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.
Phoenix is the odd one out because for one reason its an overall conservative metro. Seattle is one of the most liberal in the country, probably second only to San Francisco.
Maybe this is what city-data was talking about when they said people from Atlanta love to boost their city. Let's be honest. Atlanta is not more urban then Detroit at it's core. It just isn't. You can walk 5 minutes from North Midtown and be in the surburban areas of Sherwood Forest and Ansley park...When I walked through there, I asked myself, if I was still in Atlanta.
Obviously, most cbd's are urban. Most Downtowns in mid-size-major cities are urban. But there isn't a continuous urban fabric throughout much of the city. There are small neighborhoods that go from urban to suburban in a heartbeat.
Atlanta main urban neighborhoods ARE Downtown, Midtown, ad the Buckhead-Peachtree Str. Corridor, then you have other small neighborhoods like Virginia Highlands, Old 4th Ward, Castleberry hill, West Midtown...etc...but these are small neighborhoods and they aren't continuous with the Downtown/Midtown areas.
Compare this with say, New York where there areas are continuous urban fabric interwoven without any breaks.
Obv, most cities aren't New York, but Chicago, Boston and even LA has a continuous urban fabric for at least 2 miles outside of the CBD.
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.
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.
Fitzrovian's already shown the core. While that's more of an implication of how dense and urban the core is, another standard for big city mindset can be from the metro. I found that if you set to 65 or 70 by that tool it would give you mirror numbers for a metro population. Well almost, Phily being the notable exception for obvious reasons. That's also where my idea for this thread came from. Surprisingly Atlanta, Detroit, and Miami are all in one tier and Seattle, Minneapolis, and Phoenix are in a smaller tier.
65/70
Atlanta 6,046,776/6,190,571
Detroit 5,881,332/6,121,568
Miami 5,581,552/5,638,506
Compare those two tiers to some of the larger tiered cities, I think there are several micro tiers for big cities within the larger and broader tiers.
65/70
SF Bay Area 7,913,573/8,410,523
Boston 7,636,733/7,880,862
Dallas 6,690,262/6,802,851
I do however think that just like the thread before this, to which this is a spin off, there can be possible arguments to support both sides. All intents considered I believe the smaller tier of Seattle, Phoenix, and Minneapolis can at the very least hold their own IMO.
Fitzrovian's already shown the core. While that's more of an implication of how dense and urban the core is, another standard for big city mindset can be from the metro. I found that if you set to 65 or 70 by that tool it would give you mirror numbers for a metro population. Well almost, Phily being the notable exception for obvious reasons. That's also where my idea for this thread came from. Surprisingly Atlanta, Detroit, and Miami are all in one tier and Seattle, Minneapolis, and Phoenix are in a smaller tier.
65/70
Atlanta 6,046,776/6,190,571
Detroit 5,881,332/6,121,568
Miami 5,581,552/5,638,506
Compare those two tiers to some of the larger tiered cities, I think there are several micro tiers for big cities within the larger and broader tiers.
65/70
SF Bay Area 7,913,573/8,410,523
Boston 7,636,733/7,880,862
Dallas 6,690,262/6,802,851
I do however think that just like the thread before this, to which this is a spin off, there can be possible arguments to support both sides. All intents considered I believe the smaller tier of Seattle, Phoenix, and Minneapolis can at the very least hold their own IMO.
Why stop at 70? Why not do 100 or even 200 miles?
Btw, at 60 miles Atlanta area's pop density is 526 people per sq mile. That's less than many COUNTRIES in Europe. Big city mindset? Maybe "big village mindset".
Btw, at 60 miles Atlanta area's pop density is 526 people per sq mile. That's less than many COUNTRIES in Europe. Big city mindset? Maybe "big village mindset".
Well then, we'll agree to disagree.
There standard of urbanization is different all across the globe, do you expect it to remain the same even within the US?
Quote:
Why stop at 70? Why not do 100 or even 200 miles?
70 is where US metros cloak out. Beyond that you're pushing for more area than even a CSA. I'll tell you why you stop at 65 and 70, because the probability of those people living in that web of range going to Detroit, Atlanta, and Miami for their big city fix is likely very high. Beyond that mark you're just being a Philadelphian now, hungry at the buffet and just grabbing more than you can handle IMO.
It's employment, traffic, airport use, shopping, amenities, and anything else related to the big city fix. I don't look at cities 'Rovian I look at metros and 200 or even 100 is just patently ridiculous area. That's 20K square miles land area. Anything beyond a 100 X 100 frame is just ridiculous and even that's pushing it.
Ever gone to Seattle thinking of it as a place less than 4M? Phoenix? Minneapolis?
Have you ever gone to Miami thinking of it as a place of less than 5M? What about Detroit? Atlanta? Be honest.
Ever gone to Seattle thinking of it as a place less than 4M?
Yes.
Seattle's dense in the core 10 sqmi area. After that point it's a billy goats town on steroids. We place Boston as a medium sized city and hold Seattle to the same expectations it does feel significantly smaller than 4 million.
There standard of urbanization is different all across the globe, do you expect it to remain the same even within the US?
70 is where US metros cloak out. Beyond that you're pushing for more area than even a CSA. I'll tell you why you stop at 65 and 70, because the probability of those people living in that web of range going to Detroit, Atlanta, and Miami for their big city fix is likely very high. Beyond that mark you're just being a Philadelphian now, hungry at the buffet and just grabbing more than you can handle IMO.
It's employment, traffic, airport use, shopping, amenities, and anything else related to the big city fix. I don't look at cities 'Rovian I look at metros and 200 or even 100 is just patently ridiculous area. That's 20K square miles land area. Anything beyond a 100 X 100 frame is just ridiculous and even that's pushing it.
Ever gone to Seattle thinking of it as a place less than 4M? Phoenix? Minneapolis?
Have you ever gone to Miami thinking of it as a place of less than 5M? What about Detroit? Atlanta? Be honest.
Nobody goes for a big city fix from 70 miles away except once in a blue moon. There are people who live in Long Island less than 50 miles from Manhattan and never come to the city. Besides I am not sure what that has to do with big city mindset. I know someone who takes the 3 hr flight from Anchorage to Seattle every couple months to get her "big city fix". Does that mean we should add Anchorage's population to Seattle's?
Oh and btw, at 70 mile radius you are way beyond your 100 by 100 frame (which is ridiculous to begin with). Do you know what radius means?
Oh and btw, at 70 mile radius you are way beyond your 100 by 100 frame (which is ridiculous to begin with). Do you know what radius means?
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?
Quote:
Nobody goes for a big city fix from 70 miles away except once in a blue moon.
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.
Quote:
Besides I am not sure what that has to do with big city mindset.
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?
Quote:
I know someone who takes the 3 hr flight from Anchorage to Seattle every couple months to get her"big city fix".
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.
Quote:
Does that mean we should add Anchorage's population to Seattle's?
Get another 199,999 people and we'll talk about it.
Seattle's dense in the core 10 sqmi area. After that point it's a billy goats town on steroids. We place Boston as a medium sized city and hold Seattle to the same expectations it does feel significantly smaller than 4 million.
As I mentioned before this is a very loose definition and its not perfect, its only what I think. Hardest one is Miami, although after the St. Lucie area it thins out where I called it quits, it can still keep going. Within those boundaries, the people that live on the fringes very well do commute into the city for their "big city fix" often and many for employment on a daily basis.
Last edited by scrantiX; 09-09-2012 at 06:39 PM..
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.
