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.
Which one of those are in the same proximity to the Raleigh neighborhood btownboss4 posted?
As mentioned in his post, that area of Park is near a couple of other business districts not too far outside of Downtown. This is Monroe (Village): https://goo.gl/maps/57rFZLxiGMP4wW7k9
I think a lot of cities have these areas, but “Legacy” cities then to have relatively more due to time of development.
I think there are a few things that lead to legacy city urbanity being overhyped.
1) pre/post War bifurcation: it’s just not true. There is a pretty distinct change from ~1890 forward where it was no longer expected to actually walk everywhere. Fast Electric Streetcars and Subways were being built in cities. Allowing people to travel further for things they needed. This is why Detroit and Cleveland look much different than older cities like Pittsburgh and St Louis. Similarly post war until the late 50s it was expected a household would have only 1 car. So the wife at home would need to walk to a store and the kids would walk to the park or school or whatever.
2) population loss: a lot of these cities are built bigger than they are even though they are built denser they actually don’t have the amenities you’d expect in a neighborhood like that.
3) just generally comparisons leading to exaggerating their differences andmaking absolute statements where they don’t belong
Here is an example I am talking about on the Rochester vs Cleveland thread. This neighborhood on the between 2 major commercial (east ave and Monroe Ave) strips just outside of the city center was considered a walkable intact urban neighborhood. For those who don't know, its literally two blocks from the main nightlife center of town. East and Alexander.
which would be described as SFH neighborhoods right next to Downtown.
I think you might in part be commenting on something I wrote in that thread. That thread was comparing Rochester to Cleveland. I just noted Rochester had some relatively intact walkable areas. I never said they were 2 of the most walkable cities or better than sunbelt cities. Raleigh wasn't in the discussion. Rochester is never lauded for being some walkable urban paradise on a national scale. People point out some aspects of Cleveland: the historic downtown skyscrapers,the west side market, the lakefront, the legacy theaters, libraries, museums, etc. But, mostly I hear that it is shell of its former self with lots of prewar architecture removed for parking lots and vast residential neighborhoods that have been badly depleted.
Now Pittsburgh and Baltimore (to say nothing of Bos, Philly, Chi, DC), yeah, they do get praised as punching above their weight. But, I think a good case can be made that they are more walkable and urban then new, bigger sunbelt cities.
I think you might in part be commenting on something I wrote in that thread. That thread was comparing Rochester to Cleveland. I just noted Rochester had some relatively intact walkable areas. I never said they were 2 of the most walkable cities or better than sunbelt cities. Raleigh wasn't in the discussion. Rochester is never lauded for being some walkable urban paradise on a national scale. People point out some aspects of Cleveland: the historic downtown skyscrapers,the west side market, the lakefront, the legacy theaters, libraries, museums, etc. But, mostly I hear that it is shell of its former self with lots of prewar architecture removed for parking lots and vast residential neighborhoods that have been badly depleted.
Now Pittsburgh and Baltimore (to say nothing of Bos, Philly, Chi, DC), yeah, they do get praised as punching above their weight. But, I think a good case can be made that they are more walkable and urban then new, bigger sunbelt cities.
I agree Pittsburgh is built kind of like Boston. It’s one in the older inland cities.
What I am saying there is not two classes of cities. There are three.
1) Walking cities-mostly built between 1789-1885
2) Streetcar cities- built between 1885-1940
3) Post War cities- built mostly between 1946-present
While 2 is lumped with 1 it’s really in the middle.
Late industrial cities like Cleveland, Detroit, Milwaukee, Minneapolis are not built very different from the older Sunbelt cities like Dallas, Atlanta or LA.
Detroit gets too much hype at C-D. It's not really like the Northeast cities. It has HUGE wide boulevards cutting through the city even in the core. Much of its housing stock was built during boom times in an automobile age, cheaply and hastily built, and car centric.
Yet many people would rank Detroit as more urban than Minneapolis-St. Paul, which is just insane as the latter is denser and more urban in almost every way.
Detroit gets too much hype at C-D. It's not really like the Northeast cities. It has HUGE wide boulevards cutting through the city even in the core. Much of its housing stock was built during boom times in an automobile age, cheaply and hastily built, and car centric.
Yet many people would rank Detroit as more urban than Minneapolis-St. Paul, which is just insane as the latter is denser and more urban in almost every way.
Well, if it still had even 70% of its peak population, it would still be among the most dense cities in the country. Sure a lot of it was built during the automobile age but a good majority of those homes were tightly packed duplexes. Also, it was still a relatively large city even before 1900. You can see a lot of it’s dense development still in the midtown area. Look at Hamtramck for a good idea of how the city looked before it’s decline.
However, this doesn’t change the fact that it’s core is so gutted at this point, that yes, I would say detroit is one of the least urban of any city outside the sunbelt, and a lot of southern cities are more urban at this point.
However, I think Detroit’s scale of Decay is on another level, the few preserved pre-1920s areas of the city are only a few blocks and surrounded by areas that have probably lost 90% of their population. It’s by far the worst, even compared to St. Louis, or Cleveland.
Bro I'm from Austin and let me assure you, it's sprawl-heavy! Yes the downtown is growing VERY nicely, but it's not al infill. It's been expanding to the west for years now. And we're just talking about downtown here. You have to remember there's another 250 square miles to the city that, except for certain pockets like the Domain, are VERY sprawlish.
Detroit gets too much hype at C-D. It's not really like the Northeast cities. It has HUGE wide boulevards cutting through the city even in the core. Much of its housing stock was built during boom times in an automobile age, cheaply and hastily built, and car centric.
Yet many people would rank Detroit as more urban than Minneapolis-St. Paul, which is just insane as the latter is denser and more urban in almost every way.
Yea, I mean it makes sense Detroit grew the way it did, being home to the automobile. Its entire city was built for the industry and around making car transportation easy and widely accessible.
Detroit is one of my least favorite legacy cities because of this tbh.
Yea, I mean it makes sense Detroit grew the way it did, being home to the automobile. Its entire city was built for the industry and around making car transportation easy and widely accessible.
Detroit is one of my least favorite legacy cities because of this tbh.
I feel like had Detroit not lost 70% of it’s population from its peak this would be an entirely different discussion. Literally every city across the planet had it’s infrastructure planned and updated to accommodate automobiles. Even the ones with the most prominent mass transit. It is pure conjecture to suggest that Detroit’s major thoroughfares are more indulgent than other cities due to being home to the automobile. Every major city and metro I’ve been in has a network of 5-8 lane Blvds. By no means unique to Michigan.
Which one of those are in the same proximity to the Raleigh neighborhood btownboss4 posted? .
To be clear, none of the places from Raleigh shown here are that close to one another. btown’s Oakwood street view is around 3 miles from both of rnc2mbfl’s two links, Five Points and Hillsborough Street.
I feel like had Detroit not lost 70% of it’s population from its peak this would be an entirely different discussion. Literally every city across the planet had it’s infrastructure planned and updated to accommodate automobiles. Even the ones with the most prominent mass transit. It is pure conjecture to suggest that Detroit’s major thoroughfares are more indulgent than other cities due to being home to the automobile. Every major city and metro I’ve been in has a network of 5-8 lane Blvds. By no means unique to Michigan.
I completely agree with this. It is pure fantasy to suggest that these other cities are full of tiny narrow charming streets all over the place. No. Those are largely limited to the centers and cover a small area. I could show you many screenshots of streets across the country of some very wide streets in these lauded cities that allegedly aren't built for cars (though they certainly are, in reality).
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.
