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.
I've never been to Latin America or the Carribean but from my perception of what I've seen, it looks like the culture embraces being outside and interacting more than upper North America. Am I right?
One thing I do know is that poorer communities on average, especially the lower you get in the developed world, have more streetlife in general , simply because its a necessity.
Actually that is true in the U.S. too for cities in my opinion. I know in D.C., an argument can be made that the most vibrant neighborhoods are actually across the river in S.E. D.C., however, most people don't consider those neighborhoods in these discussion's. S.E. D.C. neighborhoods have way more street traffic than the most dense neighborhoods in the core of D.C. People are always hanging out on the corner's and sitting on stoops. The same is true for Baltimore. East Baltimore is by far the most vibrant part of Baltimore. People are just scared to go into these neighborhoods. Minnesota Ave. in D.C. across the river is probably one of the most vibrant streets in the city.
Yeah, there's a lot of cities in North America, outside of just the United States, that vie for the top when it comes to it's populace embracing urban life and creating an vibrant atmosphere.
grapico's already posted shots of San Juan. So I'll refrain from that. However, by viewing these pictures as well as the ones in grapico's post, this is sort of what I'm asking for.
A city with a large population embracing the urban way of life. Day-to-day basis. With the general liveliness and vibrancy a city should have, the infrastructure in place to move people along, the human-scale pedestrian friendly atmosphere, the density of course (both population and structural), so on. Size is by no means too much of a factor in this thread, I've mentioned once before but a 6 million person metropolis of Miami or Atlanta actually feel a fraction of their size to places in other countries. Size is good when we keep it to United States city one versus United States city two, in my opinion.
Forgot some of these places exist in North America.
Great pictures.
The amazing thing is that many of the big cities of the US in the 50s and earlier were like these as well. If you look at the older pictures of them, the streets are bustling with activity and each little neighborhood often had their own neighborhood retail and commercial centers. I remember having to take multiple trips up to Buffalo for work and stopping by their main public library and seeing these old photographs on the wall of Buffalo from earlier periods and the streets are just packed with activity with large built up areas. You walk out of the building to downtown and you see that a good lot of them have been brought down to either become smaller more modern structures, abandoned structures or parking lots. From my recollection, St. Louis, Detroit and Los Angeles have some especially impressive pictures from that era.
Yeah, I've seen pictures from Birmingham, Alabama that look like intersections in NYC with all the foot traffic. Thats one of the reasons Montreal still has a vibrant street life, because its such a dense urban city in a tiny metro, residents of the Metro area don't really have a large assortment of strip malls, malls and other districts to visit. The inner city is the only option.
The amazing thing is that many of the big cities of the US in the 50s and earlier were like these as well. If you look at the older pictures of them, the streets are bustling with activity and each little neighborhood often had their own neighborhood retail and commercial centers. I remember having to take multiple trips up to Buffalo for work and stopping by their main public library and seeing these old photographs on the wall of Buffalo from earlier periods and the streets are just packed with activity with large built up areas. You walk out of the building to downtown and you see that a good lot of them have been brought down to either become smaller more modern structures, abandoned structures or parking lots. From my recollection, St. Louis, Detroit and Los Angeles have some especially impressive pictures from that era.
As far as number of people on the street, yeah there are some incredible pictures of Hollywood and DTLA with NYC-levels of people on the street - luckily that aspect has improved from its nadir during the mid to late 20th century (and this is why LA belongs on the list, not necessarily for how urban-looking it is). But as far as there being a lot more buildings, only in a few areas of downtown is this really true, there were always quite a few parking lots throughout Los Angeles' core
Yeah, I've seen pictures from Birmingham, Alabama that look like intersections in NYC with all the foot traffic. Thats one of the reasons Montreal still has a vibrant street life, because its such a dense urban city in a tiny metro, residents of the Metro area don't really have a large assortment of strip malls, malls and other districts to visit. The inner city is the only option.
I was in Stockton, CA in a revitalized hotel looking at historic pictures of the city and it had a robust streetcar system. And a vibrant waterfront / downtown.
Now it is pretty much the epitome of the failed city.
Sometimes I go on a thread and wonder if I've stepped into another dimension.
Birmingham, Alabama, a city so car-oriented and sprawly it makes Detroit look like Hong Kong, has the same pedestrian traffic as NYC?
And the most vibrant and busy part of DC is Southeast DC past the river, which in reality is the most isolated and hidden area, and almost 100% residential?
Don't understand either of these two claims, but oh well. Everyone has their own opinions.
Because buses are not infrastructure any more than cars are. Buses are vehicles that use existing infrastructure - roads. And I don't think that roads and freeways are significant measures of urbanity because every city has them (at least if we are comparing cities in the developed world). If they were, then places like Houston and Dallas would be considered very urban.
I don't get any of this either. Houston and Dallas don't have a large number of bus riders. In contrast, LA has more bus riders than any other U.S. city excepting NYC. In fact, LA has about twice as many bus riders as the #3 city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzrovian
When I think of intense urban infrastructure I think mostly of rail. Trains need tracks, tracks need train stations, and train stations often lead to the kind of transit oriented development (or capitalize on the already existing high density) that is usually associated with intense urbanity and infrastructure. It is no coincidence that the most urban cities in the world are either very dense or have extensive rail networks or both.
I don't see why you only limit urban infrastructure to rail. Most North American urban transit users are on buses, not rail. Some of the densest cities on earth have limited rail, and really no U.S. city outside NYC has a really first-rate rail system.
And I'm almost certain that NYC and DC are the only U.S. cities where most transit riders are using rail.
Mexico City had no rail until a few decades ago, yet was just as urban back then.
Sometimes I go on a thread and wonder if I've stepped into another dimension.
Birmingham, Alabama, a city so car-oriented and sprawly it makes Detroit look like Hong Kong, has the same pedestrian traffic as NYC?
And the most vibrant and busy part of DC is Southeast DC past the river, which in reality is the most isolated and hidden area, and almost 100% residential?
Don't understand either of these two claims, but oh well. Everyone has their own opinions.
Huh? Have you ever been across the river? It's very busy. It's just not the type of people this website counts as adding to vibrancy. Go to L.A., Chicago, NYC, Philly, Boston, and Baltimore and you will see they're no different.
This maybe Ghetto, but it gives an example of the vibrancy on Minnesota Avenue in D.C. I'm sure all these cities could show similar streets in the hood that are bustling with people:
As far as number of people on the street, yeah there are some incredible pictures of Hollywood and DTLA with NYC-levels of people on the street - luckily that aspect has improved from its nadir during the mid to late 20th century (and this is why LA belongs on the list, not necessarily for how urban-looking it is). But as far as there being a lot more buildings, only in a few areas of downtown is this really true, there were always quite a few parking lots throughout Los Angeles' core
LA should probably get a most improved reward for the last two decades as the change has been amazing. LA's core and places further out did have parking lots back then but there were a pretty decent number of teardowns due to expanded parking as more people ended up commuting downtown rather than living in it. As the suburbs grew and downtown became more of a purely commercial area and mass transit usage dropped off, there needed to be more and more parking. However, that was just part of it as freeway construction and street widening lead to much of that loss as well. There's another forum where a lot of earlier LA pictures are posted in a thread and the ones that visually show the impact the most are the ones comparing street pictures pre and post widening.
Anyhow, by I think most criteria outside of a percentages game, LA of today has a good argument for top ten. LA of a decade ago not so much and LA two decades ago, especially post riot, even less so.
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.
