Real Cities VS Giant Suburbs (beautiful, live, better, compared)
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.
A part of that is due to buildings in downtown San Jose being limited to 30 stories, however San Jose is basically a big suburb.
Except that doesn't really explain the difference the densest areas in Boston are mostly places like Beacon Hill, the North End, and Fenway where most of the buildings are no more than 7 or 8 stories and most are 3 to 6 stories tall. The densest census tract in the city doesn't have a single building with more than 7 stories so the idea that San Jose is less dense because of height limits just does not hold up to scrutiny.
Houston’s inner 130 miles is probably more dense than Atlanta...
On paper/statistically, it is... and it shocked the hell outta me when I discovered that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by That_One_Guy
... I’ve realized that I’ve been holding American cities to standards way too high...
I think many on message boards in particular have been doing the same... Very sobering statement for the city homers out here, too. But a much needed statement that needed to be posted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Randal Walker
With but a handful of exceptions (which keep showing up in city-data lists), most U.S. cities would probably be considered marginally urban by global standards.
Very true. I wish more folks on here would realize that.
The world would consider 90 percent of U.S. cities suburbs...and through that lens, it's a factual statement. But again, as others have noted, the only sunbelt cities I wouldn't consider as a giant suburb are Atlanta and Miami.
Curious to know what you all think about New Orleans ... It feels more urban at its core than all the rest of the stereotypical, sprawly, suburban Sunbelt cities.
On paper/statistically, it is... and it shocked the hell outta me when I discovered that.
I'm not surprised; the extensive grid system in Houston is primarily responsible for that I'd say.
Quote:
Curious to know what you all think about New Orleans ... It feels more urban at its core than all the rest of the stereotypical, sprawly, suburban Sunbelt cities.
New Orleans is in the Sunbelt but not of the Sunbelt; it is essentially the region's legacy city and it never experienced the post-war growth spurt, corporate relocations, etc. that characterize the fastest-growing Sunbelt cities.
Philly
Chicago
NY
SF
Boston
Detroit
Oakland
Pittsburgh
Cincinnati
Cleveland
Washington
City/Suburb
Seattle
Portland
Minneapolis San Jose
Sacramento
Kansas City
St. Louis
L.A.
Miami
Denver
Suburban
Houston
Dallas
Atlanta
Phoenix
San Antonio
Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta are more urban than San Jose. Nice try. There's nothing like the Midtown/DT Atlanta or Uptown/DT Dallas core in San Jose. Nor does it have anything like Inner Loop Houston.
It's basically a city with suburb in the fringe. Need to visit it before coming up with comments like that.
I have spent ample time in San Jose and if there is a such thing a giant suburb turned city, its San Jose. I really like the place, but saying things like San Jose is more urban than Dallas, Houston, or Atlanta is pure ridiculousness.
I'm thinking maybe because it has smaller city limits and a more intact historical core than the others.
LA has larger city limits than Atlanta and no one would argue that it's less urban. Intact historical core can help, but not always. I don't particularly find Atlanta's Downtown much more historic than Dallas's. They both seem to have a similar mix of early 20th, mid-century, and 80's skyscrapers. Neither of them are like Phoenix, Orlando, or Vegas, which do fit the truest definition of a "giant suburb."
I'm not surprised; the extensive grid system in Houston is primarily responsible for that I'd say.
Gotcha. That makes it more palatable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutiny77
New Orleans is in the Sunbelt but not of the Sunbelt; it is essentially the region's legacy city and it never experienced the post-war growth spurt, corporate relocations, etc. that characterize the fastest-growing Sunbelt cities.
LA has larger city limits than Atlanta and no one would argue that it's less urban. Intact historical core can help, but not always. I don't particularly find Atlanta's Downtown much more historic than Dallas's. They both seem to have a similar mix of early 20th, mid-century, and 80's skyscrapers. Neither of them are like Phoenix, Orlando, or Vegas, which do fit the truest definition of a "giant suburb."
LA isn't a good basis of comparison given how huge the metro is in relation to the city, plus it's relatively dense, has an intact historical core, and a respectable mass transit system. I should have also mentioned mass transit for Atlanta.
I've heard that the historic urban fabric of Dallas is somewhat similar to Atlanta's; I've been to Dallas but not downtown so I can't really comment on that in depth. But playing around a bit on Streetview, it does seem that the proportion of historic structures is somewhat similar but one difference seems to be that Dallas doesn't have an equivalent to the Fairlie-Poplar District, which is Atlanta's original downtown; while it's not very big, its tightly arranged on small blocks with narrower streets. It's like a small slice of Center City Philly in downtown Atlanta, but the drawback is that it is underutilized and hopefully that will change once other parts of downtown undergo revitalization. Sweet Auburn may also represent an advantage that downtown Atlanta has over Dallas but not too sure. Feel free to correct any of my misperceptions here.
I agree that neither Dallas or Atlanta are in the category of Phoenix or Vegas, but Orlando may also need to be excepted here. Although it doesn't have as many historic structures as the downtowns of Dallas and Atlanta, it actually has a nice, functional, relatively active downtown. The focal point is Lake Eola, which is beautiful and a unique touch for a downtown.
Yeah this is why cities with a more Western style of development (basically from Texas westward) can sprawl to the hinterlands but still post decent density stats. The grid is also conducive to the building of secondary roads/arterials that further help to disperse traffic. The relative flatness of those cities makes it easier to establish that type of grid both in and out of the core compared to Piedmont cities with their more rolling terrain.
LA isn't a good basis of comparison given how huge the metro is in relation to the city, plus it's relatively dense, has an intact historical core, and a respectable mass transit system. I should have also mentioned mass transit for Atlanta.
I've heard that the historic urban fabric of Dallas is somewhat similar to Atlanta's; I've been to Dallas but not downtown so I can't really comment on that in depth. But playing around a bit on Streetview, it does seem that the proportion of historic structures is somewhat similar but one difference seems to be that Dallas doesn't have an equivalent to the Fairlie-Poplar District, which is Atlanta's original downtown; while it's not very big, its tightly arranged on small blocks with narrower streets. It's like a small slice of Center City Philly in downtown Atlanta, but the drawback is that it is underutilized and hopefully that will change once other parts of downtown undergo revitalization. Sweet Auburn may also represent an advantage that downtown Atlanta has over Dallas but not too sure. Feel free to correct any of my misperceptions here.
I agree that neither Dallas or Atlanta are in the category of Phoenix or Vegas, but Orlando may also need to be excepted here. Although it doesn't have as many historic structures as the downtowns of Dallas and Atlanta, it actually has a nice, functional, relatively active downtown. The focal point is Lake Eola, which is beautiful and a unique touch for a downtown.
Dallas is a little bit younger than Atlanta, but it does have 19th century tightness in spots. Jackson and Wood Streets between Griffith and Harwood are the most narrow in Downtown. Unfortunately, they're not as historically intact or as aesthetically pleasing as Fairlie-Poplar. Akard between Elm & Commerce is another one. Then there's the historic West End along Market St., which is a little wider than Jackson.
Sweet Auburn looks somewhat similar to Deep Ellum and they're both located east of Downtown. I'm hoping that the Elm/Main/Commerce corridor from Downtown through Deep Ellum will one day become Dallas's showcase corridor to visitors. There's a lot of work that needs to be done near the highway through (either removing it or burying it).
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.
