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.
It shows Seattle's density increasing more than Miami's percentage wise, but not in numerical growth. It has Seattle at 7,962/ sq mi with a 9.8% increase. It shows Miami at 11,997/ sq mi with a 7.7% increase. That growth is actually not even close.
.
Fair enough, but isn't growth usually measured in percentage?
Fair enough, but isn't growth usually measured in percentage?
Yea, if the starting numbers are the same. It's like if San Antonio grew by 20% and NYC grew by 10%, who would be growing faster? The numerical growth is what matters most of the time.
I wouldn't agree. Atlanta is in the media frequently and I don't think it has great architecture. All cities have examples of great architecture but most don't have instantly recognizable architecture city-wide.
In Houstons case, I love the BOA, and I generally like the Williams tower too but overall housing is architecturally poor outside of the Heights, some of the ranch homes around San Felipe, a few of those homes around University Place, and a miniscule amount of those townhomes that are popping up everywhere. But then again, that's my opinion.
Lol yes because the Sears tower not one of the most distinctive examples of architecture in the world. Seattle has a beautiful backdrop but the buildings themselves are not as impressive.
I mean, greatness/poorness is one thing, entirely subjective, as you say. But whether or not the architecture is distinctive/recognizable is dependent on outside factors (i.e. constant perception due to media presence) just as much as the building's integrity in and of itself, if not more.
I really don't think any of these places can replicate the types of environments you find in NYC, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, DC, or SF. I honestly think the places that can "transform" into urban environments are the places that once were quite urban - Baltimore, St. Louis, and Pittsburgh. They already have all the parts in place. They just need the infill.
Conceivably, cities with different roots could develop their own urban variants, densifying/urbanizing what already exists. The result might not closely resemble those old urban cities...but then, a city might become its own beast. Its own uniqueness.
Yea, if the starting numbers are the same. It's like if San Antonio grew by 20% and NYC grew by 10%, who would be growing faster? The numerical growth is what matters most of the time.
In that case, you would say San Antonio is growing faster.
Ironically, the only time percentage increase wouldn't matter is if the numbers started out the same. The whole point of using percentages is to make apples to apples comparisons. Imagine if you had a town of 10,000 and in one year its population doubled to 20,000. Then imagine a city of 1 million growing to 1.1 million. Even though the larger city added 90,000 more people in the absolute, it's obvious that the town that doubled its population grew much faster than the one that grew to 10%. We're talking basic statistics here.
In that case, you would say San Antonio is growing faster.
Ironically, the only time percentage increase wouldn't matter is if the numbers started out the same. The whole point of using percentages is to make apples to apples comparisons. Imagine if you had a town of 10,000 and in one year its population doubled to 20,000. Then imagine a city of 1 million growing to 1.1 million. Even though the larger city added 90,000 more people in the absolute, it's obvious that the town that doubled its population grew much faster than the one that grew to 10%. We're talking basic statistics here.
Do you really think that I don't understand that? When one city grows by 90,000 and the other one grows by 10,000, which one is growing faster? It doesn't make a difference what percent the city grew by when we are trying to see if one city will ever catch up to another city. I never once said "percentage rate growth." The numerical growth is what matters, which is what I've said about 5 times already. We're talking basic common sense here.
Cities like NYC, Philly, DC, Boston etc urban built environment came into existence during a different era. A city whose urbanity is coming into fruition in the modern era will be more like the booming modern Chinese big cities like Chongqing and Quanzhou. These Chinese cities have more urbanity, density, better mass transit and higher population counts than their American counterparts but are not iconic in the sense of the world where they have an identity or uniqueness that separates them from other modern boom cities of the world in terms of urban built environment and architecture. European cities are iconic because they are old cities that preserved a lot of their urban built environment and architecture from the past.
Seattle's backdrop of the mountains already makes it iconic in a sense of the word in natural surroundings but in urbanity it will be more like a Chongqing than a Boston or Philly.
The cities that have preserved a good percentage of their urban built environment and architecture from the 1800's to the early 1900's have a better chance of becoming iconic from 30 to 50 years down the line due to the rarity of the architecture they possess if they put a serious effort into restoration of their architecture heritage because they possess the similar urban built environments from the same time period of those iconic American cities.
In other threads Tokyo has been suggested as a model.
Of course, these models may be qualified by the degree of historical preservation in an American city.
Do you really think that I don't understand that? When one city grows by 90,000 and the other one grows by 10,000, which one is growing faster? It doesn't make a difference what percent the city grew by when we are trying to see if one city will ever catch up to another city. I never once said "percentage rate growth." The numerical growth is what matters, which is what I've said about 5 times already. We're talking basic common sense here.
Growth rate is the most common way of measuring growth and especially comparing growth across different cities. When they say "Denver is the fastest growing city" or "Seattle is the fastest growing city" they're talking about percentage. No one would use a phrase like that if they were talking about absolute increase. You'd say "city x added 30K more residents than city b".
You specifically said Miamis density grew faster than Seattles. That's just not true based on how growth is almost always compared - based on a rate.
Why is Houston even being mentioned in this thread? That city isn't even urban. It barely competes with NYC, let alone global counterparts in Europe and Asia. If Houston is a contender for the next urban iconic big city of America, then that says a lot about the sorry state of urbanity in this country. I'm sure that city has a lot going for it, but having a well designed urban city isn't one of them.
Why is Houston even being mentioned in this thread? That city isn't even urban. It barely competes with NYC, let alone global counterparts in Europe and China. If Houston is a contender for the next urban iconic big city of America, then that says a lot about the sorry state of urbanity in this country. I'm sure that city has a lot going for it, but having a well designed urban city isn't one of them.
What does competing with NYC have to do with anything? If you're talking economics here, Houston's GDP is higher than Boston's, Philly's, DC's, and SF's--all cities which are certainly far ahead of Houston in the urbanity department. If Houston competes that well with its US counterparts economically, I'm more than certain that's the case for its European and Chinese counterparts.
If you're talking about competing in terms of urbanity, then no other US city really competes with NYC there; it pretty much blows every other city away. Of course, the other cities I mentioned do well for their sizes but holding up NYC as the standard here, or in terms of economics, is pretty unfair.
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.
