"Real Cities" in the South (by Northern Standards) (best, Atlanta)

[Cowboys fan in Houston]

People who talk about "real cities" like that are snobs. Cities may be laid out differently, but that doesnt make them any less of a city.

[waronxmas]

So there are two ways to answer this question.

From aesthetic point of view of the architecture, it is Savannah and Charleston. Luckily for this thread, I recently spent a few days roaming around Savannah and have visual examples:









From a build perspective of the city, it could be said that Savannah in particular is the closest in the south to many Northeastern cities but not for the reason you are thinking.

When James Oglethorpe began to design Savannah in 1733, he wanted to break completely away from the method of city building used in London (which was just build buildings and streets wherever with no rhyme or reason) to avoid creating the cramped conditions that fueled the great fire of London in 1666.

The plan he came up with called for a series of residential blocks in circling a public square in the middle (which was originally meant to be used as military parade grounds) and lead the to this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/9b/SavannahCityPlan1770.jpg/400px-SavannahCityPlan1770.jpg (broken link)

and this



The factors and reasons that lead to the grid plan of Savannah are also the same reasons that lead to the city plan of Philadelphia (also designed around the same time) and eventually inspired the Commissioners' Plan of 1811 aka the Gridiron Plan for Manhattan. In a way, you can look at the layout of the Gridiron Plan as a big ass version of Savannah without the squares.

To whit, on a point noted earlier, the old city districts of both Savannah and Charleston are very small. The Historic District of Savannah (the old city) is just 1 square mile in size and it's growth stymied by the result of the Civil War, the emergence of Atlanta as the preeminent city of Georgia, and the focus of the post colonial Southeast on inland agricultural growth away from the coast.

There are other cities that would fit the thread description for different reasons, but I will table that discussion since I have become quite frankly bored with individuals with a one tract mind who would not be able to discuss the subject intelligently.

[JJG]

Originally Posted by annie_himself

Exactly right. Nothing makes northeast cities better than southern ones.

Who's saying they're "better"....?


Apparently, you guys are missing the entire point of the thread, getting worked up over nothing. I'M not saying southern cities aren't "real cities" (notice I have it in quotes and said 'so-called' real cities), just echoing something that is said over and over by guys from Boston, NY, Chicago, even San Francisco.

And eek, read my second post here.

[po-boy]

The South's Big Four (Atlanta, Dallas, Houston and Miami) are all "real" cities/metro areas by pretty much any measurement. I'm pretty sure that those four metro areas are all in the US top 15 for population (all over five million) and GDP. Anyone who says they are not "real" is just being snobby.

Now if you want to change the wording and ask something like "which Southern city had a downtown that feels the densest/most vibrant/most like a traditional northeastern city/whatever" that is a different question. And to me the answer for that one would probably be New Orleans. New Orleans is full of history and culture such as arts, music and food. The downtown area is walkable and you will be hard pressed to find more than a handful of more vibrant cities anywhere in the US.

[vivo]

from what I know, hands down New Orleans. of course not counting public transit.

I wonder how many walkable/urban neighborhoods Raleigh has?

[Pine to Vine]

As a native northeasterner who spent half his life in Houston, here's my definition of a "real city" by NE standards:

- Downtown living is common and established
- Walkable core with all the amenities - work, shopping and entertainment
- Full of pedestrians day & night
- Convenient public transportation that reaches all corners of the city with commuter rail to the 'burbs (no myriad of changes onto multiple bus routes, etc)
- Reverence for historical architecture
- Feasible to live without a car with little if any sacrifice to lifestyle

Although it missed a few ticks around public transport, NOLA is the only city that currently comes close to my definition. Miami seems to be next in line. The rest in this poll are decades away, assuming they even aspire to this. After all, no one is saying that's the only model for a great city.

Based on today's poll results, the Houstonians are either homer-voting or using a definition different from mine. (And I know how this goes - I've unleashed the "don't mess with Texas" beast. As advance notice - you won't convince a long-time contented Montrose resident who moved away 3 months ago that it's all changed.)

[Bydand]

I think they are ALL "real cities", they may be a bit different from some Northeast cities in lay-out and density; but, really who gives a crap? They are all larger, and offer real amenities. I like them being a bit more spread out and not so crammed together you can't breath. I'd rather have to drive a short distance than be jammed on a subway/train/bus like a bunch of sheeple.

[annie_himself]

Originally Posted by itsnotanoption

RIGHT, because public transportation is hell, and everyone wants to own a car. That post was pure BS.
You call strip malls planned walkability? Long lines for what exactly? Sprawl is wasteful. Sure it's new and spacious, but like you said, at least they can afford a car to get around everywhere right? Newsflash, not everyone wants a car and that responsibility, when you can WALK anywhere you'd like, or take the bus or train. Lots of people like for seasons, and consider it better than having two seasons, summer, and some type of fall.

You obviously missed the point of that post, each style of city has its downfall. NE cities are stereotypically full of coffee drinking yuppies who can barely afford to live in the box they rent for $1500/month to live in NYC and walk everywhere. Sunbelt cities are Walmart heaven and full of freeways and useless skyscrapers etc... The way this thread is composed, you're asking for trouble. Dallas is no less of a city than Boston, this is a pointless waste of bandwidth.

[Pine to Vine]

Originally Posted by annie_himself

You obviously missed the point of that post, each style of city has its downfall. NE cities are stereotypically full of coffee drinking yuppies who can barely afford to live in the box they rent for $1500/month to live in NYC and walk everywhere. Sunbelt cities are Walmart heaven and full of freeways and useless skyscrapers etc... The way this thread is composed, you're asking for trouble. Dallas is no less of a city than Boston, this is a pointless waste of bandwidth.

I agree. I'm giving the OP the benefit of the doubt and think the way the thread is titled invites trouble and results in these off-topic "side shows" - not the premise of the thread. I also agree that Dallas is no less of a city than Boston conceptually. That said, look at where the tourists flock: the dense, more architecturally diverse cities such as Boston, NY, DC, Philly, Chicago, SF. And it's not just in the US. In The Netherlands, more tourists go to Amsterdam than Rotterdam and in Germany, more tourists go to Munich than Frankfort. Rather than tourism, the Sunbelt cites attract more business travelers than out of state tourists. Not a good or bad thing - just a reality. I'm not saying this makes a city great, otherwise Williamsburg would be America's hub.

[annie_himself]

Originally Posted by jm02

I agree. I'm giving the OP the benefit of the doubt and think the way the thread is titled invites trouble and results in these off-topic "side shows" - not the premise of the thread. I also agree that Dallas is no less of a city than Boston conceptually. That said, look at where the tourists flock: the dense, more architecturally diverse cities such as Boston, NY, DC, Philly, Chicago, SF. And it's not just in the US. In The Netherlands, more tourists go to Amsterdam than Rotterdam and in Germany, more tourists go to Munich than Frankfort. Rather than tourism, the Sunbelt cites attract more business travelers than out of state tourists. Not a good or bad thing - just a reality. I'm not saying this makes a city great, otherwise Williamsburg would be America's hub.

I also agree. I love NE cities myself, as well as sunbelt cities; but the OP put the NE cities on a pedestal, which I'm guessing was unintentional.