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.
As in which city's downtown core is very modern/urban
modern does not equal urban in most cases nowadays.
Modern is usually highrise or midrise or high density but usually the accompanying 'urban' vibe as in busy sidewalks is absent. They are still very auto-dependent.
modern does not equal urban in most cases nowadays.
Modern is usually highrise or midrise or high density but usually the accompanying 'urban' vibe as in busy sidewalks is absent. They are still very auto-dependent.
As in which city's downtown core is very modern/urban in the Southeast/west, North, West
What's your opinions?
Well do you mean modern or urban?? The two are most definitely not synonymous, and sometimes may even be opposite.
When I think of a MODERN city, I usually think of a city that is not as old, where a lot of the buildings, infrastructure, housing stock is of a more recent vintage. Typically more historic cities are the ones more "urban"
Example: I could see one making an argument that San Francisco is more "urban" than LA maybe (I still might disagree) however LA is more modern than San Franisco in terms of the actual fabric and built environment goes, as San Francisco is old and historic.
In the midwest, Chicago is easily more "urban" than Minneapolis, however, Minneapolis feels and is more modern in terms of its built environment.
Same goes for New Orleans versus Houston. Houston being more modern, New Orleans being more urban.
I think the Phoenix area is very modern. The infrastructure and overall look of the metro area is very modern looking and fresh. However it's not urban like Chicago or Philly.
Well do you mean modern or urban?? The two are most definitely not synonymous, and sometimes may even be opposite.
When I think of a MODERN city, I usually think of a city that is not as old, where a lot of the buildings, infrastructure, housing stock is of a more recent vintage. Typically more historic cities are the ones more "urban"
Example: I could see one making an argument that San Francisco is more "urban" than LA maybe (I still might disagree) however LA is more modern than San Franisco in terms of the actual fabric and built environment goes, as San Francisco is old and historic.
In the midwest, Chicago is easily more "urban" than Minneapolis, however, Minneapolis feels and is more modern in terms of its built environment.
Same goes for New Orleans versus Houston. Houston being more modern, New Orleans being more urban.
The dash mark in between the two wasn't giving them any relevance at all. It was simply an "or" indication.
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.
