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'm not going to vote in the pool, because I've never been to Portland, and it's been a decade since I set foot in either of the Texas cities, but nothing about Houston thought urban the last time I was there
I'm not going to vote in the pool, because I've never been to Portland, and it's been a decade since I set foot in either of the Texas cities, but nothing about Houston thought urban the last time I was there
Why? This is a city vs city forum. Isn't the purpose of this forum is to discuss and compare cities?
Usually end up in flame wars, and over exaggerations by people who have little knowledge about the cities involved.
These threads are never positive.
A better idea might have been which city is heading towards more pedestrian oriented developments in its city limits. That would spark more fruitful discussion than the one so far you received.
City=urban. To say there is nothing urban about a city is kind of nonsensical. No city has a walk score of 0.
People have different ideas of what urban means, therefore focusing on promoting walkabilty, for example, would most definitely results in deeper, more productive, less inflammatory and more informative discussion.
Wouldn't you rather hear how much Atlanta is densifying, how much its public transportation ridership is increasing etc than the usual Atlanta is.... with no.... etc?
Seattle is dramatically more urban than the others, in each of these categories:
--Residential density within city limits
--Residential density in/around downtown
--Urban feel and pedestrian counts downtown
--Transit use per capita
--Pleasure tourism (we're lower in conventions etc.)
San Diego is denser than it gets credit for, and Portland is less dense than it gets credit for.
In every city except Portland and Seattle, even the dense spots are car-dominated. Apartment buildings go up with more parking spaces than apartments.
Yep. Seattle ain't no sprawl city. Never was. Never will be.
the list.
NYC
Chicago
Philly
SF
DC
Boston
Seatte.
and to considerable extent, Miami.
LA is all over the map. We have Sunset Strip, Santa Monica, Venice, Malibu, etc up all night.... still too areas that are alive in the day become dead-zones at night.... but, come back in 30 years and LA, Miami, and perhaps even Houston will be on the list, solid.... Some day, their downtowns and density will increase with life, and taper off in such a way as to render real, true street level, interactive urban zones 24/7.
Hmmm. How would I rank? Atlanta looks the most suburban, but it has a subway. Portland is probably one of the least suburban, but nowhere near as different from the sunbelt cities as it's made out to be. I guess Seattle would be least suburban followed by Portland. Then maybe Atlanta, Houston, then Dallas. But I can see almost any order for those making sense except one where Dallas was more urban than Houston.
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.
