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.
I live in Tampa, I'm from St. Louis. St. Louis functions and feels like a denser city. I will say you have more consistent development in Tampa for obvious reasons (no de-industrialization factor, no large ghetto areas), but there is nothing in Tampa approaching the density of South St. Louis in Tampa. It's just like saying Miami is denser than Philly, it's a fact, but there is no comparison as far as built urban fabric.
Yeah but this is about the size not the urbanity of a city.
Thus a 70 unit apartment tower on a garage podium is less urban than a 70 unit tower with ground floor retail but they feel the same size.
Providence is a reference point. Providence has a core of similar population that’s 2x Denser than St Louis. In a smaller city. It’s to prove a point that much of the Rust belt is actually closer to the Sunbelt than “urban” northeastern cities. St Louis is only about 30% denser than the sunbelt cities like Tampa (and like 15% denser than St Petersburg) that really not noticeable. Detroit is only about 20% denser than Dallas, who’s metro division is similar in size to Detroit’s.
Consider Boston is about 25% denser than DC over 61 sq miles but the cities feel about the same.
Yeah, I agree with you that much of the Rust belt is more similar to the Sunbelt than the urban northeast structurally, because even in the suburbs the strip malls and straight arterials in the rust belt more resemble retail areas and streets in the Sunbelt than in the Northeast.
Yeah, I agree with you that much of the Rust belt is more similar to the Sunbelt than the urban northeast structurally, because even in the suburbs the strip malls and straight arterials in the rust belt more resemble retail areas and streets in the Sunbelt than in the Northeast.
Rust Belt cities are more compact than Sun Belt cities though. They may not be Bos-Wash corridor compact, but they are still more compact than Sun Belt cities and have higher population densities.
Strip malls are strip malls in suburbia anywhere, but I think the difference with Rust Belt areas is that they tend to have walkable suburban options as well or at least more, relatively speaking. This could be by way of villages and/or suburban cities that may be an extension of what you can find in the nearby city neighborhood in terms of built environment.
Rust Belt cities are more compact than Sun Belt cities though. They may not be Bos-Wash corridor compact, but they are still more compact than Sun Belt cities and have higher population densities.
Strip malls are strip malls in suburbia anywhere, but I think the difference with Rust Belt areas is that they tend to have walkable suburban options as well or at least more, relatively speaking. This could be by way of villages and/or suburban cities that may be an extension of what you can find in the nearby city neighborhood in terms of built environment.
The bolded exists in Sunbelt cities as well, specifically the old formerly rural mill towns that have now become suburbs.
But I still get your point. A good comparison would be Warren, MI vs. Ashburn, VA.
In Warren, the homes have small lot sizes, the city's built on a street grid (friendly to very extensive bus routes and the old streetcar system Detroit had) and most of the neighborhoods / commercial districts are connected by sidewalks.
In Ashburn, all of the housing is built in cul-de-sac like fortresses, the lot sizes are huge and there's virtually no transit (except for the new commuter rail they're building).
The bolded exists in Sunbelt cities as well, specifically the old formerly rural mill towns that have now become suburbs.
But I still get your point. A good comparison would be Warren, MI vs. Ashburn, VA.
In Warren, the homes have small lot sizes, the city's built on a street grid (friendly to very extensive bus routes and the old streetcar system Detroit had) and most of the neighborhoods / commercial districts are connected by sidewalks.
In Ashburn, all of the housing is built in cul-de-sac like fortresses, the lot sizes are huge and there's virtually no transit (except for the new commuter rail they're building).
This, but even further, you have suburbs like Kenmore in the Buffalo area, Lakewood and the Heights communities in Cleveland, Shorewood in the Milwaukee area and Dormont in the Pittsburgh area, among others, that have relatively high density and/or walkability. Actually, Kenmore, Dormont and Lakewood were or are some of the most dense municipalities in the US.
Everyone seems to think that Phoenix is some mid sized backwater, but in fact we are the 12th largest metro area in the country, with Phoenix city being the 5th biggest city in the country, and we are one of only 13 metros that have teams in all of the Big 4 pro sports (MLB,NFL,NBA,NHL)
Phoenix's problem is that if feels like one gigantic suburb, which is probably due to "mountain view" laws hindering it's growth vertically (not sure if this is a real thing but it is what my Uncle who lives down there claims). It doesn't have a big city feel to it even though a lot of people live there.
Last edited by Grizzly Addams; 09-26-2018 at 07:39 AM..
Phoenix's problem is that if feels like one gigantic suburb, which is probably due to "mountain view" laws hindering it's growth vertically (not sure if this is a real thing but it is what my Uncle who lives down there claims). It doesn't have a big city feel to it even though a lot of people live there.
When I lived in Phoenix (almost 10 years ago now) it was native the Arizonans that were intensely vocal against high rise development. The transplant community always tended to be favorable toward change. This was back when it was booming before the great recession. There were so many high rise developments proposed in both Downtown, and Uptown. Some upwards of 700ft tall. Anytime anything of height would get proposed, the native Phoenicians would bellow loudly about the mountain views and be almost radically obstructionist. This eventually caused most all developers to scrap plans because it wasn't worth the fight. Instead they would build sprawling complex's in the more development friendly burbs. It definitely hindered progress in the valley. I would assume that's changed a bit over the years, I know a handful of mid to high rises have gone up.
It was even worse in Tucson, at least Phoenicians at large are open to new development (as long as it wasn't too tall). Tucson didn't have NIMBY's, it had what we referred to as BANANA's (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything). I believe it was the Tucsonan's adamant resistant to change, that is contributing to it's weak performance now. Tucson is located in a favorable climate, with easy access to Phoenix. It is home to the states flagship university. By rights one would think it would at least post sunbelt numbers for population and economic growth. Instead it has one of the weakest cores for any city it's size, with population and economic growth that under-performs some Midwestern metros of similar size.
Again it's been 10 years since i've closely followed the trends in Arizona so perhaps this has changed by now.
Phoenix's problem is that if feels like one gigantic suburb, which is probably due to "mountain view" laws hindering it's growth vertically (not sure if this is a real thing but it is what my Uncle who lives down there claims). It doesn't have a big city feel to it even though a lot of people live there.
One thing people don’t really talk about is people’s general perception is generally about 20 years behind reality.
For cities like KC, MSP, Richmond, Louisville which are growing +/- a pretty average rate this doesn’t really matter but for booming cities like Phoenix or Raleigh which are 60% bigger than they were in 1998 are still seen as smaller cities
Seems like this thread is the best place for this. "Mileage Mike" is one of the youtubers I follow. He typically does stuff about freeways etc. You can usually tell the parts of the country that he doesn't have a lot of experience in (based on inaccurate descriptions etc). The video in the link below is him reviewing cities in the Midwest. He lists out all of the cities in the Midwest that have million+ metros, he then lists cities like Madison, Omaha, and Des Moines as being regionally significant. As a city nerd Grand Rapids is an obvious omission to me. It's not mentioned once even though it's a million+ metro. A commenter asked if he intentionally ommited it and he responded that he forgot it was a million+ metro.
I think folks on here are pretty aware of GR, but per the premise of this thread I'm not sure there's any other US city where people are generally unware of how big it is. It's generally perceived as much smaller than it is. Even youtubers that make population and geography centric content overlook it's size.
Cities that seemed smaller than I thought they would be:
*Memphis - it's so spread out, and downtown is pretty old school urban and more dense than you'd think. But the city felt quiet in many parts, and sort of sleepier than I had imagined
*Raleigh - fast-growing and part of the triangle of cities, and a lot of new everything going up everywhere. But the city of Raleigh felt like a city of maybe 200,000. Downtown was smaller than I had anticipated it would be
*Hartford, CT - downtown has some old stock building density, and quite a few towers, but the city itself is not vast at all, and there are many bad neighborhoods, of the small amount there are
*San Francisco - one of my favorite cities, and people may disagree. I LOVE San Francisco, and could even see living there. But I was pretty surprised at how compact the high rise and skyscraper districts are. I loved Chinatown though, and thought it was better than NYC's. I just thought the city was pretty tight dense and tall, and in my head I was thinking much bigger overall? But the metro is huge, so it adds to the "big city feel"
*Indianapolis - so much smaller feeling and vibing than I thought. Downtown was ok, very corporate feeling and busy on some streets. But the city itself felt like a town in many neighborhoods and I didn't get a very exciting, "things going on here" vibe. It felt isolated and smaller than I had hoped
Cities that seemed so much bigger than I had thought they would be--
*Salt Lake City - downtown surprised me. The bustle, the cleanliness, the many dense highrises and the transit system. It seemed a lot bigger overall and I liked it
*Denver - bustling, large downtown with a really good transit system. The city's neighborhoods were lively too, and lots of construction everywhere
*Austin - exciting, growing, vibrant. Lots of construction everywhere with big brand tech companies and logos going on high rises all over. It felt big and getting bigger
*Nashville - vibrant, exciting, growing and "the place to be" sort of environment. New construction everywhere, a downtown that is getting larger and it felt big in many areas. Lots of good food and drink everywhere--and it felt like a party that you did not want to miss
*Miami Beach - felt like a section of Manhattan was dropped on the beach. Exciting, dense, vibrant with tons of people, good restaurants, good parties, great bars and just so so much going on and so much to do and see.
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.
