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.
Memphis - retains the southern delta vibe but is a modern city on the Mississippi. Elvis lived there. Martin died there. The Peabody Ducks parade through the lobby. Beale Street is there but so is Federal Express. Hot and sultry. Memphis style BBQ. I can't think of anything that isn't southern.
One could say much the same about New Orleans (one of my favorite places) but, being a seaport and such a touristic icon detracts by a notch or two.
Assuming you are defining a "real city" by being very urban (which is also subjective), it's not all about density. Some of it is subjectively visual. You have the dense, fast-paced major northern/northeastern cities like NYC, Chicago, Philly, and Boston. Then you have other mid-size and smaller northern/northeastern cities from Cleveland, Milwaukee, Detroit, Providence, Newark, , etc, etc, that also have "visual" urbanity from their industrial pasts, immigrant communities, stores and avenues, historic neighborhoods, etc. These historic characteristics are what gives many northern cities their "urban" look and feel.
If I had to choose a Southern city from your list that fits that mold, I'd probably choose New Orleans.
I think this is what the original idea of the thread meant or at least some are referring to in regards to Northern cities. Even the smaller/mid sized Northeastern and some Midwest cities have that feel to some degree within them. For instance, Albany NY has areas of urbanity that are similar to what you find in bigger Northeastern cities. However, there is still variety. So, that same city can have a neighborhood like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6533...6!9m2!1b1!2i37
Also, like others have mentioned, Albany was a city that was a top 10-50 from 1790-1920, when it was only 10.8 square miles in that last census. So, looking at older census information can give an idea of where the most urban neighborhoods are likely to be located within a city. https://www.census.gov/population/ww.../twps0027.html
Last edited by ckhthankgod; 08-07-2019 at 09:39 AM..
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.
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.
I wouldn't even say this, as the urban experience in inner Rich is comparable to what you'd find in the overwhelming majority of northeast cities besides Philly, Boston, New York. This idea that all of the Northeast functions as or looks like those cities is obviously not true and easy to debunk...
You can find people from all over the Northeast who would find Richmond as or more urban than where they come from...
I think this is what the original idea of the thread meant or at least some are referring to in regards to Northern cities. Even the smaller/mid sized Northeastern and some Midwest cities have that feel to some degree within them. For instance, Albany NY has areas of urbanity that are similar to what you find in bigger Northeastern cities. However, there is still variety. So, that same city can have a neighborhood like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6533...6!9m2!1b1!2i37
Also, like others have mentioned, Albany was a city that was a top 10-50 from 1790-1920, when it was only 10.8 square miles in that last census. So, looking at older census information can give an idea of where the most urban neighborhoods are likely to be located within a city. https://www.census.gov/population/ww.../twps0027.html
Yup, you are correct. I completely forgot Pittsburgh, Albany, Buffalo, Rochester would absolutely be included as Northern cities, along with the other Northern Midwest Cities (Great Lakes region) and the large/mid-size Northeast cities (Philly and North).
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.
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.
A lot of people may not like it but what you're saying is true.
I remember when I first started traveling more and I was kind of shocked, a lot of "cities" feel like overgrown suburbs. And there's nothing wrong with that but coming from DC, a city where lots of people have no car, walk or using public transpiration to get around, it was different.
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.
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.
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.
