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.
But Cleveland has a prewar urban form that can't be found in Atlanta. In Atlanta it looks like the suburbs right outside of downtown. Even Midtown feels kinda suburban right off Peachtree.
Cleveland has a nice legacy urbanism that can't be duplicated in a sprawly Sunbelt city.
Exactly, even in Midtown, you spear away from Peachtree, it can get a bit suburban.
By comparison Cleveland has a better Urban Fabric.
Those Cleveland pics aren't develop denser than Atlanta you actually made my point. The biggest difference were architecture but styles were of the same age. in fact for your example the Atlanta one has smaller street and yard lots are closer to the street than Cleveland neighborhood you post but that just that example cause you choose bad places to respesent either place. Next time try posting the neighborhoods name cause with could be hugely misleading.
As I just stated Atlanta and Cleveland are both giled industrial age cities the cities stated to take there early street and home size during the same time. It just Cleveland exploded as a larger city first, while Atlanta was more like Akron size than. Then later switch to a sunbelt city later.
The case can be made that Cleveland starts to really become a major city towards the tail end of the Gilded Age, but Atlanta was never a city of any significant size during the Gilded Age (late 1800s). Personally, I don't think either city is old enough or was large enough to be considered a true Gilded Age city. When I think of Gilded Age cities, obviously the large cities on the East Coast all have enough Gilded Age influence that it can be seen in the architecture, urbanity, and general layout. The major East Coast cities, Chicago, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, San Francisco, and New Orleans are really the only major American cities that give off that Gilded Age feel in any considerable amount of area and even many of these cities lost a lot during urban renewal or they would feel even more ancient. Cleveland and Atlanta feel more like streetcar cities to me, but obviously Cleveland was a much large and more influential city even in that era.
Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston were a million people "before"........ the sunbelt sprawling boom.
Most of Atlanta in town neighborhoods inside the belt line where built before the 1930s which is why the area is dominated by Victorian and craftsman as oppose to ranch which build post 1940s which is a ring further out.
Posters often clump older sunbelt cities like Atlanta, Dallas, Houston and some extent LA that cores where built originally pre War and street car age, with younger sunbelt cities like Charlotte, Austin, Phoenix, Orlando like their no age or development difference.
Atlanta and Birmingham 1870 - 1920 are actually industrial age cities a long with Chicago, Cleveland and etc but they was smaller they were more compare to smaller industrial cities like Youngstown, Akron. So because of the size difference there urbanity never reach the level of Cleveland but architectural, lay out, city scape they are a product of that age.
Most of Cleveland is single family homes so is most Midwest cities and generally all non east coast cities. Outside of Downtown and midtown there several in town Atlanta neighborhoods with in 32 to 40 sq mi that can match Cleveland urbanity if Atlanta continue to infill because they was already layout at a similar time as Cleveland did. They just never reach that density cause American culture change. Sweat Auburn, historic midtown, grant park, Old Fouthward, cabbage town and etc.
Basically Atlanta, Houston and Dallas cores are built to be denser than are presently, because they were smaller older cities that change to be sunbelt cities later and not cities that growth and development started with in or after the sunbelt boom.
20 to 30 years from now Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, LA and Miami core will be very urban.
I generally find that people tend to oversimplify historic development by dividing it into prewar and postwar. It's much more nuanced than that. The general guideline:
Pre-1890: Everything is dense, mixed use, and urban.
1890-1919: Streetcar suburb era. New neighborhoods are either exclusively residential or residential with a commercial "strip" Built form dominated by single-family homes (except in some dense cities) with a few apartments mixed in. Neighborhoods are not particularly walkable, because you were supposed to use the streetcar to get around.
1920-1945: Early automotive suburbia. Functionally almost identical to postwar suburbia, although housing styles were different and garages tended to be detached. Still, while not everyone during this era had cars, people who could buy homes did, meaning these neighborhoods (mostly built during the 1920s) were designed around the automobile.
The distinctions are important to make, because a city which had little growth prior to 1890 but a lot of growth between then and 1950 generally doesn't have a good urban form. A better urban form than cities like Las Vegas and Phoneix where it was basically all after 1950, but nothing compared to the 19th century cities, which were meant to be traveled almost entirely on foot.
Can't speak for the other cities, but Houston may be more building-dense in the future, but the new apartments and buildings built in the last 10 years and proposed are very deficient in street-front retail, and are heavily designed as lower-floor parking topped with residential or commercial on superblocks. Lots of new car traffic with the new builds, very little increase in walkability or foot traffic. Some potential where midtown meets Montrose (new Whole Foods in work), but adjacent apartments all primarily have lower floors as parking only.
Seems you are trying to say Chicago has strip malls too and homes with garages first level?? But THAT IS RARE ...... its generally high-end infill too. As you should know? Chicago has full alleys in 90% of the city. So most of the alleys are lined with garages even in older areas or un-roof parking.
In Houston, BY FAR the new infill in the inner Loop neighborhoods are with 1st level garages. I personally am fine with it since if prone to flooding at all? I'd rather not have my living space??? Right on the slab in Houston.
Took your Chicago street-view of a strip mall type corridor north of downtown into the neighborhood. These are some views.
The difference is? There is a LOT of infill in this are and some have more lower garages here and NOT THE NORM or even close in the city. Alleys with garages are. So its really finding a VERY LOW % in Chicago neighborhoods with these lower level garages and always new high-end infill if you find it .
Originally Posted by RocketSci View Post
Can't speak for the other cities, but Houston may be more building-dense in the future, but the new apartments and buildings built in the last 10 years and proposed are very deficient in street-front retail, and are heavily designed as lower-floor parking topped with residential or commercial on superblocks. Lots of new car traffic with the new builds, very little increase in walkability or foot traffic. Some potential where midtown meets Montrose (new Whole Foods in work), but adjacent apartments all primarily have lower floors as parking only.
The actual neighborhoods outside the downtown chicago are very much like inner loop houston. And who cares if the garage is on the alley or in the front of the house, the walkability is about the same.
For one, garages in the back mean cars aren't on the sidewalk. Sidewalks in front are sometimes blocked, and pedestrians have to be much more careful.
Houston doesn't have anywhere near universal sidewalks even pretty close to the core (my city isn't much better), but Chicago does.
Houston sidewalks also have an odd way of not going to the street. They frequently do in one direction but not the perpendicular direction. It's really odd.
The actual neighborhoods outside the downtown chicago are very much like inner loop houston. And who cares if the garage is on the alley or in the front of the house, the walkability is about the same.
I really don't see this. Lincoln Park looks nothing like Montrose in terms of urbanity or density.
I really don't see this. Lincoln Park looks nothing like Montrose in terms of urbanity or density.
They are both pretty lush though.
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.
