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.
Wrong. It's a total mischaracterization, period. You made a sweeping generalization that isn't true, but insist on doubling down and digging in. You are clearly incapable of ever admitting that you could possibly be misinformed or wrong.
Atlanta walk score 49
Houston walk score 49
Dallas walk score 46
I rest my case
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMatl
It obviously doesn't fit your narrative, and I'm beginning to believe you've never even been here.
I have never been Atlanta... but theres google earth & flickr for that (in the context of what we are discussing). Seeing I have been to NYC, LA, Chicago, Philly and lived in both DC & Baltimore, I can make a very confident decision/conclusion that outside of Downtown/Midtown & Buckhead.... Atlanta is not as urban as any of those cities
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,132 posts, read 7,575,946 times
Reputation: 5796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Losfrisco
I'll tell you.
The part of Los Angeles city located in the L.A. basin (about 2.5 million people) is the same as Chicago or Philadelphia in terms of population and structural density.
The part of Los Angeles city located in the San Fernando Valley (about 1.5 million people) is still twice as dense as Dallas, Houston, or Atlanta.
There's nowhere in the city limits that isn't a dense, urban area.
Street width would give a more urban appearance I suppose, but in terms of population density, the San Fernando Valley portion of L.A. (the part most ridiculed as being suburban) will be catching up to Baltimore city in population density in the next few years.
It seems like we're giving out points for urbanity just for being an older city. It's not incumbent on newer cities to build narrow, horse and carriage streets or brownstone apartment homes to pander to the eastern establishment for urbanity points.
I don’t see where the age of these cities came into discussion about these cities until just now by you.
You're essentially saying what I'm saying without admitting the obvious which is that LA is not and will never be structured in the fashion of having close building density, with tighter knit urbanity, and storefront walk ups, as well as smaller streets/avenues. Talking about how many people live in a radius is not going to win you this argument. On a block by block basis of a person walking up from one corner to the next in the middle of an urban center LA is less urban than all of those cities that I mentioned.
Now expanding back out to the macro level, from a broader perspective is entirely different. At that level it’s arguable that LA is more urban as an overall cluster of humanity than Bos, DC, SF, and Philly etc due to how wide spread the consistent level of development it has with the population to match. To me however, that doesn’t reflect the street by street, block by block level of urbanity.
Atlanta walk score 49
Houston walk score 49
Dallas walk score 46
I rest my case
I have never been Atlanta... but theres google earth & flickr for that (in the context of what we are discussing). Seeing I have been to NYC, LA, Chicago, Philly and lived in both DC & Baltimore, I can make a very confident decision/conclusion that outside of Downtown/Midtown & Buckhead.... Atlanta is not as urban as any of those cities
Just as I expected, your'e nothing more than yet another totally misinformed armchair expert. You aren't qualified to make these sweeping pronouncements. Period.
Atlanta walk score 49
Houston walk score 49
Dallas walk score 46
I rest my case
He doesn't go by stats... he usually will tell anyone that doesnt say something positive about Atlanta that they have an agenda or the stats presented are a cute story. You see how he doesnt even acknowledge the walkscore and goes right into dramatics Good luck though.
He doesn't go by stats... he usually will tell anyone that doesnt say something positive about Atlanta that they have an agenda or the stats presented are a cute story. You see how he doesnt even acknowledge the walkscore and goes right into dramatics Good luck though.
Walkscore is a terrible stat to go by.
For reference, Montreal's "walkscore" is 70. Miami's is 79.
Montreal is one of the most walkable cities in North America. Miami is not.
I purposely did not pick their core areas, as that is not representative of most of the city. But you get the point.
Please let's not use walkscore...
It doesn't matter which metric you use. The storyline is almost always the same with Atlanta not being considered one of the more urban cities. It's one of the if not the least dense major city in the country. It might certainly be improving and infilling (I was just there 3 months ago), but it clearly has a ways to go before using LA as a peer barometer for it's overall urbanity.
I purposely did not pick their core areas, as that is not representative of most of the city. But you get the point.
Miami scores higher because it's substantially smaller (It's walkable just not great from an amenity/density standpoint). It also helps that it doesn't have an airport, distribution yard & rail yard that bisects the city in two, like Montreal has in between Downtown & Ponte-Claire. Despite that Montreal still scores where Baltimore & DC sit, which seems dead on for how the city is structurally built.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcenal352
Please let's not use walkscore...
NYC is 89
SF/Oakland are 86/72
Boston is 81
Philadelphia is 79
Chicago is 78
DC is 79
Seattle is 72
Baltimore is 69
Sure it's by no means absolute... but this looks like the usual suspects to me for cities over 500k
Just as I expected, your'e nothing more than yet another totally misinformed armchair expert. You aren't qualified to make these sweeping pronouncements. Period.
Why because I can use common sense?
Common sense tells me LA is larger than SF.
Common sense tells me Baltimore is smaller than Philly.
Common sense tells me Atlanta is less urban that all 4.
1. New york
2. Houston
3. Los angeles
4. Phoenix
5. Chicago
6. Philadelphia
7. San antonio
8. Dallas
9. San diego
10. Nashville
11. Seattle
12. Boston
13. Honolulu
14. Columbus
15. Miami
Manhattan and San Francisco. NYC has 5 boroughs, most of which would be in the same tier as Boston, Philly, DC, Chi.
San Francisco is a tiny city of 800,000 people. New York has 8,000,000 people. There's really no comparison between the two.
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.
Good luck though.
