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.
Before the automobile, most people did not get around via horse-drawn carriages. For the most part, people got around on foot as the main method of transportation within cities up through around 1890 or so. Other means of transit existed. There were "horsecar suburbs" - wealthy areas which had streetcar-like carriages pulled along rails by teams of horses. There were ferries. There was the railroad - although that was used more for inter-city travel. But the average person who was not wealthy lived, worked, and shopped in the same neighborhood. As a result, neighborhoods were built around pedestrians first and foremost. Blocks were small, roads were often narrow (and quite typically walked on if paved), and residential, commercial, and industrial uses were all found within a short distance of one another. The most desirable/expensive places to live tended to be first-floor units and blocks just off the commercial "main drag" - because they were the most convenient.
Things began to change around 1890 with the development of the electric streetcar, as it basically was the first affordable form of mass transit. It was relatively quiet and could be strung through residential neighborhoods, and you didn't have to stable large groups of horses as with the horsecars. As a result you began to see the growth of "stretcar suburbia." These areas were in many respects similar to later suburbia, minus the lack of cars. There was a more strict separation of building uses, with new residential developments put far away from polluting industry, and often only having a relatively small smattering of commercial. Houses were spaced more generously apart, and given front lawns. Blocks were often quite long, because the neighborhoods were not laid out with walking to nearby amenities in mind - instead you were supposed to take the streetcar everywhere.
The car changed things a bit again - largely because neighborhoods were then set up for ease of driving, rather than ease of walking. The two are held directly in tension. Even if you make a modern day "lifestyle center" for example - which resembles an old walkable downtown - if it's in the suburbs it needs to be surrounded by a sea of parking, because at suburban densities there will never be enough people within a walking radius to just roll out of bed and walk five minutes down to the coffeeshop. This is why one of the main definitions of "urbanity" you hear discussed is walkability - because the suburban built environment is based upon...erm...driveability.
On another note, it's not really fair to say that cities "develop organically." That was true up until roughly 100 years ago, but zoning and all the related rules (FAR, lot coverage, setbacks, use tables, parking minimums, etc) mean that new-build neighborhoods are very strictly regulated. You could not build a 19th century neighborhood anywhere in the United States now, even if you had an unlimited supply of money.
Thanks for the historic point of view. I think it's just coming from a small city i don't see the importance of walkability except for recreational activities ( parks, festivals,etc) or nearby services. I think small cities/ small towns remain completely out of these convos.Car centric is best for point A to Z. I'm not walking everywhere.
Here's the thing, I think the focus on bigger cities in this regard may be underselling smaller cities like college towns or those with a pretty strong college presence, for examples. Some of them have solid/decent public transportation and have walkable neighborhoods, relative to their size. Some just may be small enough to where you could walk just about anywhere within the city as well.
100+. More micropolitan cities than metros by a wide margin in our country. I think people forget that at times. Sure a larger share of the population lives in metros but that's just our economic distribution. That small town will have to be the size of Monaco (sq mi) to traverse the entirety by walking. My hometown is about equal or so to Manhattan in sq miles , no way I'm walking the entirety of that.
Last edited by Sharif662; 08-07-2019 at 11:38 AM..
Reason: Additional info.
Thanks for the historic point of view. I think it's just coming from a small city i don't see the importance of walkability except for recreational activities ( parks, festivals,etc) or nearby services. I think small cities/ small towns remain completely out of these convos.Car centric is best for point A to Z. I'm not walking everywhere.
I think the point he was making was that before cars became popular, it wasn't necessary to walk everywhere if you lived in a city (big or small) because practically everything you needed on a day-to-day basis was within walking distance. Obviously times are different and even in older walkable cities, people are typically not confined to their neighborhoods (but that's where mass transit comes into play).
This may be a bit controversial, but there are very few "real" cities outside of the Northeast Corridor.
Personally, the biggest indicator of what makes a city "real", is the degree to which one can live car-free. If one can travel between most points within city limits and a good portion of points within the city's MSA, then the city registers as "real" to me. Too many "cities" in the US place a greater level of importance on the ease of automobile travel over the importance of walkability. With this considered, Philly, NYC, Boston, Baltimore, DC, Chicago, and San Francisco are the realest of the real cities. Not only do these cities have excellent transit within city limits, but I can also take a train/trains and end up at important points within the MSA. Additionally, many of these cities have routes that run 24/7, allowing one to not have to worry about finding a ride home after a long night out.
Providence, Milwaukee, Newark, Jersey City, and even Baltimore to an extent, are extensions of the top tier, so I tend to group them in with their respective Tier 1 cities.
LA, Seattle, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Portland, Miami, and Atlanta fall into the upper portion of the Tier 2. I could live reasonably car-free within these cities, but not to the extent of the cities within the first tier. Additionally, most lack the superior rail coverage of their MSAs that the first tier have.
Dallas, Houston, Austin, St. Louis, New Orleans, Cincinnati, and Charlotte fall into the lower portion of Tier 2. Due to their auto-centric urban forms and limited transit options, the amount of neighborhoods that I could conceivably live car-free in have been effectively diminished.
Tier 3 cities have attractive attributes, but a lack of decent public transportation and urban neighborhoods. Cities within this tier include Nashville, Memphis, and Kansas City.
Outside of these three tiers, I don't consider many other cities to be "real". If your "city" is nothing more than an overgrown suburb masquerading as an urban center, then I don't consider it to be real. This is only substantiated when a "city's" economy underperforms relative to its population.
One notable exception on this list is Detroit. It has a beautiful downtown area, but its public transportation system is terrible. As Detroit continues to rise from the ashes, it will certainly ascend tiers within my list.
What do you mean by being "extensions of the top tie"?
This may be a bit controversial, but there are very few "real" cities outside of the Northeast Corridor.
Personally, the biggest indicator of what makes a city "real", is the degree to which one can live car-free. If one can travel between most points within city limits and a good portion of points within the city's MSA, then the city registers as "real" to me. Too many "cities" in the US place a greater level of importance on the ease of automobile travel over the importance of walkability. With this considered, Philly, NYC, Boston, Baltimore, DC, Chicago, and San Francisco are the realest of the real cities. Not only do these cities have excellent transit within city limits, but I can also take a train/trains and end up at important points within the MSA. Additionally, many of these cities have routes that run 24/7, allowing one to not have to worry about finding a ride home after a long night out.
Providence, Milwaukee, Newark, Jersey City, and even Baltimore to an extent, are extensions of the top tier, so I tend to group them in with their respective Tier 1 cities.
LA, Seattle, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Portland, Miami, and Atlanta fall into the upper portion of the Tier 2. I could live reasonably car-free within these cities, but not to the extent of the cities within the first tier. Additionally, most lack the superior rail coverage of their MSAs that the first tier have.
Dallas, Houston, Austin, St. Louis, New Orleans, Cincinnati, and Charlotte fall into the lower portion of Tier 2. Due to their auto-centric urban forms and limited transit options, the amount of neighborhoods that I could conceivably live car-free in have been effectively diminished.
Tier 3 cities have attractive attributes, but a lack of decent public transportation and urban neighborhoods. Cities within this tier include Nashville, Memphis, and Kansas City.
Outside of these three tiers, I don't consider many other cities to be "real". If your "city" is nothing more than an overgrown suburb masquerading as an urban center, then I don't consider it to be real. This is only substantiated when a "city's" economy underperforms relative to its population.
One notable exception on this list is Detroit. It has a beautiful downtown area, but its public transportation system is terrible. As Detroit continues to rise from the ashes, it will certainly ascend tiers within my list.
I truly think Houston and Dallas large city limits are once again at a disadvantage. If you live outside loop 12 in Dallas and loop 610 in Houston, your chances of even dreaming to live in a car free life are about as equal as living in say your typical suburb. If you can afford it and live inside the two loops of these respective cities, your chances of living a car free life increases even though it’s still car centric. Dallas has more connectivity currently through rail and Houston has more by bus. But are actually just as dense as some of the cities you named in tier 2 a.
I know this is an old thread, but having lived in both Atlanta and Miami, I simply cannot see the former as more of a real city, and I think the importance of rail transit is vastly overstated here. I'm sorry, but if you stray too far from any of the MARTA stations in ATL the big city feel all but disappears and pedestrian activity is nil.
In the South, Miami and New Orleans are the only major cities with widespread density and walkability, and I feel this is supported by the large grids that both cities are built on. Another obvious factor is their proximity to uninhabitable wetlands which greatly restrict sprawl, unlike other Sunbelt cities.
I know this is an old thread, but having lived in both Atlanta and Miami, I simply cannot see the former as more of a real city, and I think the importance of rail transit is vastly overstated here. I'm sorry, but if you stray too far from any of the MARTA stations in ATL the big city feel all but disappears and pedestrian activity is nil.
In the South, Miami and New Orleans are the only major cities with widespread density and walkability, and I feel this is supported by the large grids that both cities are built on. Another obvious factor is their proximity to uninhabitable wetlands which greatly restrict sprawl, unlike other Sunbelt cities.
Miami has widespread walkability? That's news to me... Where are these walkable neighborhoods outside of Downtown/Brickell?
Miami has widespread walkability? That's news to me... Where are these walkable neighborhoods outside of Downtown/Brickell?
Compared to New York or San Francisco, obviously not. Strictly speaking relative to the rest of the south, and it's as clear as day to me. Just the prevalence of actual sidewalks in Miami is a major difference here.
Compared to New York or San Francisco, obviously not. Strictly speaking relative to the rest of the south, and it's as clear as day to me. Just the prevalence of actual sidewalks in Miami is a major difference here.
I guess... I don't see it as being much different than Houston or Dallas in that regard.
If there's one thing that I can say Miami does that most Sunbelt/Southern cities don't, it's not having this negative stigma of only "undesirables" riding public transit/buses.
I guess... I don't see it as being much different than Houston or Dallas in that regard.
If there's one thing that I can say Miami does that most Sunbelt/Southern cities don't, it's not having this negative stigma of only "undesirables" riding public transit/buses.
Wow, that was poorly worded... My brain is tired.
Who would be undesirables riding the public transit/buses?
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.