U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-09-2012, 06:21 PM
 
7,023 posts, read 7,488,658 times
Reputation: 5951

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzrovian View Post
I don't think anyone is trying to compare Atlanta to NYC but, yes, some of the Atlanta boosterism makes you wonder if these people have ever been outside their state.

This is a great website that was posted on another thread.

CAPS10C - Missouri Census Data Center

Atlanta's density peaks in the 2 mile radius from the CBD and clocks at a whopping 6.4k per sq mile. It descends from there rapidly. At 5 mile radius it's already down to 4k and at 10 miles a paltry 2.7k prsm, lowest of any of the top 20 metro areas in the country save for St Louis (which is almost empty on the Illinois side of the river). It trails even Phoenix.

Atlanta makes other sunbelt cities look urban by comparison, to say nothing of Detroit.
The sad thing is, Atlanta has the potential to be a dense city, especially with it's grid pattern in the Midtown areas. Slowly, it's getting denser with the new projects. I'd say in 10-20 years, Midtown will be a lot different...possible very vibrant with people walking everywhere, not just the main avenues.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-09-2012, 06:32 PM
 
Location: Nob Hill, San Francisco, CA
2,346 posts, read 3,540,646 times
Reputation: 1081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ant131531 View Post
The sad thing is, Atlanta has the potential to be a dense city, especially with it's grid pattern in the Midtown areas. Slowly, it's getting denser with the new projects. I'd say in 10-20 years, Midtown will be a lot different...possible very vibrant with people walking everywhere, not just the main avenues.
This is one of the rare few times where I agree with 'Rovian and Mr. Marlowe the detective back there (Blaxtor). The core is very important for a "big city mindset". In fact I would agree with him if he said that its the area where the mindset is at its fullest. Where I disagaree with him is his disregard of the region surrounding the core. These big cities have a big pull at least an hour in each direction and there obviously are folks from those fringe areas that make daily commutes or just go to the big city for their fix.

I look at it both ways, the city and metro go hand in hand. It's not just a core issue IMO.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2012, 06:55 PM
 
Location: London, U.K.
886 posts, read 1,387,776 times
Reputation: 817
TBH scrantiX I find the US definitions for what a metro consists of to be very generous. When I look at the worlds largest cities I want a uniform methodology that every city has to adhere by. Same density evaluation. I'm not denying that the lines you drew are an " influence sphere" but they're not a metro. I'm not one to ever adhere to the illusions several forumers here live by.

These are the facts, the global "world standard" and I agree entirely with it except to a slight extent Boston and D.C. for being a tad lower than they actually should be.
http://www.demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf

I find their definitions to be quite fair and justified for all of the worlds cities. Including all 6 in the discussion here.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2012, 07:23 PM
 
Location: Nob Hill, San Francisco, CA
2,346 posts, read 3,540,646 times
Reputation: 1081
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLAXTOR121 View Post
TBH scrantiX I find the US definitions for what a metro consists of to be very generous. When I look at the worlds largest cities I want a uniform methodology that every city has to adhere by. Same density evaluation. I'm not denying that the lines you drew are an " influence sphere" but they're not a metro. I'm not one to ever adhere to the illusions several forumers here live by.

These are the facts, the global "world standard" and I agree entirely with it except to a slight extent Boston and D.C. for being a tad lower than they actually should be.
http://www.demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf

I find their definitions to be quite fair and justified for all of the worlds cities. Including all 6 in the discussion here.
k.

Lets see

NYC 20.64m
LA 14.9M
Chicago 9.12M
DFW 5.87M
BAY 5.86M
Miami 5.58M
Philadelphia 5.47M
Houston 5.38M
ATL 4.71M
DC 4.67M
Boston 4.42M
Phoenix 4.07M
Detroit 3.72M
Seattle 3.12M
San Diego 2.98M
Minneapolis 2.7M

Are these really the sizes these cities feel to you Blax?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2012, 07:39 PM
 
Location: London, U.K.
886 posts, read 1,387,776 times
Reputation: 817
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrantiX View Post
k.

Are these really the sizes these cities feel to you Blax?
Yes, this is exactly how I view all of these cities. I've been to most of the US top 20 and I've traveled to Prague, Milan, Amsterdam, Marsielles, Lyon, Stockholm, Nice, Berlin, Rotterdam, Naples, and Munich. For the "smaller" European cities.

Seattle for example has never felt like a place of 4 million to me. It's got some dense areas for US standards but they're small and right outside of that it really does feel like a billy goats mountainside town on steroids. It takes Seattle a thousand miles to reach a population of 3 million with a density of 3,000 and it takes Naples 400 square miles to reach a population of 3.7 million with a density three times more than Seattle at 9,400.

American cities are naturally very sprawled out, including the much hyped LA urban area and they all lack that consistent density the rest of the world has. This is why both Fitzrovian and I pertain to the core. Suburbs in the rest of the US are uselessly the same with some varying density, yes the metros are large and feel large but US sunbelt cities all typically lack a vital core that other non sunbelt US cities have. Not to mention the other cities in the world have.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2012, 08:37 PM
 
Location: NYC
2,420 posts, read 2,769,369 times
Reputation: 1757
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrantiX View Post
k.

Lets see

NYC 20.64m
LA 14.9M
Chicago 9.12M
DFW 5.87M
BAY 5.86M
Miami 5.58M
Philadelphia 5.47M
Houston 5.38M
ATL 4.71M
DC 4.67M
Boston 4.42M
Phoenix 4.07M
Detroit 3.72M
Seattle 3.12M
San Diego 2.98M
Minneapolis 2.7M

Are these really the sizes these cities feel to you Blax?
None of these cities feel even half these populations to me if we compare them to cities in Europe or Asia. But you know "feel" is a tricky thing. Sure if you drive down the freeway in Houston and see lights, shopping malls and car dealerships for an hour, it's gonna feel massive. But on the street level - at any given point - it feels empty and slow. Small towns in Europe have more life.

Boston to me feels like a Copenhagen or Stockholm, which are about 1.5-2m metros. 4m to 6m in Europe puts you in the category of Barcelona, Madrid and Berlin which blow away every American urban area in "big city feel" except New York and Chicago.

Scrantix, you really need to travel a little.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2012, 08:52 PM
 
Location: Nob Hill, San Francisco, CA
2,346 posts, read 3,540,646 times
Reputation: 1081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzrovian View Post
None of these cities feel even half these populations to me if we compare them to cities in Europe or Asia. But you know "feel" is a tricky thing. Sure if you drive down the freeway in Houston and see lights, shopping malls and car dealerships for an hour, it's gonna feel massive. But on the street level - at any given point - it feels empty and slow. Small towns in Europe have more life.
Then why are you disagreeing with me when I already agreed with you on the core philosophy?
Quote:
Boston to me feels like a Copenhagen or Stockholm, which are about 1.5-2m metros. 4m to 6m in Europe puts you in the category of Barcelona, Madrid and Berlin which blow away every American urban area in "big city feel" except New York and Chicago.
Yeah and that's exactly why we don't compare American cities to other world cities. It's called having a different standard, the metros here are very loose in comparison. It's the way American cities were built and are built, it is what it is 'Rovian. There's no amount of insults and comparison from either you or Mr. Marlowe over there that can change that.
Quote:
Scrantix, you really need to travel a little.
I have seen Sydney, Paris, Rome, Barcelona, Istanbul, Cape Town, Nanjing, Beijing, Seoul, Shanghai, Ho Chi Minh City, Mexico City, San Jose (Costa Rica), Hong Kong, and Buenos Aires. I'm not going to say I'm well traveled but I've seen a good amount of the world and yes 'Rovian every single one of these cities feel much more urban than practically every American city but we're not comparing American cities on the same standard. Only cities I want to see are Rio de Janeiro, London, Tokyo, Manila, Mumbai, and Madrid.

You continuously fail to acknowledge how American cities are built differently than these and you act like they should be scrutinized for a different form.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2012, 08:57 PM
 
Location: London, U.K.
886 posts, read 1,387,776 times
Reputation: 817
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrantiX View Post
You continuously fail to acknowledge how American cities are built differently than these and you act like they should be scrutinized for a different form.
scrantiX if you want to keep thinking American cities should get away with these "special" rules while the rest of the world can't then be my guest. You're the only one thinking that. US metros are laughable, they're too generorous on what they count as part of the metro. Just because something connects doesn't mean it's the same place. That's absurd.

You're free to keep thinking places like LA, Dallas, Houston, etc can compete with even smaller European cities like Prague or Amsterdam on vibrancy. I'm just telling you that you would be wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzrovian View Post
Boston to me feels like a Copenhagen or Stockholm, which are about 1.5-2m metros. 4m to 6m in Europe puts you in the category of Barcelona, Madrid and Berlin which blow away every American urban area in "big city feel" except New York and Chicago.
I knew I wasn't the only one that's felt this lol. These are the only two cities in the US that truly give off that "big international city" feel and to a slightly lessor extent San Francisco.

We think more similarly than I originally thought.

Last edited by BLAXTOR; 09-09-2012 at 09:17 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2012, 09:59 PM
 
Location: Nob Hill, San Francisco, CA
2,346 posts, read 3,540,646 times
Reputation: 1081
Where's the third guy in your 3 musketeers group? BajanYankee

Really I'm not disagreeing with either of you. American cities do lack vibrancy compared to Euopean ones but yes 'Rovian "feel" can be just about anything and I do consider expanse to be apart of that feel. Like it or not, its just the way the cities in this country are.

Marlowe its not an excuse. It's a known fact American cities are an anomaly to the worlds cities because of how they develop. I'm not asking for special anything, just asking you to accept the difference and accept these places for what they are.

'Rovian you really need to see San Francisco if you think NYC and Chicago are the only "big cities" in this country. San Francisco can hang with Chicago and so can LA. Why couldn't San Francisco be up there? Its just as vibrant as Chicago is and despite the uninhabitable terrain it has to deal with its one of the densest metros in the US and really Chicago feels like the bigger city but metro to metro San Francisco Bay Area feels like the 4th largest metro in the US.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2012, 10:14 PM
 
14,218 posts, read 23,814,245 times
Reputation: 4362
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrantiX View Post
Yes 'Rovian, I'm an analyst and I majored in engineering and minored in math, I know what a radius is. 70 miles each direction from the target center. I consider anything within an hours or slightly above an hours drive as "the same area" as me. It's not just me that thinks this way, apparently the millions of Americans nationwide that make long commutes to their metro center also feel this way, daily. Like I said, 65 or 70 may be pushing it, optimally 50 or 55 is pretty good, but time wise 60 is ideal and this going by California infrastructure standards, 1 hour as in 1 mile for every 1 minute, I by no means consider 60 miles far. You know, multiple lane highways, to target populations.

You know what a metro is?

Wrong the commuter belt from the IE to LA is about 70 miles and sends over 350K-400K folks every single day. New Haven or the much disputed Mercer can also qualify and meets commuter thresholds to be apart of NYC metro and has hundreds of thousands in commuters going into the NYC core every single day. Chicagoland, SF Bay Area, definitely DC-Baltimore are the same way. Dallas, Atlanta, and Miami (elongated from Miami-Dade to Palm Beach), and a slew of other metros including Detroit have this commuter relationship.

So much for blue moon. You know how often there's a blue moon? Less often than hundreds of thousands from 65 or 70 mile fringes making their daily commute to city cores.

So those commuters from these outer fringes aren't impacting your feel of a city? Have you witnessed the traffic, congestion, slew of extra folks, etc? You live in Manhattan, you should be used to seeing your islands population come close to doubling during day hours. Or are you under the belief that big city mindset can only be derived from being able to walk to the nearest Starbucks from your office and then walk home 15 blocks away without any disruptions in development?

Great you know one person. Tell him or her to get another 200,000 to do the same daily commute as them and then maybe we can start considering Anchorage and Seattle the same metro.

Get another 199,999 people and we'll talk about it.
SoFla's Tri-Rail commuter belt is just as long.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top