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.
Two cities in the same region that have pulled nearly even in metro population. San Antonio had the larger urban area as of 2010, but that may have changed (can't find data).
Austin has a smaller city area, but San Antonio appears to have a denser core.
Austin has a commuter rail and BRT, San Antonio has BRT and is America's largest city without intra-city rail.
People who live in this region likely have lots of time logged on the streets in both, so hoping for some pretty good input.
Austin doesn't have a classical urban streetscape anywhere. It was a tiny town when cities were built that way. The vast majority of San Antonio is suburban sprawl, but it's downtown has a few blocks with a fairly urban historical streetscape. It's like a mini New Orleans in that way. I'd rank it #1 in Texas in that category.
I would say Austin, but only b/c of how things are built up near Colorado River.
Austin also has West Campus, a very "urban" area (even when it's basically a gajillion student housings) that San Antonio has no answer to (Mainly b/c UTSA is way out in suburbia).
SA's does have pockets of urbanity but they seems to be, well, small pockets scattered all around downtown and surrounding areas. The architectures in those areas do beat Austin by miles, though.
I would say Austin, but only b/c of how things are built up near Colorado River.
Austin also has West Campus, a very "urban" area (even when it's basically a gajillion student housings) that San Antonio has no answer to (Mainly b/c UTSA is way out in suburbia).
SA's does have pockets of urbanity but they seems to be, well, small pockets scattered all around downtown and surrounding areas. The architectures in those areas do beat Austin by miles, though.
I guess when I hear the word "streetscape" I'm thinking of architecture. Austin has much more dense multifamily housing, taller buildings, and more pedestrians but not any urban streetscapes of note.
I would say Austin, but only b/c of how things are built up near Colorado River.
Austin also has West Campus, a very "urban" area (even when it's basically a gajillion student housings) that San Antonio has no answer to (Mainly b/c UTSA is way out in suburbia).
SA's does have pockets of urbanity but they seems to be, well, small pockets scattered all around downtown and surrounding areas. The architectures in those areas do beat Austin by miles, though.
If this is Austin's starting lineup I'm not seeing why they are leading the poll:
Austin doesn't have a classical urban streetscape anywhere. It was a tiny town when cities were built that way. The vast majority of San Antonio is suburban sprawl, but it's downtown has a few blocks with a fairly urban historical streetscape. It's like a mini New Orleans in that way. I'd rank it #1 in Texas in that category.
Though this poll has pulled even, there seems to be a bit of apathy in making a case either way.
Houston was incorporated around the same time as Austin, and I think we established in the other thread that it is more traditionally urban than assumed.
SA has what I feel is a more historical urbanity in the core and is more fun and interesting to me. DT Austin is fine, but so much of it has become bland.
Austin doesn't have a classical urban streetscape anywhere. It was a tiny town when cities were built that way. The vast majority of San Antonio is suburban sprawl, but it's downtown has a few blocks with a fairly urban historical streetscape. It's like a mini New Orleans in that way. I'd rank it #1 in Texas in that category.
Austin has more street activity and things to do in its core that are not tourism based. I prefer San Antonio's downtown, myself, but I think Austin feels more urban.
Though this poll has pulled even, there seems to be a bit of apathy in making a case either way.
Houston was incorporated around the same time as Austin, and I think we established in the other thread that it is more traditionally urban than assumed.
To be fair Houston grew much earlier than Austin so even though it tore down a lot of its history it still has substantially more traditional urbanism in its downtown than Austin.
It would be hard to find a street like this in Austin.
That being said I think Austin takes this thread against San Antonio. It has a good bit of new urbanism and while it’s kinda bland it does provide a further reaching urban street scape than San Antonio does. The urbanity in San Antonio pretty much falls of a cliff outside of downtown but at least Austin can extend its urbanity to west campus, E 5th east of I-35, SoCo, etc.
Austin has more street activity and things to do in its core that are not tourism based. I prefer San Antonio's downtown, myself, but I think Austin feels more urban.
I don't know about that.
Downtown San Antonio had lots of street activity when I lived in SA and it looks like it has gotten way better.
As far a s a lot of it being tourists, who cares? Street presence is street presence.
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.
