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.
Personally, I'm still trying to figure out why Richmond is so hyped up here on CD and secondly, do the posters here really believe that its head and shoulders over Norfolk as their posts suggest? I've read the arguments but they just don't register with me. And I know its mainly a matter of opinions, but this is like the 10th thread I've seen. Maybe I need to visit Richmond again. I must've missed something.
I also notice that the comparisons are always made to Norfolk city proper, excluding the rest of the core cities. This naturally gives Richmond an edge over Norfolk as far as "urbanity" or urban footprint given their histories. But when you start talking metro areas... I find it hard for anyone to act like Richmond is in a different league than HR/Norfolk.
Last edited by VA7cities; 05-16-2016 at 11:05 AM..
Personally, I'm still trying to figure out why Richmond is so hyped up here on CD and secondly, do the posters here really believe that its head and shoulders over Norfolk as their posts suggest? I've read the arguments but they just don't register with me. And I know its mainly a matter of opinions, but this is like the 10th thread I've seen. Maybe I need to visit Richmond again. I must've missed something.
I also notice that the comparisons are always made to Norfolk city proper, excluding the rest of the core cities. This naturally gives Richmond an edge over Norfolk. But when you start talking metro areas... I find it hard for anyone to act like Richmond is in a different league than HR/Norfolk.
Oh but they do. They do. I don't get it either. I love Richmond's aesthetic, and yes, technically it is more dense than Norfolk by about 300 people per square mile but that is such a slight difference the casual observer would never notice. I also think that Richmond is denser by necessity, because of it's topography, and also because it had to be because before HR and NOVA there was Richmond and it's density, for obvious reasons.
But I agree, if you take into account the entire seven cities you'll end up with an area more varied. With our population, that is bound to happen. And if you take into account the urban cores of all of the cities in this region, you'll obviously end up with an area that is larger than Richmond's urban core. Of all of the areas in HR, only urban cores I'm not too crazy about, are Chesapeake, Suffolk, and maybe Williamsburg. Other than that the area feels as much of a city than anything.
Dig deeper and what Richmond boosters really have an issue with is new urbanism, post urbanism, etc. Newer metropolitan areas simply are not going to look like cities in the vein of Richmond, Baltimore, Philadelphia, etc. And there are countless examples of older cities that used to, but tore down and started all over again. Which does explain a lot of what we see, or do not see, in Norfolk. Plus, anything built since the fifties is going to come across as having a modern, or cosmopolitan, feel, and much of what existed in cities before that period simply does not exist now, for various reasons.
Personally, I'm still trying to figure out why Richmond is so hyped up here on CD and secondly, do the posters here really believe that its head and shoulders over Norfolk as their posts suggest? I've read the arguments but they just don't register with me. And I know its mainly a matter of opinions, but this is like the 10th thread I've seen. Maybe I need to visit Richmond again. I must've missed something.
I also notice that the comparisons are always made to Norfolk city proper, excluding the rest of the core cities. This naturally gives Richmond an edge over Norfolk as far as "urbanity" or urban footprint given their histories. But when you start talking metro areas... I find it hard for anyone to act like Richmond is in a different league than HR/Norfolk.
Personally, while I think Richmond is more urban than Norfolk, I don't think it's head and shoulders above Norfolk. They are in the same weight class as cities, but I think HR is a notch above metro Richmond due to size. It can be tough comparing a city that is the undisputed center of the metro with another that is part of a multinodal metro.
Personally, I'm still trying to figure out why Richmond is so hyped up here on CD and secondly, do the posters here really believe that its head and shoulders over Norfolk as their posts suggest? I've read the arguments but they just don't register with me. And I know its mainly a matter of opinions, but this is like the 10th thread I've seen. Maybe I need to visit Richmond again. I must've missed something.
I also notice that the comparisons are always made to Norfolk city proper, excluding the rest of the core cities. This naturally gives Richmond an edge over Norfolk as far as "urbanity" or urban footprint. But when you start talking metro areas... I find it hard for anyone to act like Richmond is in a different league than HR/Norfolk.
While they may be on the same tier, city-to-city, Richmond is a more complete city....
Personally, I'm still trying to figure out why Richmond is so hyped up here on CD and secondly, do the posters here really believe that its head and shoulders over Norfolk as their posts suggest? I've read the arguments but they just don't register with me. And I know its mainly a matter of opinions, but this is like the 10th thread I've seen. Maybe I need to visit Richmond again. I must've missed something.
I also notice that the comparisons are always made to Norfolk city proper, excluding the rest of the core cities. This naturally gives Richmond an edge over Norfolk as far as "urbanity" or urban footprint given their histories. But when you start talking metro areas... I find it hard for anyone to act like Richmond is in a different league than HR/Norfolk.
Richmond is more classically urban than Norfolk, at this moment, primarily because Norfolk destroyed most of it's downtown/inner neighborhoods in the 1950's and 1960's. However, I have noticed that Norfolk has been more dense than Richmond since the early 1900's. For example, I saw an early census tract from the 1920's that showed that Norfolk had an overall density of 15,437 at the time, compared to Richmond's 7,153. Similarly, Norfolk had a population density of 6,117 (population 305,872), compared to Richmond's population density of 5,945 (population 219,958) in 1960. Today Norfolk's population density is 4,362 (population 247,189), compared to Richmond's population density of 3,292.6 (population 204, 214). Statistically Norfolk has one of the highest overall population density in the south. Also, I think Norfolk is more urban than many CD posters are giving it credit for.
I love a lot of aspects about the city of Richmond, but I think the Hampton Roads is a better metro. I don't think most people would disagree with ranking Hampton Roads as a better/stronger metro, but I think most would consider Richmond a better individual city than Norfolk at the present time.
I'm sorry, but the rest of Hampton Roads kinda sucks. What do Suffolk, Chesapeake, Hampton or Newport News add that would make Norfolk better than Richmond, other than people? It's suburban sprawl without great cultural institutions, restaurants or shopping.
Richmond is more classically urban than Norfolk, at this moment, primarily because Norfolk destroyed most of it's downtown/inner neighborhoods in the 1950's and 1960's. However, I have noticed that Norfolk has been more dense than Richmond since the early 1900's. For example, I saw an early census tract from the 1920's that showed that Norfolk had an overall density of 15,437 at the time, compared to Richmond's 7,153. Similarly, Norfolk had a population density of 6,117 (population 305,872), compared to Richmond's population density of 5,945 (population 219,958) in 1960. Today Norfolk's population density is 4,362 (population 247,189), compared to Richmond's population density of 3,292.6 (population 204, 214). Statistically Norfolk has one of the highest overall population density in the south. Also, I think Norfolk is more urban than many CD posters are giving it credit for.
I love a lot of aspects about the city of Richmond, but I think the Hampton Roads is a better metro. I don't think most people would disagree with ranking Hampton Roads as a better/stronger metro, but I think most would consider Richmond a better individual city than Norfolk at the present time.
The most recent Census estimates (2014) say Norfolk is ~245,000 for a population of ~4537. Richmond was 218,000 for a density of ~3633. Norfolk is definitely urban, but Rich has higher peak densities...
I'm sorry, but the rest of Hampton Roads kinda sucks. What do Suffolk, Chesapeake, Hampton or Newport News add that would make Norfolk better than Richmond, other than people? It's suburban sprawl without great cultural institutions, restaurants or shopping.
Hampton and Newport News offer plenty.
Also, apparently Downtown Suffolk is worth something these days (or so I hear).
I'm sorry, but the rest of Hampton Roads kinda sucks. What do Suffolk, Chesapeake, Hampton or Newport News add that would make Norfolk better than Richmond, other than people? It's suburban sprawl without great cultural institutions, restaurants or shopping.
Hampton and Newport News are urban. Newport News is a little suburban headed out towards Williamsburg, but Downtown Newport News is very urban. Not on the level of Norfolk, but it holds its own. Both cities hold it down around 2,600 ppsm.
You can't compare that to Chesapeake Virginia, at 652 ppsm, and Suffolk, at 200 ppsm. The difference is night and day. Plus, once Virginia Beach, Portsmouth, Newport News and Norfolk, are completely built out where do you think everyone will move to?
Hampton Roads has more than enough options to last it for another 100 years. Other cities will be forced to continue to build out. Virginia may have a strange set up, with the independent cities, city/county consolidation, but it's a good bet for continuing development that can go on for several generations.
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.
