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.
General rule of thumb for many American cities is that pre-1950 development is the "city" and post 1950 physical boundary expansion is "suburbia" because development and its FHA finance model introduced in the 30s accelerated after WWII.
So where does that leave those post-1990 cores? Are they suburbs?
No they don't, it's just been made artificially convenient for people to live in suburbs due to government subsidies and bad urban planning. There is nothing special about living in a suburb since they exist everywhere in the country.
Well that's not what stats say. More suburban cities are growing much faster overall and that can't be overlooked.
Quote:
Minneapolis destroyed too much of it's old core for pedestrian unfriendly development so it's essentially a giant suburb these days, I guess you could argue the same about Memphis. Birmingham still has a decent old core.
Indy, Cincy, Columbus, Cleveland, Kansas city all have good urban cores by American standards. Portland, Providence, and Pittsburgh all have great urban cores. Louisville's is decent enough to keep it's city status, but only barely.
The Twin Cities feel much larger than all those cities. This is a joke
Quote:
Denver has a horrible downtown core but there is a neighborhood outside of it which looks pretty walkable so maybe it just barely makes it to city status (this might apply to Minneapolis too). The vast majority of LA is suburban hence the label I gave it, LA lacks a strong core so it's really hard to judge it actually. San Diago is a sunbelt suburb through and through.
Denver's Downtown core is perfectly fine and feels (And is) larger than every city you listed. The city is the 16th most walkable in the US, so if you're going by that, Idk how you could ist it as a suburb. No one will drive through Indianapolis, Memphis, Birmingham, Columbus, and say they feel larger.more city-like than Minneapolis, Denver, or San Diego...
And there's more to being a city than just having historic architecture. What about Public Transit? GDP? Vibrancy in the core? The latter is much better in all these categories than the former.
No they don't, it's just been made artificially convenient for people to live in suburbs due to government subsidies and bad urban planning. There is nothing special about living in a suburb since they exist everywhere in the country.
Minneapolis destroyed too much of it's old core for pedestrian unfriendly development so it's essentially a giant suburb these days, I guess you could argue the same about Memphis. Birmingham still has a decent old core.
Indy, Cincy, Columbus, Cleveland, Kansas city all have good urban cores by American standards. Portland, Providence, and Pittsburgh all have great urban cores. Louisville's is decent enough to keep it's city status, but only barely.
Denver has a horrible downtown core but there is a neighborhood outside of it which looks pretty walkable so maybe it just barely makes it to city status (this might apply to Minneapolis too). The vast majority of LA is suburban hence the label I gave it, LA lacks a strong core so it's really hard to judge it actually. San Diago is a sunbelt suburb through and through.
This is ridiculous. Los Angeles has the most historically intact downtown (historic core) in the United States. The vast majority is also URBAN, built around streetcars in the 1920s and not freeways like most assume. Where can I find a huge intermodal transit center and 1100 foot skyscrapers in downtown Columbus again?
"San Diago" has vast city limits but a pretty dense urban core area (downtown, midtown, uptown, beaches, city heights) with plenty of high rises and and three light rail lines.
No they don't, it's just been made artificially convenient for people to live in suburbs due to government subsidies and bad urban planning. There is nothing special about living in a suburb since they exist everywhere in the country.
Minneapolis destroyed too much of it's old core for pedestrian unfriendly development so it's essentially a giant suburb these days, I guess you could argue the same about Memphis. Birmingham still has a decent old core.
Indy, Cincy, Columbus, Cleveland, Kansas city all have good urban cores by American standards. Portland, Providence, and Pittsburgh all have great urban cores. Louisville's is decent enough to keep it's city status, but only barely.
Denver has a horrible downtown core but there is a neighborhood outside of it which looks pretty walkable so maybe it just barely makes it to city status (this might apply to Minneapolis too). The vast majority of LA is suburban hence the label I gave it, LA lacks a strong core so it's really hard to judge it actually. San Diago is a sunbelt suburb through and through.
If you think that Minneapolis is less urban than Indianapolis, Kansas City, or Columbus, I suspect you have never been to the city or were only in downtown east and the airport. It is a laughable idea. Minneapolis has a better downtown and larger swathes of urbanity outside of downtown than any of those cities. None of those cities have any areas analogous to Uptown, Stevens Square or the new version of Stadium Village. Most of the inner south side of Minneapolis is over 15,000 ppsm while those other cities have almost no areas at that density. Minneapolis has also had a ton of new development built in classic urban form over the last decade. The city proper has added almost 30,000 people since the last census, most of them moving to new midrises in Uptown, Downtown, Northeast, Stadium Village and Dinkytown. The city is in the process of becoming a true big city in the built form of the more popular neighborhoods with midrise canyons forming in places where they didn't exist before.
Last edited by Drewcifer; 05-07-2017 at 11:01 AM..
No they don't, it's just been made artificially convenient for people to live in suburbs due to government subsidies and bad urban planning. There is nothing special about living in a suburb since they exist everywhere in the country.
Minneapolis destroyed too much of it's old core for pedestrian unfriendly development so it's essentially a giant suburb these days, I guess you could argue the same about Memphis. Birmingham still has a decent old core.
Indy, Cincy, Columbus, Cleveland, Kansas city all have good urban cores by American standards. Portland, Providence, and Pittsburgh all have great urban cores. Louisville's is decent enough to keep it's city status, but only barely.
Denver has a horrible downtown core but there is a neighborhood outside of it which looks pretty walkable so maybe it just barely makes it to city status (this might apply to Minneapolis too). The vast majority of LA is suburban hence the label I gave it, LA lacks a strong core so it's really hard to judge it actually. San Diago is a sunbelt suburb through and through.
Columbus has a good core but outside of that core it sucks. It is probably the least urban of all the cities you've mentioned. Cleveland density is almost twice that of Columbus. And Minneapolis. What in the hell; the city is even denser than Cleveland. Whatever you're smoking; I'll give you my address in a PM you can send me some of that you can't be serious. Only thing in Cleveland that compares to Minneapolis is Lakewood and that is out in the suburbs.
Yes, Columbus is good by American standards. Standards which are pretty low compared to other countries.
No love for Columbus huh. The last 5 poster have a history of hating on the city for whatever reason. Columbus has a decent and underrated core which is very much city like. Posters really get offened when their city is compared to Columbus.
And Minneapolis. What in the hell; the city is even denser than Cleveland.
Indeed, Minneapolis has a density of around 7,700 people/sq. mile and growing as the city has been adding 5,000 people every year since last census. This is much higher than some of the places newengland17 designated as "cities". In fact, it's very close to that of Seattle's with 8,100 pp/sq. mile.
1. Minneapolis has many high density neighborhoods adjacent to CBD: Loring Park (17,000+ pp/sq. m), North Loop, Mill District, Elliott Park.
2. In addition, the city has dense, fast-growing retail and residential nodes such as Northeast, Dinkytown, Stadium Village/Prospect Park, Cedar-Riverside, Uptown and areas of Midtown/Eat Street.
3. Minneapolis has many walkable, former streetcar neighborhoods lined with older 2-4 story apartment buildings which include, among others, Stevens Square, Lowry Hill East ("The Wedge"), Powderhorn, Linden Hills, Ecco, Carag, Tangletown, Marcy Holmes and Seward.
Last edited by Mr Maps; 05-07-2017 at 02:11 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.
