Atlanta VS Minneapolis VS Austin VS Seattle vs Detroit (compare, cons, difference)
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.
Or you could create a tier 4 for Detroit. But in no way is Austin's scale, vibrancy, activity similar to Detroit. I think Austin is every bit as happening as Atlanta.
Or you could create a tier 4 for Detroit. But in no way is Austin's scale, vibrancy, activity similar to Detroit. I think Austin is every bit as happening as Atlanta.
It depends on by which metrics they're using to judge. If they are specifically meaning 'big city's feel, Austin doesnt feel like a big city. Its downtown however is very vibrant and quite alot going on and I personally feel despite its size that there is just as much to see and do in Downtown Austin as in Atlanta with all the nightlife
on 5th and 6th street, concerts, plays, shows and river recreation. In terms of 'feel' Seattle and Atlanta definitely feel like 'big cities' in terms of emense skyline, traffic, jobs, diverse economy, ect. Seattle and Austin however have alot more pedestrian traffic Downtown than I have seen in Atlanta where Austin also has alot of events. What Austin lacks in between Atlanta and Seattle besides it size are sports. It doesnt have any proffesional sports teams.
Austin was more so the city that tried to avoid becoming a major city but it happened anyway so to speak.
In terms of Detroit, Austin is lightyears ahead of it in terms of vibrancy, I believe most of these posters are just assuming based on the size of its Downtown area.
Minneapolis however is the one that I feel is being underrated in this vote. Minneapolis is alot more centralized than Atlanta is where as its Downtown is the main employment hub where as Atlanta has several small hubs throughout out the metro. Minneapolis is very concentrated and feels a bit more urban in its core while retaining most of its retail base and jobs in the core.
Last edited by Need4Camaro; 12-30-2019 at 10:54 AM..
In terms of Detroit, Austin is lightyears ahead of it in terms of vibrancy, I believe most of these posters are just assuming based on the size of its Downtown area.
Detroit's active downtown can be measured in a few blocks. Austin's cannot.
Detroit's active downtown can be measured in a few blocks. Austin's cannot.
Well, this isn’t solely about downtown.
I’ll argue for Detroit, it has as many people in just its urbanized area (3.7 in 1300 square miles) as Seattle does overall in its entire metro. Now clearly this isn’t the equivalent to urban core in the common sense experience of cities, but to downplay this as *obviously* smaller than Austin.. which is half the size of its UA is unfair imo.
While very short with a few million riders annually, Detroit has a people mover which I don’t think Austin has yet.
I’ll argue for Detroit, it has as many people in just its urbanized area (3.7 in 1300 square miles) as Seattle does overall in its entire metro. Now clearly this isn’t the equivalent to urban core in the common sense experience of cities, but to downplay this as *obviously* smaller than Austin.. which is half the size of its UA is unfair imo.
While very short with a few million riders annually, Detroit has a people mover which I don’t think Austin has yet.
Austin does have a commuter rail (thats what they technically call it, to me its more of a lightrail but whatever) which runs between Downtown and Leander which is arguably aproximately 35 - 45 miles in rail length.
There is a plan for an additional line as well, however; In terms of overall urban feel though, Detroit no contest. Austin is still very suburban in comparison.
I’ll argue for Detroit, it has as many people in just its urbanized area (3.7 in 1300 square miles) as Seattle does overall in its entire metro. Now clearly this isn’t the equivalent to urban core in the common sense experience of cities, but to downplay this as *obviously* smaller than Austin.. which is half the size of its UA is unfair imo.
While very short with a few million riders annually, Detroit has a people mover which I don’t think Austin has yet.
I don't think anyone is saying that Austin feels bigger than Detroit. It's definitely the smallest feeling city of this four (because it is by far the smallest). Austin has a pretty vibrant downtown, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Need4Camaro
It depends on by which metrics they're using to judge. If they are specifically meaning 'big city's feel, Austin doesnt feel like a big city. Its downtown however is very vibrant and quite alot going on and I personally feel despite its size that there is just as much to see and do in Downtown Austin as in Atlanta with all the nightlife
on 5th and 6th street, concerts, plays, shows and river recreation. In terms of 'feel' Seattle and Atlanta definitely feel like 'big cities' in terms of emense skyline, traffic, jobs, diverse economy, ect. Seattle and Austin however have alot more pedestrian traffic Downtown than I have seen in Atlanta where Austin also has alot of events.
I'm not super familiar with Atlanta, but I would make a similar comparison to Dallas or Houston. Both DFW and Houston are much bigger metros than Austin, and that fact is very obvious when you are in them. In those metros you can look around and see fairly high density urban development in every direction (literally, considering how flat those two cities are). In Austin there is a downtown with some tall buildings, and then mostly a bunch of low rise neighborhoods outside of that. There is no comparison in terms of "feeling like a big city".
But if the question is about the vibrancy and activity level of downtown itself, I do think Austin wins that just because its downtown is more of a live-work-play area rather than a 9-5 commuter business district.
When it comes to urban cores Seattle is always going to have a denser core compared to Atlanta.. Geography is partly is a reason for this. Most of the southern metro areas like Atlanta and Dallas have practically unlimited room to grow, so they are spread out while Seattle has land constraints on most sides to grow, so they build vertically.. Same is true with SF..
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.
