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 think Richmond is closer to NOLA in urban build then people on here realize. Richmond is also pretty contiguously urban throughout the entire city limits from east to west: https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Ellw...!3e0!5i1?hl=en
From the cities limits to the East in Chimborazo: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.5315...4!8i8192?hl=en
To the city limits in the west near Museum District: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.5560...4!8i8192?hl=en
Richmond is pretty much a contiguous line of Row/Detached Row neighborhoods full of shops, eateries, museums, and entertainment venues. Where NOLA stands out from Richmond is in vibrancy. NOLA offers a level of vibrancy and foot/street traffic that Richmond can't and this may lend to it being seen as leaps and bounds more urban than Richmond. I find them to be comparable as far as urban build goes. Unfortunately, Richmond no longer has streetcars but it does have BRT. I also think that Louisville deserves some consideration here as well.
I think Richmond is closer to NOLA in urban build then people on here realize. Richmond is also pretty contiguously urban throughout the entire city limits from east to west: https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Ellw...!3e0!5i1?hl=en
From the cities limits to the East in Chimborazo: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.5315...4!8i8192?hl=en
To the city limits in the west near Museum District: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.5560...4!8i8192?hl=en
Richmond is pretty much a contiguous line of Row/Detached Row neighborhoods full of shops, eateries, museums, and entertainment venues. Where NOLA stands out from Richmond is in vibrancy. NOLA offers a level of vibrancy and foot/street traffic that Richmond can't and this may lend to it being seen as leaps and bounds more urban than Richmond. I find them to be comparable as far as urban build goes. Unfortunately, Richmond no longer has streetcars but it does have BRT. I also think that Louisville deserves some consideration here as well.
New Orleans' French Quarter and downtown is on another level I think. From a residential perspective, I can see giving Richmond the nod over NOLA's bungalows in "urban form" (this forum LOVES rowhouses), but personally I think NOLA's residential neighborhoods have a ton of character as well.
New Orleans' French Quarter and downtown is on another level I think. From a residential perspective, I can see giving Richmond the nod over NOLA's bungalows in "urban form" (this forum LOVES rowhouses), but personally I think NOLA's residential neighborhoods have a ton of character as well.
New Orleans' French Quarter and downtown is on another level I think. From a residential perspective, I can see giving Richmond the nod over NOLA's bungalows in "urban form" (this forum LOVES rowhouses), but personally I think NOLA's residential neighborhoods have a ton of character as well.
Oh, I def rank NOLA as first in this comparison, I just think that it is closer(in built form) than people realize. DT Richmond is pretty urban in its own right and Carytown can stand up with any of the best urban neighborhoods of any mid-major southern city not named French Quater. I was more so commenting on the fact that people seem to be less familiar with Richmond's built form. I was also commenting in response to an earlier post that stated that all of these cities, with the exception of NOLA, "have an urban node or two surrounded by sprawly suburbia."
Well, the scenary of traveling up 95 will probably shock a person from Dallas. A place like Jackson Ward has Mid-Atlantic architecture which is foreign to Dallas natives.
Clearly the South is not monolithic. The scenery on I 20 in Alabama would be a shock to someone from Dallas. The South isn’t just all azaleas and live oak.
Louisville and Birmingham are getting the short end of the stick in this discussion. To a lesser extent so are Memphis and San Antonio.
I think some of the confusion is how urban character is being defined. Some may think of a particular housing style or distinctive "characteristic" not seen/seen very little in other cities while others might think of density and development consistency as the deciding factor. Street activity/vibrancy might also be another factor as well.
Going by population in 1930, the southern cities rank:
1.) New Orleans
2.) Louisville
3.) Houston
4.) Atlanta
5.) Dallas
6.) Birmingham
7.) Memphis
8.) San Antonio
9.) OKC
10.) Richmond
That's probably a reasonable starting point for guessing "urban character". After that you have a depression, a war, and then 50 years of development that is quite suburban and car oriented. Of course the last 15 or so years has brought a renewed emphasis on urban construction, but Miami is probably the only city that has been truly transformed by that.
Louisville is the city that stands out the most as being quite large before cars, but not really on anyone's list here. Was there particularly intense urban renewal there?
in 1930 Houston was 71.8 sq mi, Atlanta was 34.8 sq mi. That's why I stopped at 1920. Houston "and Dallas for that matter" jump Atlanta in 1930 and 1940's overtly due annexation. basically for turn of and first half the century Atlanta was larger. because Atlanta is little older then them by not by much.
In 1920
Houston was 138,276 in 36.5 sq mi
Atlanta was 200,616 in 26.2, sq mi
In 1930
Houston 292,352 in 71.8 sq mi
Atlanta was 270,366 in 34.8 sq mi.
Louisville while not as old as New Orleans, Louisville is older city like Cincinnati. Cities along the Ohio river where basically the first cities to form in country beyond the appalachians. because explorers cross the Cumberland gap. 1800 to 1870. Infact Louisville was 11 largest city country during the civil war to give an idea. it was New Orleans, Louisville, Charleston, Richmond. The biggest city during the time.
the generations of cities to come was Memphis, Atlanta, Birmingham, Nashville. this was quickly followed by Texas cities Houston and Dallas. 1870 to 1940.
Miami was resort town that boom 1920 to 1950's.
By the 60's Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta metro area surrpase a million. And these cities started evolve into the Sunbelt cities.
In the 1920's the mass production of Cars was really just catching, so neighborhoods during and before weren't orginially built with drive ways, and Streets were more narrow.
In south instead rowhouse and, the South used tightly shotgun houses in similar manor. They also serve a similar role as Tenement for working class. All Southern cities have this but obliviously older the larger stock the city has or had.
Outside of Miami downtown area Miami historic neighborhoods most defeintly have a less urban characteristic then Atlanta historic neighborhoods.
Again it's the San fernando valley issue, San fernando is very dense suburban built environment. Miami is built in similar timeline and fashion. Miami doesn't have a traditional urban feel it's dense suburban environment similar to parts of Cali. If call just density urban.
Atlanta is not built in this dense suburban fashion. Outer Atlanta and it's suburb have larger yards. but the point I'm making The core neighborhoods of Atlanta or even Dallas and Houston have a more historic urban feel to them than Miami. Miami just has a dense suburban like environment similar to part of LA more continuously.
I think some of the confusion is how urban character is being defined. Some may think of a particular housing style or distinctive "characteristic" not seen/seen very little in other cities while others might think of density and development consistency as the deciding factor. Street activity/vibrancy might also be another factor as well.
You have a point and that's where things can get somewhat murky for the cities further down the list. This is why, when necessary, I make the distinction between structural urbanism--how much land within blocks and on certain tracts within the habitable/non-institutional city contains actual structures for commercial and residential uses and not surface lots or parking garages--and what I call functional urbanism which is how such buildings relate to the street, each other, and people, as well as the amount of pedestrian activity present.
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.
