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.
Except we know that size alone isn't everything. What matters even more is the age of the city and when it began developing in a big city sort of way. It's like people just conveniently forget that in their criticisms of Sunbelt cities. They are simply of a different era; it is what it is.
There are basically three factors which help rank cities when it comes to traditional urbanity.
1. Size of the urban core around 1900. No, not 1945, or even 1920. Auto-centric development happened much earlier than people give it credit, and most early 20th century neighborhoods (except in places which were already big metros, like NYC or Philly) was heading in a quasi-suburban direction.
2. The extent to which the core was wrecked by urban renewal and/or blight between 1950-2000.
3. The historic built vernacular. Though it's of lesser importance, even back in the "old urban" days every city tended to have it's own vernacular, and they differed in terms of urban feel. So for example there was a "rowhouse belt" which went westward from Philly to St. Louis, while cities to the north and south had mostly wood-framed detached vernaculars which had greater setback from the streets (making them feel a bit less intensely built up).
The whole city is not.
The core certainly is. What neighborhoods within the core don't have consistent sidewalks? I haven't experienced this.
And downtown/midtown is significantly larger and more developed than many of the "downtowns" mentioned around these forums.
Ormewood Park, for example, does not have consistant sidewalks. There are streets in Virginia Highland without sidewalks.
I just feel like people ignore the urban aspects of say Atlanta (like MARTA) and ignore the holes in the Ueban Fabric (St Louis) or exaggerate how large the urban fabric is (Cincinnati) in a lot of the “urban” cities.
To me, they're kinda tied in a way. For example, OTR in Cincinnati is one of the best urban neighborhoods outside of the typically "urban" major cities. I can't think of anything that competes with it in the South. However, outside of OTR/Downtown/The Banks/Mt. Adams, Cincinnati may have desnity, but not urbanity.
OTOH, Atlanta may not have something as classically urban as OTR, but it may have a denser footprint covering a larger area and it has MARTA. So it's kinda like which do you prefer? Do you prefer living in a very urban neighborhood with not much else around, or do you prefer living in a semi-urban high-rise district that expands for quite a while, but lacks that same street level vibe of a real urban neighborhood?
Personally, I'm undecided on what I prefer more. I'd guess that I'd prefer Atlanta for having MARTA and numerous urban centers, although those urban centers can't match a place like OTR. It's mostly because I'm just a big city guy and I get bored dealing with one neighborhood over and over again. I'm used to having several dining/entertainment/shopping districts to choose from, rather than just a single one that's great.
Yes. I agree with all of the above.
It does give off a strange vibe, as it doesn't have the traditional streetside walk ups and homes are a bit spaced out. It's definitely not as dense as other cities. But the urban aspects are still there.
That said, I've learned to not put too much emphasis on "walkscore," as it can be quite misleading. Certain neighborhoods in Miami, for instance, with scores in the 90s, have no business being that high, while some in, say, Montreal, have no business being in the 70s. The neighborhoods are night/day different.
I've done my share of walking through neighborhoods in Atlanta (I seldom rent a car when I'm there) and have never really found it to be cumbersome, nor dangerous. There aren't really any giant highways cutting through town the same way you'd see in lots of other "sunbelt" cities.
I think walkscore is good for a quick look, but keeping in mind that neighborhood and city divisions are pretty arbitrary cut-offs when it comes to someone who is actually walking about.
Miami has one neighborhood that's in the 90s and that's their definition of downtown with a score of 91. There will certainly be neighborhoods with lower walkscores that are significantly lower because those neighborhood divisions may include a large amount of area that isn't very walkable but within those arbitrary neighborhood divisions actually has an even more expansive and better walkable area than a higher scoring "official" neighborhood.
That being said, I think a neighborhood as defined by walks score with a score in the 90s, and maybe the 80s, mostly guarantee that there is some decent if not great level of walkability though with a good chance of being less so than parts of neighborhoods that have lower scores.
[quote=eschaton;54717888]
2. The extent to which the core was wrecked by urban renewal and/or blight between 1950-2000.
/QUOTE]
This is where Los Angeles wins big over other cities. Pre-1920 downtown is still nearly completely intact. Due to the large area of the city, there was never a reason to tinker with downtown to facilitate suburbanization.
You could go down to Broadway tomorrow, take a picture, throw a B/W filter on it and the only thing telling you it's not 1925 would be the cars.
To me, they're kinda tied in a way. For example, OTR in Cincinnati is one of the best urban neighborhoods outside of the typically "urban" major cities. I can't think of anything that competes with it in the South. However, outside of OTR/Downtown/The Banks/Mt. Adams, Cincinnati may have desnity, but not urbanity.
OTOH, Atlanta may not have something as classically urban as OTR, but it may have a denser footprint covering a larger area and it has MARTA. So it's kinda like which do you prefer? Do you prefer living in a very urban neighborhood with not much else around, or do you prefer living in a semi-urban high-rise district that expands for quite a while, but lacks that same street level vibe of a real urban neighborhood?
Personally, I'm undecided on what I prefer more. I'd guess that I'd prefer Atlanta for having MARTA and numerous urban centers, although those urban centers can't match a place like OTR. It's mostly because I'm just a big city guy and I get bored dealing with one neighborhood over and over again. I'm used to having several dining/entertainment/shopping districts to choose from, rather than just a single one that's great.
Funny you should bring up Cincinnati. I happen to visit/do a quick drive through on a biz trip across the river over in KY just yesterday. I'm originally from Cleveland and haven't been to Cincy since I was a kid and can only really remember the steep hills.
But as an adult I've researched it a bit, including some Google Street views but, now, actually having laid eyes (and even walked) upon Cincy places, I have a little better feel for it. I really only had about 3 hours to explore and hit only a couple places: downtown, OTR, the Reds ballpark area and up the hill to Clifton and UC. I liked what I saw. It was old with a lot of flats and a few row houses... just as I'd pictured.
It was a pretty day: mid-50s and sunny. Like much of the Midwest, people still seemed a bit in hibernation mode from the vicious cold of winter, so there weren't a ton of folks on the streets even during rush hour... but there was a pulse practically every where I went... I was a little let down by OTR: not by the actually old look and coolness of the place: it oozes with urban vibe and character. Just that it seemed much smaller than imagined, and once you crossed Liberty street -- more or less the northern boundary of upgrade -- you suddenly are in struggling, run-down OTR.
I was much impressed with Findlay Market and the area around it -- I hopped out of the car for 15/20 mins and walked around. It's obviously historic -- reminds me of Washington, D.C.'s Eastern Market which, I believe, is close in age with Findlay, though considerably denser and more vibrant. Inside the market buildings of Findlay and Eastern were nearly interchangeable: old, long with Victorian-style skylights supported by old iron girders. The area around the market seemed just as old, if not older, but painted up in bright fanciful colors which enhanced everything. But the Findlay Market area seemed a tad removed (by a few blocks) from the more thriving OTR areas; seems there's more upgrade and infill ahead before the 2 areas truly mesh... There weren't a whole lot of people around, though, and folks told me to come back on Saturday afternoons, esp when its warm, to really see what the market was like -- wish I could; perhaps someday.
I did see the attractive new Bell Streetcars trolling the downtown and OTR, but didn't ride. However, unfortunately, each streetcar I saw barely had anyone in it -- just a few souls... It reminded me of Cincy's infamous subway failure of the 1920s and the inability to get voter approval of the substantial Metro Moves LRT proposal in the early 2000s. With all Cincinnati has going for it as a classic, old city, I wonder how true rapid transit would have enhanced its urbanity and filled in empty gaps -- or maybe kept the decay from causing them. The little touristy, gimmick-y streetcar is all Cincy has to show for those great efforts, and from the looks of things, the public ain't buyin' it.
As for sheer urbanity, Cincinnati reminds me of Pittsburgh: really dense and urban on one street, then empty spaces a few streets over... This was how OTR felt: kind of an island. Going up the hill to Clifton Heights reminded me, somewhat, of Philadelphia's Manayunk neighborhood: a old Euro-style town of narrow streets and brick houses clinging to the hills... There was a lot of brand new apts and college-town retail around UC's southern border mixed in with the old Cincy housing which presented and interesting mix... The University itself didn't impress me that much: a few decent old buildings next to a hodge-podge of faceless modern stuff...
All in all enjoyable whirl-wind visit; hope to return someday and see more...
This is where Los Angeles wins big over other cities. Pre-1920 downtown is still nearly completely intact. Due to the large area of the city, there was never a reason to tinker with downtown to facilitate suburbanization.
You could go down to Broadway tomorrow, take a picture, throw a B/W filter on it and the only thing telling you it's not 1925 would be the cars.
On the other hand, Los Angeles destroyed Bunker Hill, which was LA's one true Victorian-era residential neighborhood. If it survived it could have been the premier residential neighborhood of LA today.
On the other hand, Los Angeles destroyed Bunker Hill, which was LA's one true Victorian-era residential neighborhood. If it survived it could have been the premier residential neighborhood of LA today.
Yea, that would have been amazing. I think if the skyscrapers had been built southwards of downtown where it became mostly parking lots and warehouses, then Bunker Hill would be the most desirable and probably most beautiful neighborhood in LA and one of the best in the US.
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.
