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.
Ok, I have a better understanding of what you’re talking about, but there has to a term we can use to describe it that captures your meaning better than “size,” which usually refers to population. Maybe extent?
Outside the US and Canada, cities don’t sprawl so much into low-density suburbia like Houston or Dallas, for example. A city like Delhi or Cairo sprawls, but its built environment remains incredibly dense over its surface area. As a result, it’s hard to compare North American cities to the more compact cities in much of the rest of the world.
So maybe there is a better word to describe developed area, while also differentiating low density sprawl from high density sprawl.
But the term isn't size. It's population size. Size is meaningless without some sort of qualifier. You cannot ask "what is the biggest city by size".
Physical Size= Area the city covers.
Population Size= The number of people in a city
The phrase already exists. I was using it with proper context. Like I said just look up biggest cities by population size.
Also, I see no need to distinguish high density sprawl vs. low density sprawl. Georgetown still has houses next to houses next to houses. Just like Malolos has houses next to houses.
Here's the edge of Austin, and the main street of Georgetown, Texas. While one is denser than the other, your not gonna mistake either one for rural. The ritzy neighborhoods even of many of the densest cities, are low density, and Georgetown has other infrastructure that distinguishes it as part of a larger city.
This thread basically comes down to are you impressed with suburban sprawl and county-sized city limits. If you are impressed with sprawl then you will think Houston is this huge, endless city of development. If not, you will feel that there are many other cities in America that look as large as Houston especially when you include adjacent suburbs with secondary skylines like Cambridge or Bellevue. You may also feel that endless Autozones and Walgreens every three miles does not appreciably add to the largeness of the city, because even BFE Ohio or Oklahoma have the same sprawl.
It's not the endless, AutoZone's, but the massive highways, buildings, and overall scale of infrastructure that adds to the feel. We are literally arguing the fact that Houston has like 7 non-Downtown Skyline's, with at least 2 of them (probably 3), being bigger than Bellevue adds to the scale of the city. The massive Port infrastructure. The fact that you drive past multiple malls on the way to Galveston.
I've been to 20+ countries, I'm not someone who's never left my backyard, and doesn't know what an urban city is. But being urban has nothing to do with visual size. Like I said look at Keelung City, Taiwan.
The actual city center, is give or take 50 blocks (using American sizes). It's roughly a 1/3 of a square mile. Arguably more urban than anything you'll see outside of Manhattan, with a significant portion of bike/people only streets.
Hyper-urbanity doesn't mean anything if it doesn't stretch, and Seattle is not in that running. SF/Bay Area definitely is.
The reason, I said Miami as my answer is the 60+ miles of coastal towers not Autozone or some purely suburban development.
Again, as a Seattle booster....there's no way Seattle appears larger (outside of the core) than the big TX cities. What I will say is that if you zoom in to the core and see the mass of parking lots in DFW/Houston versus Seattle, there is no question which is more dense and a more traditionally urban environment. There are virtually 2-3 large-ish parking lots left in Seattle's core, and they all have multi-tower developments slated to fill them. DFW/Houston (and everyone's darling Austin) still have many more surface parking lots ready to be developed. I think on the ground walking around, Seattle will stack up well compared to any city in TX. And as far as why it's 'taken up so much air' in this thread....maybe its because it deserves to be in the context of the thread.
Tyson’s has over 24 buildings over 200 ft. 9 over 300 ft. And lots of tall towers proposed or U/C.
Not as large as Bellevue but still fairly large. And Bellevue has a better urban build than Tyson’s IMO. Other parts of the metro are building tall too.
Give it a few years with multiple 600' towers going up. More than anything in the DC metro.
Bellevue can build taller because DC's metro's is height limits but in terms of sheer density and scope? There are like 4 or 5 DC TOD urban nodes that individually match or exceed Bellevue lol.
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.
