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.
Let's stop calling things urban just because they're walkable, that is not the true definition of urban. Its not just semantics, basic truths matter.
The ways in which people use terms determine how they are "truly" defined. Language is a tool that humans invented to serve our purposes and it is fluid and continually evolves. So yes, a legitimate definition of the term "urban" is walkable because it is regularly used to refer to such among a subset of the population. There are other legitimate definitions as well; I can assure you that "urban music" has nothing to do with development or walkability but it is a legitimate way in which the term is used to reference certain things associated with African American culture.
Downtown Charlotte is bigger than downtown Norfolk. Hampton Roads is far more urban than metro Charlotte.
Here’s a shot of Newport News. I mentioned Newport News to Chesapeake in my earlier post because there’s this density for 30 miles. There are the downtowns that are urban but pretty much all of Newport News and Hampton is densely packed housing on a grid with sidewalks and curbs. The streets are straight. Ocean View is a highly dense area. VA Beach is densely packed. Satellite images show a very stark difference between the two metros.
No no, and he’ll no! I go Tidewater all the time. It isn’t on the same level as a central urbanized city as Charlotte. Ocean, yes!
But why do people automatically associate urban with better? Only on this forum.
Obviously urban does not always mean better but this is city data forum which tends to focus on discussing urban areas. Charlotte may be a large centralized city but it is largely suburban right outside of uptown. It still does not have the big city feel like DC, Baltimore or even Atlanta. Charlotte is a very nice clean modern city that offers most amenities that the average person would want in America. However a lot of those amenities could be found in any city. More dense and historical urban cores are what make cities more unique. Charlotte may have a larger urban core within its city limits than Norfolk, but it really doesn't offer much more of a big city experience because of its lack of densely populated urban neighborhoods outside of uptown. Not to mention Charlotte has nothing that compares to the waterways that have carved the city of Norfolk.
The ways in which people use terms determine how they are "truly" defined. Language is a tool that humans invented to serve our purposes and it is fluid and continually evolves. So yes, a legitimate definition of the term "urban" is walkable because it is regularly used to refer to such among a subset of the population. There are other legitimate definitions as well; I can assure you that "urban music" has nothing to do with development or walkability but it is a legitimate way in which the term is used to reference certain things associated with African American culture.
If you want to say 'walkable' then say that and stop beating around the bush and calling it urban.
Modern day urban is Charlotte, Raleigh, etc.
Richmond, Petersburg and Norfolk are walkable, historic, colonial.
Last edited by rural & red; 02-16-2022 at 05:04 AM..
There is very little that is urban about Charlotte or Raleigh.
I don’t understand your insistence of dying on this hill.
You cannot have urban without walkability. Period. Lifestyle centers are not urban, contiguous neighborhoods are. Houses with driveways aren’t urban. Cul-de-sacs aren’t urban either.
Obviously urban does not always mean better but this is city data forum which tends to focus on discussing urban areas. Charlotte may be a large centralized city but it is largely suburban right outside of uptown.
That's changing fast with the expansion of rail transit (streetcar and LRT) and urban development jumping across the I-277 loop in multiple directions. Also the the urban commercial districts outside of Uptown like NoDa and Plaza-Midwood are bulking up quite nicely with new development.
Quote:
It still does not have the big city feel like DC, Baltimore or even Atlanta. Charlotte is a very nice clean modern city that offers most amenities that the average person would want in America. However a lot of those amenities could be found in any city.
Of course Charlotte doesn't have the big city feel of those cities. DC and Atlanta are obviously significantly larger and have been for a long time now, and although Charlotte is much closer to Baltimore these days in population, Baltimore has been a major city for about a good two centuries now. There's no postwar Sunbelt city that's going to have the same city feel as their Northern counterparts.
Agreed concerning amenities, but you can't separate Charlotte's rapidly-growing economy from those amenities since they drive the growth that brings them to the region. That said, as a sizable centralized city, Charlotte does have an edge with a few amenities over Virginia's cities.
Quote:
More dense and historical urban cores are what make cities more unique. Charlotte may have a larger urban core within its city limits than Norfolk, but it really doesn't offer much more of a big city experience because of its lack of densely populated urban neighborhoods outside of uptown. Not to mention Charlotte has nothing that compares to the waterways that have carved the city of Norfolk.
That's highly arguable seeing as though you could essentially substitute Atlanta or Dallas for Charlotte here since they are all similar in terms of a lack of densely population urban neighborhoods outside of their downtown cores. Most people would consider several factors when it comes to what gives a place something of a "big city experience."
If you want to say 'walkable' then say that and stop beating around the bush and calling it urban.
Modern day urban is Charlotte, Raleigh, etc.
Richmond, Petersburg and Norfolk are walkable, historic, colonial.
There's no "beating around the bush" in using the term urban to mean walkable. On forums like these and in urban planning and development circles, that is often how the term is used. As long as you've been on this forum, you're aware of that and that's not going to change simply because one person objects. You can make it a point to be contentious every time you dialogue with someone who uses the term "urban" in such a fashion on this forum, but what's the point in that? Just accept the fact that it's long been a thing in these sorts of settings and will continue to be. In the course of casual conversation with everyday Joes, using "urban" and "walkable" in distinct ways is more the norm though so you're right in that regard.
There is very little that is urban about Charlotte or Raleigh.
I don’t understand your insistence of dying on this hill.
You cannot have urban without walkability. Period. Lifestyle centers are not urban, contiguous neighborhoods are. Houses with driveways aren’t urban. Cul-de-sacs aren’t urban either.
You're making the same mistake as rural & red, but in the other direction LOL.
"Urban" has more than one denotation and connotation. Insisting on just one particular meaning for the term is misguided.
In a general sense, "urban" simply means "relating to a city" so in that regard, the size of a place and how built up it is is the primary determinant. In this context, Charlotte is a more urban place than Richmond.
In a specialized sense, "urban" connotes the type of development that characterized cities for most of world history, i.e. human-scaled, walkable development before the rise of the automobile. In this context, Richmond is more urban than Charlotte.
We are used to the specialized definition in this forum as city lovers, but not everyone that participates in this forum falls into that category and are more apt to only be familiar with the generalized sense of the term.
FWIW, the Carolinas are bigger than the Virginias in terms of land area.
Carolinas NC+SC = 48,617.91 + 30,060.70 = 78,678.61 sq miles
Virginias VA+WV = 39,490.09 + 24,038.21 = 63,528.3 sq miles
You could add in MD,DE and DC and still be smaller.
Virginias + MD + DC + DE = 63,528.3 + 9,707.24 + 1,948.54 + 61 = 75,245.08 sq miles
Under this match up, I think the Carolinas would still have better beach action, but it would become a closer nautical battle with the Chesapeake, Eastern Shore, Annapolis, St Michael's, Cape Henelopen, Assateaque Island.
Although the Virginias have a smaller land area I would argue that the land area of the Virginias is still provide a more balanced and diverse geography. Most of the Carolina's are coastal plain and piedmont whereas the Virginias have a more equal balance of Coastal plain, Piedmont, and Mountains. Not to mention the Chesapeake bay provides Virginia with a more geographically diverse coastal region than the Carolinas.
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.
