywater, Milan, Treme - Lafitte, City Park, Leonidas. Total Pop: 55,899
79-70: Mid-City, Bayou St. John, St. Claude, Tulane - Gravier, Audubon, Black Pearl, Seventh Ward, Freret. Total Pop: 57,931
Richmond:
90+: VCU, Monroe Ward, Carytown, Carver, The Fan. Total Pop: 24,600
89-80: Shokoe Bottom, Jackson Ward, The Museum District, Shokoe Slip, Church Hill. Total Pop: 13,814
79-70: Union Hill, Oregon Hill, Manchester, Fairmount, Northern Barton Heights, Blackwell: Total Pop: 9,261
Thus measured by walkscore Richmond is also much smaller than New Orleans, with about 48,000 residents in 70+ walkscore neighborhoods, versus 136,000 in New Orleans.
Of course, urbanity is not just about size. There are relatively small cities, like Lancaster Pennsylvania, which are basically urban across their entire land area. However, my general feeling is the built intensity of Richmond and New Orleans aren't that far apart - and that they both have suburban neighborhoods on their fringes - meaning New Orleans gets the nod due to sheer size, even though they both have traditionally urban cores.
Percentage of number of people living in neighborhoods with walkscores above 70 is typically a good metric, but a lot of these NO neighborhoods are actually less urban in build form than the comparable Richmond neighborhoods:
Richmond also has its share of neighborhoods that have lost their amenities, over the years, but retain relatively urban built form. This neighborgood (Chimborazo, Richmond) has a walkscore of 63:
I keep seeing before the car & after the car as a significant trait which isn't true. Have anyone forgotten the horse drawn carrage? Literally in all cities prior to the car and cities that developing during the car didn't have that thought in mind in regards to city infrastructure into later. Is it that hard to fathom cities develop organically like everywhere else in this country.
Still agree with the others, northeast doesn't set a gold standards on urbanity. They do on overly crowded, stuck in traffic , all types of congestion in 1 sq mile. Euro style density you can keep that in select places but not every place needs to be like that.
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.
