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.
New York has the most expansive built environment, but for it's size LA is pretty compact.
In terms of urban land area, Atlanta is second after New York, then Chicago is 3rd.
Although, LA, Philadelphia, Boston and DFW all have a more expansive built land area than Houston, I wouldn't say Houston is a drop in the bucket. It isn't first like he said, but it's about 8th largest in urban land area in the US, that's not bad.
I was referring to drop in the bucket on a global scale.
Houston, Atlanta feel the same scale as Miami with all having numerous high density high-rise nodes and then seas of SFH separating them. They are very fundamentally built different than older hyper compact cities like Philly, SF, DC or Boston so it’s an apples to oranges comparison.
All feel substantially smaller than NYC, LA, Chicago but all are sizably larger in feeling than cities like Seattle, SD, MSP, Denver, Baltimore or St. Louis which would be the next peg down
I was referring to drop in the bucket on a global scale.
Houston, Atlanta feel the same scale as Miami with all having numerous high density nodes. They are very differently built than hyper compact cities like Philly, SF, DC or Boston so they inherently feel better.
All feel substantially smaller than NYC, LA, Chicago but all are sizable larger in feeling than cities like Seattle, SD, MSP, Denver, Baltimore or St. Louis which would be the next peg down
The big issue is “urban area” is not urban in the US. Houses on acre plots are urban in the US but nobody would say they’re “in the city” in a 1100 ppsm single family home area.
The big issue is “urban area” is not urban in the US. Houses on acre plots are urban in the US but nobody would say they’re “in the city” in a 1100 ppsm single family home area.
I don’t disagree with you.
LA’s urban area is incredibly uniform and denser than NYC’s despite NYC’s core boroughs being magnitudes more densely built.
And to think this video isn't even showing anything West of Downtown, nor is it showing Nun's Island, nor is it showing the other side of the mountain...
And to think this video isn't even showing anything West of Downtown, nor is it showing Nun's Island, nor is it showing the other side of the mountain...
Just wait until the Nun's Island master plan is complete, the area around Silo Five/Peel Basin (baseball stadium maybe + downtown expansion to the South) the five (and maybe more soon) 200 metre towers are complete and the expansion of the downtown core to the East is also complete. Our downtown is already massive to begin with, but with these projects, it's gonna look insane. And of course, the other projects all over the island and near the future REM lines.
Greater San Paulo is very dense but not that expansive in area. The poster he was replying to said Houston seemed to go on forever and he said Houston is a drop in the bucket. San Paolo built area is similar in size to Houston and quite a bit smaller than NY
Montreal is on the same scale as Philly & SF, except they have the luxury of not having height restrictions
Do you mean Montreal doesn't have height restrictions? Because it does. Buildings can't be taller than Mount Royal.
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.
