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.
That makes no sense, Baltimore is "peak" urbanity, so is New Orleans. Seattle is mostly new built stuff that isn't nearly as urban as those older cities. Seattle's urban efforts are constantly overstated, there is still plenty of parking garages, large block developments and parking lots all over the city. No matter how good it is by modern standards it's still nowhere near as good as an 18th-century urban core.
I wouldn't even consider Seattle third on this list since it's not better than Miami, and Cincy still has good pre-war bones that don't exist in Seattle. But Cincy's horrible highway network would put it below Seattle. But then Pittsburgh's urban fabric is better than Seattle too.
No, on all counts. It sounds like you've never been to Seattle.
A lot of people are pointing to Baltimore's blight and walkability. For a place to be urban, it doesn't have to be safe. Urban is the build, not the people. Vibrancy considers the people.
The first is very unimpressive to me from an urban perspective. Tall buildings - whether residential or commercial - is not enough to create an urban vibe, which has more to do pedestrian activity on the street level than anything. Using NYC as an example, portions of Midtown are among the most dead feeling parts of Manhattan, because you have these giant buildings with little to no commercial storefronts on the ground level. Or in Chicago, Lincoln Park feels a lot more urban than Gold Coast, despite the much higher population density (and big apartment towers) in the latter.
The second isn't in the city limits, so it doesn't count. As I said, Miami Beach is much more urban than Miami.
The third is just a bunch of boring towers again. When I pan to the back, I see a fake downtown lifestyle center. It's not awful, but you can find stuff like that throughout the Sun Belt.
The first is very unimpressive to me from an urban perspective. Tall buildings - whether residential or commercial - is not enough to create an urban vibe, which has more to do pedestrian activity on the street level than anything. Using NYC as an example, portions of Midtown are among the most dead feeling parts of Manhattan, because you have these giant buildings with little to no commercial storefronts on the ground level. Or in Chicago, Lincoln Park feels a lot more urban than Gold Coast, despite the much higher population density (and big apartment towers) in the latter.
The second isn't in the city limits, so it doesn't count. As I said, Miami Beach is much more urban than Miami.
The third is just a bunch of boring towers again. When I pan to the back, I see a fake downtown lifestyle center. It's not awful, but you can find stuff like that throughout the Sun Belt.
Off course it not going be NYC Miami more similar to coastal South American city
The first is very unimpressive to me from an urban perspective. Tall buildings - whether residential or commercial - is not enough to create an urban vibe, which has more to do pedestrian activity on the street level than anything. Using NYC as an example, portions of Midtown are among the most dead feeling parts of Manhattan, because you have these giant buildings with little to no commercial storefronts on the ground level. Or in Chicago, Lincoln Park feels a lot more urban than Gold Coast, despite the much higher population density (and big apartment towers) in the latter.
The second isn't in the city limits, so it doesn't count. As I said, Miami Beach is much more urban than Miami.
The third is just a bunch of boring towers again. When I pan to the back, I see a fake downtown lifestyle center. It's not awful, but you can find stuff like that throughout the Sun Belt.
Agreed on Miami Beach. It always creeps into discussion on Miami vibrancy and urban form.
I'm not convinced that the other two aren't urban in nature. You mentioned vibrancy, but I think vibrancy relates more to people, activity and amenities than urban form. Urban form can facilitate a more vibrant city, but they're not really the same IMO.
For example, some of the most urban places I've been have been quiet AND urban (think residential sections of Venice). Wall to wall concrete in claustrophobic pedestrian streets where the buildings nearly block out the light.
Regardless, the Miami examples aren't exactly thunderous in their urban nature. Setbacks, trees, gardens, etc.
Agreed on Miami Beach. It always creeps into discussion on Miami vibrancy and urban form.
I'm not convinced that the other two aren't urban in nature. You mentioned vibrancy, but I think vibrancy relates more to people, activity and amenities than urban form. Urban form can facilitate a more vibrant city, but they're not really the same IMO.
For example, some of the most urban places I've been have been quiet AND urban (think residential sections of Venice). Wall to wall concrete in claustrophobic pedestrian streets where the buildings nearly block out the light.
Regardless, the Miami examples aren't exactly thunderous in their urban nature. Setbacks, trees, gardens, etc.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,172,934 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJNEOA
A lot of people are pointing to Baltimore's blight and walkability. For a place to be urban, it doesn't have to be safe. Urban is the build, not the people. Vibrancy considers the people.
If we're solely focusing on build, what is the most important criteria? Walkability and building layout? Not trying to be snarky, but I'd argue that even though Miami lacks the continuous walkable build of Baltimore, where rowhomes are right next to each other and one can walk the city (despite much of it being blighted/unsafe), its urban build is still thoroughly impressive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton
The first is very unimpressive to me from an urban perspective. Tall buildings - whether residential or commercial - is not enough to create an urban vibe, which has more to do pedestrian activity on the street level than anything. Using NYC as an example, portions of Midtown are among the most dead feeling parts of Manhattan, because you have these giant buildings with little to no commercial storefronts on the ground level. Or in Chicago, Lincoln Park feels a lot more urban than Gold Coast, despite the much higher population density (and big apartment towers) in the latter.
The second isn't in the city limits, so it doesn't count. As I said, Miami Beach is much more urban than Miami.
The third is just a bunch of boring towers again. When I pan to the back, I see a fake downtown lifestyle center. It's not awful, but you can find stuff like that throughout the Sun Belt.
The OP didn't specify if we are talking solely city proper, or if we are including the metro. This is important, because Miami and Seattle are both newer cities with a historic core, and tend to be an intermediate between traditional core urbanity and more modern polynodal sprawl. When speaking of "Miami", most people think of Miami Beach being included, as well as Hialeah, North Miami, Miami Gardens, etc, all of which have decent to high density/urban build. Towson, Dundalk and other surrounding municipalities are much less urban than Baltimore and aren't as easily considered "Baltimore".
Even still, I find Miami city proper to be grossly underrated on this forum, in terms of urbanity. It has a high population density, a grid system with streets that aren't overly wide, tons of skyscrapers over 500 ft, 30 miles of elevated track, decent commuter rail (for the South), large elevated highways and heavy auto traffic. It also has fairly decent pedestrian activity--its just concentrated in Brickell, Downtown/Bayside and Wynwood. And it has several adjacent municipalities with high pedestrian activity, chief among them being Miami Beach. To not include Miami Beach in a discussion about Miami is disingenuous, in my opinion. The closer you get to the water, the more urban "Miami" gets, and Miami Beach is the crown jewel.
And those links that he posted are quite urban, in my eyes. They might not be bursting with pedestrians a la Manhattan, but there are people out and about, or in cafes. If urbanity is solely about build (as has been suggested), you can't discount skyscrapers and highrises in an urban layout just because the pedestrian traffic is relatively sparse. Parts Midtown Manhattan, as you've mentioned, can be a dead zone outside of business hours, but the form is still incredibly urban, even without street level storefronts.
Miami has nothing like these areas in terms of street vibrancy.
When I was there last month in Brickwell was full of vibrancy and heavy traffic. Brickwell/Downtown and Bayside etc
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.
