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.
Seattle is probably the most urban and Houston the most suburban out of the list.
Atlanta is probably in the middle of the pack there. I think Atlanta is one of the few Sunbelt cities where there are places you feel like you're in a northeastern city in terms of an urban feel.
Seattle is probably the most urban and Houston the most suburban out of the list.
Atlanta is probably in the middle of the pack there. I think Atlanta is one of the few Sunbelt cities where there are places you feel like you're in a northeastern city in terms of an urban feel.
And there are some places with a bit of a more suburban feel.
Broad St is such a great little stretch, we love to see it. Reminds me of the vibe of Pioneer Square.
As an aside, whoever from the Google Maps team decided to cover basically the whole city in March or October really did Atlanta dirty. I've never seen a Street View that wasn't cloudy there.
There are no rural areas within Atlanta city limits. There are forested areas, but that doesn’t make them rural.
Would you consider these areas to be “rural”? Some of these places are debatable depending on one’s image of what a rural area can look like. Having lived in Atlanta for most of my life, these are some of the areas in the city that make me feel like i’m somewhere in the countryside. All of these places are well within the city limits of Atlanta. They’re all located in low income areas as well.
- https://goo.gl/maps/V11W1WcjuZnRfN727 (“Old, Rough, & Ready Drive”? Lol I know that it’s named after a former president but that just sounds like the name of a road that you’d find in a rural area.)
Isn't this really a discussion about which city has the most suburban development? In the case of these cities, it's obviously Houston since the city has well over 600 square miles of land.
How is that obvious if the 600 Sq miles is more dense?
Wouldn't 600 Sq miles at 3613 ppsm make a stronger case than
Atlanta at 134 Sq miles with a density of 3539ppsm?
Your reasoning doesn't make sense on a simple this has more area basis without looking specifically at how much land is developed on a suburban level.
I don't consider unusable land in any of the cities as suburban. Floodplain, parks, forests, etc.
So without hard figures on how much of each city is developed in a suburban fashion, the matter is definitely not obvious. Your statement may be true but it's not obvious.
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.
