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.
Boston is very Unique in its set up. Boston has 12,000ppsm then 10 miles out Wilmington Has a density of 1,200 ppsm, then 10 more miles out Lowell has a Density of 8,000ppsm, so between 2 cities there is a suburban area, in which not everyone goes into Boston, and this Hopscotch goes away from the city in All directions.
This is exactly what I'm saying bro, and I'm glad you caught on to it.
The Midwestern and Northeastern cities are different than Sunbelt cities because they have a huge core. For example, Manhattan is the core of New York and has the highest density in the city and is crammed packed in such a small land area, its Sunbelt counterpart Los Angeles has a roughly weak core but to make up for it has uniform density throughout the metro. The suburbs and the city are essentially at the same density, with the core area of Los Angeles being a bit more dense in neighborhoods like Koreatown and such. The suburbs and especially exurbs remain denser than their Midwestern and Northeastern counterparts.
The same happens when you look at Dallas and Boston, Boston by large and away has a much more vibrant core city with high density but the Metroplex as an urban area is denser than that of Boston because the suburbs and exurbs further from the core are denser than that of Boston's. Dallas exhibits uniform density whereas Boston exhibits high density and then a sharp drop off after the core 10-20 miles.
Often I read hate comments towards sunbelt cities like Los Angeles, Houston, Atlanta, Dallas, Miami for their set up and sprawling nature. The truth is sprawl is a factor every area in the world exhibits to an extent, when people from the Northeast brag about their mega region it comes off across very impressive at first but when you sit there to ponder more of it, you realize its a string of low density sprawl that connects the cities together. Sprawl that kills the environment and displaces animals and wildlife for low density developments that string connections between two metros with an average density anywhere from 1,000 to 6,000 PPSM.
Every region of this country is responsible for sprawl equally, every region of this world is as well. These weather patterns and screwed up climates around the world are a result of how we choose to live our lives, blaming one region for something the entire world shares fault in wont ever make things right.
Kudos to Las Vegas though, looks like one of the only few places that really contains its sprawl to only its metro and even less land area than anyone can expect.
I think of District of Columbia as neutral, in no region per se because its the borderline however West Virginia and Virginia are solidly southern and just so happens that 3.2 million out of 5.5 million of the Washington metro area is in NoVa and WV panhandle. Statistically that makes it 58% southern. I put my case to rest, plus its subjective anyway and seems everyone has their own riled up opinions for it. So I wasn't trying to disappoint.
This is exactly what I'm saying bro, and I'm glad you caught on to it.
The Midwestern and Northeastern cities are different than Sunbelt cities because they have a huge core. For example, Manhattan is the core of New York and has the highest density in the city and is crammed packed in such a small land area, its Sunbelt counterpart Los Angeles has a roughly weak core but to make up for it has uniform density throughout the metro. The suburbs and the city are essentially at the same density, with the core area of Los Angeles being a bit more dense in neighborhoods like Koreatown and such. The suburbs and especially exurbs remain denser than their Midwestern and Northeastern counterparts.
The same happens when you look at Dallas and Boston, Boston by large and away has a much more vibrant core city with high density but the Metroplex as an urban area is denser than that of Boston because the suburbs and exurbs further from the core are denser than that of Boston's. Dallas exhibits uniform density whereas Boston exhibits high density and then a sharp drop off after the core 10-20 miles.
Often I read hate comments towards sunbelt cities like Los Angeles, Houston, Atlanta, Dallas, Miami for their set up and sprawling nature. The truth is sprawl is a factor every area in the world exhibits to an extent, when people from the Northeast brag about their mega region it comes off across very impressive at first but when you sit there to ponder more of it, you realize its a string of low density sprawl that connects the cities together. Sprawl that kills the environment and displaces animals and wildlife for low density developments that string connections between two metros with an average density anywhere from 1,000 to 6,000 PPSM.
Every region of this country is responsible for sprawl equally, every region of this world is as well. These weather patterns and screwed up climates around the world are a result of how we choose to live our lives, blaming one region for something the entire world shares fault in wont ever make things right.
Kudos to Las Vegas though, looks like one of the only few places that really contains its sprawl to only its metro and even less land area than anyone can expect.
nothing exemplifies your point more than this:
North American detail map of Flickr and Twitter locations | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/5912385701/in/set-72157627140310742/lightbox/ - broken link)
nothing exemplifies your point more than this:
North American detail map of Flickr and Twitter locations | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/5912385701/in/set-72157627140310742/lightbox/ - broken link)
I'm going to go on a limp and guess you agree with me or even partially see where I'm coming from?
Don't see how Atlanta's Fourth Ward or Sweet Auburn are any different than the close in hoods in the Inner Loop of Houston. Dallas has some also. You're acting like Atlanta is on some other level. Houston and Dallas were both smaller and much denser back in the day also, so let's not act like that only applies to Atlanta. You can try to point out a few areas in Atlanta that have homes closer together, but Dallas and Houston are much more consistent, which is why their urban areas are much denser
this
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiatldal
I sorry but what? If you don’t like these dude post Houston lots that you believe are average then.
Point is on average Houston home lots are smaller because Atlanta has neighborhoods like Druid Hills, Adamsville and etc. But don't make Houston home lots like the tiniest thing, Atlanta has plenty of neighborhoods that fit Houston home lots size Brookwood hills was just an example.
--------------------------------
Atlanta core is built denser.
These are just a few neighborhoods around midtown and Downtown Atlanta. If yall want to attempt to post neighborhoods around Houston's core 1. Don't post condos, loft and crap, Post historic or remodel, homes or apartments to understand the historic lay out, non of this is new urbanism. 2. Post at least 5 links instead of giving the okey dock, a very develop dense street but the neighborhood itself is not develop or connected block by block other wise it's not a neighborhood but a dense street. 3. Most of what yall are calling small lots are medium, in extreme case try to post no yard or no drive ways but the goal is overall very tiny.
From what I've seen from you try to explain things about DFW in the past, I doubt it. You don't use the DFW or Houston equivalent when trying to explain things. You street view neighborhoods in Arlington, while street viewing closer in Atlanta neighborhoods, then try and say you're comparing Atlanta and Dallas.
What?
Quote:
Are you trying to deny that Atlanta's skyline doesn't string along Peachtree? People aren't saying all of the major highrises are right on Peachtree, but they are never more than a couple of blocks from it. Buckhead especially.
No your denying I just a post pic that directly look north to midtown, and one south to Downtown. Many of Atlanta tallest building are alone Peachtree st but they surround by midrises and other highrises. and other streets.
Quote:
Because of how long ago New Orleans was founded. The only reason why it's built the way it is (plus geographical limitations). Atlanta wasn't too far ahead of Houston and Dallas, which is why those three look more similar to each other than New Orleans. And no, Atlanta lot sizes ARE NOT smaller than Houston's lot sizes in the core. And as for a Cabbagetown neighborhood in Houston, have you ever heard of the Heights? Eastwood? I just don't know how you can say that when Atlanta's density drops off quicker than Houston and Dallas' do. Look at their urban areas.
OK Heights and Eastwood right since not going to post I am.
Notice the yard size, then their's sidewalk then even more space between the sidewalk in street, then the wide street but yet you compared that to Atlanta's Cabbagetown. No yard or the side walk take up more space then the yard and tiny streets. Neighborhoods in Houston aren't historically develop as tight and dense as Atlanta inner city neighborhoods.
Houston heights and Houston's Eastwood yard lots are nearly twice the size as Atlanta's Cabbagetown but yet you compared them? WTF
Quote:
Everyone knows what TODs are. Trying to sound too important bolding parts of your posts that everyone already knows. I figured that's what you meant about Boston. We'll see how Atlanta does, since Boston had a huge head start and was developed very differently than Atlanta. Only similarities being the winding/terrible road system. Explain how Atlanta's suburbs have better transportation options than the ones in Houston and especially DFW? They just completed a commuter rail line from Denton to Carrollton. Houston's Park and Ride system is unmatched. In fact, residents in both DFW and Houston have more access to transit than those in Atlanta. And again, Atlanta is not the only one building mixed-use centers throughout the metro. Houston and Dallas have plenty of those spread throughout. The only difference is, those two cities have their developments situated on a metro wide grid, while Atlanta doesn't have a cohesive secondary road system. Just all mumbled-jumbled basically. Grids help flow and funnel traffic better, as well as increase chances of walking down to the store, etc. Harder to walk to the store when the road your development you live at twists and turns, is one way each direction, and has no sidewalks. And that's probably a reason why Atlanta has a little more mixed use developments than the other two. It has to, but that doesn't mean it'll be denser in its urban area, especially when it's not even there now and the other two are growing faster.
I never said Atlanta suburbs have better transportation, I was pointing out some Atlanta suburbs, suburban neighborhoods have better transportation then other suburbs and suburban neighborhoods. Then ideal is bulid more in the one that do, and it would become denser and one with bad will remained low dense. That comment proves you don't know what I'm talking about. Also you mention part of what i'm trying to highlight. Atlanta leaders are trying to revitalize development closer to a web, the intersection of the web are to be come denser. the corridors them connect them will become denser and will provide better transportation. Ok look at Peachtree road in Buckhead now that's linear, it's the most dense part of Buckhead, look How high rises go along that street other than the lenox area, and lindbergh but the rest of Buckhead is nearly untouch. That's because the Marta stations and Peachtree road support this area. The problem with Atlanta is putting too much onto smaller roads commercial and residential. These areas don't or can't support developments and population.
Quote:
How is that a fact though? Atlanta's core isn't built denser than Houston's. Atlanta is not like New Orleans. Atlanta's density is more concentrated along one corridor, like everyone always says. There is more uniform density in Houston and Dallas, especially within 610 and Loop 12. Why do you always make up things in your posts? When did I ever say light rail ridership in Houston/Dallas is close to Atlanta's heavy rail ridership? I said heavy rail is a (good) advantage for Atlanta to have, but not the end all be all. Plus, it's not the only mode for transit. Overall, the systems in Houston and Dallas have more riders than Atlanta's. That's a fact. I'm just wondering why you think Atlanta is so far ahead of Houston and Dallas. Yes, Atlanta is doing some great things to improve it's metro, but imo Houston and DFW are a step ahead, even without heavy rail. The population and economic data has already been supporting that.
Atlanta core is bulit denser than Houston and Dallas, you keep refuting just to refute, You said "And as for a Cabbagetown neighborhood in Houston, have you ever heard of the Heights? Eastwood?" When Houston heights and Eastwood have nealy lot twice the size of Cabbagetown lot. And keep talking about population when I'm talking how these cities are built Atlanta had over 331,000 in 37 sq mi in the 1950 no Atlanta is not New Orleanns but that was denser than Houston and Dallas. Atlanta was hit hard suburban flight. And that one street thing is sounding just so silly, I didn't think you would actually argue again't a photo that show how that bull. Flying over the Atlanta City, Shot by Capt. Rizvi - YouTube
that video just hurt your case. I was willing so concede that ATL was more densely built but less densely populated, but no I take that back. That vedio reassures me that Houston is still more densely built than ATL in the core. Your video just showed that your downtown areas to be more dense than our uptown, but certainly not as dense as our downtown
Atlanta's buildings look more spread out in downtown as compared to Houston or Dallas and the neighborhoods adjacent to Midtown and Downtown Atlanta appear to be less developed but on a downtown and midtown level Atlanta looks more developed than Houston. Mainly because Downtown Houston has way too many surface parking lots in the video, its almost painful for the eye to see.
Hopefully that'll change though. Outside of the core area though both Dallas and Houston feel larger than Atlanta and more developed too, on a metro level theres a considerable difference where Dallas and Houston both feel a lot larger than Atlanta but its mainly because of the development style and how each of them sprawl. Dallas and Houston have more connectivity in their developed sprawl, its denser. I've always enjoyed Houston's other business districts a lot more than downtown, for example I find Greenway Plaza, Neartown, Medical Center, Memorial City to be more impressive than downtown and Westchase. Uptown is great for visitors, but as a business district its too largely spread out skyline wise.
People really should stop leaving Miami out. Truthfully, Georgia has a huge aversion towards urban big cities. That's right, it's like it's written in Georgia's state constitution. Houston does have a nice vision as that will help them to become more urban. Atlanta could do something but it's too late for that city and there's something like an urban phobia.
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.
