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.
This is South End, correct? Nothing about this intersection is good urban design. https://maps.app.goo.gl/vPnvXrhy4AomNrfv6
Streets far too wide, crosswalks fading, no bike lane, parking behind Chipotle, a gas station on a corner, etc. It may be reminiscent of urbanity but it's not traditionally urban design in any sense. And if and when they begin to put up more luxury apartments, it'll be exclusive for white collar white people which is another knock on urban design practices where it's important to have people from different backgrounds and socioeconomic backgrounds can mingle.
It's changing drastically, at a very rapid pace...
I agree that streetview does discussions like these no justice. I was surprised by South End when I finally went there, in person, and stayed for a while. It's urban, no doubt about it. New and developing, sure, but urban nonetheless.
The fact that Richmond is being compared to DC( my hometown) and Brooklyn shows the homerism or hate towards new south cities. Richmond while urban in its core for its size in no way shape or form is similar to either of those cities. On top of that people are basing there points off of streetviews and walkscore without actually visiting the cities and spending extensive time. My basis of this is off of the views of Uptown and SouthEnd which are incorrect. Also the fact that posters don't know about other urban areas of Charlotte. Urbanity is more than tight streets and old buildings. Charlotte's urban core extends over a larger area than Richmond and has more pockets. This is facts. Charlotte is a MUCH bigger city. Richmond literally becomes suburban, unlit areas 5- 10 miles outside of its core.These areas of cities can't just be seen on street view. They have to explored. There is a ton of foot traffic in Uptown, SouthEnd, Noda, etc...
Do you know how far 10 miles is? Even universally acclaimed “urban” cities like Boston becomes very very suburban 10 miles from Downtown. That’s like Lexington, Milton or Weston. Like the “urban core” of most cities not New York max out at *maybe* 5 miles before being distinctly suburban. And those are big cities let alone Richmond. If a city the size of Richmond had consistently built up areas 10 miles out it would almost disqualify it from being urban. Because that development would have to be concentrated in the center for the city to pull it off.
Think about it 10 mile radius is a 314 sq mile area. Richmond has ~1.3M people in its metro? That’s 4140ppsm. A real walkable neighborhood probably requires like double that. So to have walkable neighborhoods you must have relatively undeveloped land.
And if and when they begin to put up more luxury apartments, it'll be exclusive for white collar white people which is another knock on urban design practices where it's important to have people from different backgrounds and socioeconomic backgrounds can mingle.
Richmond while urban in its core for its size in no way shape or form is similar to either of those cities.
This just isn't true and I think you know that it isn't...
I grew up around Rich and when I lived in the city I lived at Jackson and St James, in Jackson Ward, one of the more historic traditionally black neighborhoods ive ever seen:
These are both urban but in different ways. That area of South Clt (Archdale/Acredale/Madison Park) has some respectable pedestrian traffic because of Lynx, and the light rail itself helps add some urban flavor to the area. But it's not really built in an urban fashion, still a ton of parking lots, etc. It's urban, but not in the greatest sense...
Jackson Ward has a lot more pedestrian traffic just because of the way the area is built----narrower streets, attached housing, fewer parking lots. And Jackson Ward is contiguous with the rest of Core Richmond without light rail in a way that South and Tyvola isn't. The Ward literally bleeds into Carver, which can bleed into Chamberlayne or VCU-Monroe Park, which bleed into multiple other hoods, in a way that isn't typical of Charlotte...
I'll never understand this board's obsession with being factually wrong about Richmond. Most of the city north of The James looks like you carved out a piece of DC and moved it 90 miles south---->or rather, since Richmond is older than DC, most of DC looks as if it was designed and modeled off of Richmond. Yet people on here will make clearly wrong statements like Richmond "looks nothing like" DC...
Also the cores of both cities are comparatively small. Core Charlotte is basically Noda to South End (north to south), Elizabeth to maybe Wesley Heights (east to west). Core Richmond is basically Diamond/Scott's Addition to Manchester (North to south), and Church Hill to Carytown/Museum District (east to west). The core city of Charlotte isn't actually a larger region by any magnitude---->it is more vertical in Center City/Uptown, which is an aspect of urbanity in fairness. Uptown Charlotte along Trade and Tryon reaches a peak frenzy that Downtown Richmond doesn't because more people work in Uptown than Downtown Rich...
Outside of the CBD Richmond's core neighborhoods are way more vibrant than Charlotte's because of how the cities are built, but I do believe the urban experience in both cores is actually more comparable than people would assume. The Lynx light rail is nearly three times as long as Pulse BRT but Pulse has nearly twice the ridership. Core Rich has all the amenities Core Charlotte has besides big league sports, and Core Charlotte attracts more big ticket events....
Ultimately I don't think it's a question that Richmond is the more urban city, and I've actually lived in both. Charlotte is certainly larger and I have long been known for my love of both cities on here. I love Charlotte, it's strengths are in its much more rapid growth and massively larger size as a city. Because of the major league sports and big ticket events it has more to do than Richmond, but the gap isn't as wide as people would think, and I think that's because of how compact Rich is built one could assume it to be sleepier even though the core city is built more densely and rapid transit and pedestrian activity are much greater in Richmond...
Feelings don't always align with facts. Charlotte is the stronger city overall (much more dynamic economy, significantly cleaner and safer city, much more mobility for Black Americans, among other things), but urbanity isn't an area its beating Richmond in, and it's okay to say one city is stronger overall but doesn't win every single category...
Richmond is one of the three most urban cities in the South, considering most people don't regard DC or Bmore as the South; Richmond is going to beat mostly all southern cities in urbanity even if it loses in city vs city factors overall...
Richmond is one of the three most urban cities in the South, considering most people don't regard DC or Bmore as the South; Richmond is going to beat mostly all southern cities in urbanity even if it loses in city vs city factors overall...
New Orleans would like a word with you...
Other than NOLA there's old part of Charleston and Savannah...not surprising, though, as you're talking about 4 of the oldest cities in the south (Ok, St. Augustine FL is older than all of them, but "old town" St Augustine is like 3 blocks by 3 blocks).
And of course if you count City of Alexandria as the "south" its old town is also very urban...but outside of that it's 100% suburbia.
=========================
At the end, is Charlotte getting more "urban"? Sure. But does it still have that "suburban" element? Also yes. It's not really Charlotte's fault, though, rather it's just how revitalized urban areas are being built (Look at Austin, look at Nashville...).
Plus the question is "urban feel" - having a bunch of rowhouses or houses that are practically next to each other will always give out a more "urban feel" than a gajillion 5+1 cookie cutter apartments with street shops and street parkings.
Other than NOLA there's old part of Charleston and Savannah...not surprising, though, as you're talking about 4 of the oldest cities in the south (Ok, St. Augustine FL is older than all of them, but "old town" St Augustine is like 3 blocks by 3 blocks).
And of course if you count City of Alexandria as the "south" its old town is also very urban...but outside of that it's 100% suburbia.
=========================
At the end, is Charlotte getting more "urban"? Sure. But does it still have that "suburban" element? Also yes. It's not really Charlotte's fault, though, rather it's just how revitalized urban areas are being built (Look at Austin, look at Nashville...).
Plus the question is "urban feel" - having a bunch of rowhouses or houses that are practically next to each other will always give out a more "urban feel" than a gajillion 5+1 cookie cutter apartments with street shops and street parkings.
New Orleans is the only city in the South that can compare to Richmond's urbanity. Charleston and Savannah can't compare...
The Big 4 are so much larger you can include them as more urban than Richmond off just size alone but the built form in none of those cities equals Richmond...
New Orleans is the only city in the South that can compare to Richmond's urbanity. Charleston and Savannah can't compare...
The Big 4 are so much larger you can include them as more urban than Richmond off just size alone but the built form in none of those cities equals Richmond...
How do you measure built form exactly? Richmond certainly has a unique form amongst southern cities so far as having a few miles of wall to wall rowhouse neighborhoods. I think probably only New Orleans and Miami have an argument over Richmond in terms of the streetscape aesthetics. The actual population in Richmond's urban neighborhoods is not super high, though. I have a hard time seeing the DC comp because DC is just so much more dense than Richmond and has very vibrant streets. Richmond seems more like a miniature Baltimore to me.
Again, you are shooting down my stats without providing any of your own. We have provided walkscore as well as census tract density stats. You have provided one streetview of Charlotte. You can't ask me to provide even more stats when you haven't the first. Provide those things for Charlotte. "A good one to me would be how many residents are using mass transit or who don't have a car." Have at it. I'm guessing you gave up on the foot traffic and vibrancy argument after you contradicted yourself with that street view.
That's not how it works, my friend.
'Walkability' is your measure for a places' urbanity. Not mine.
The burden of proof is on you to show how Richmond is more urban because of it's 'walkability'. So far you haven't provided enough proof to build your case. Walkscores don't take into account whether, in the real world, people are actually walking everywhere. It is mainly a metric on building density and proximity to retail, which is not the same. Besides, downtowns and main streets in various towns across this country are 'walkable' but still aren't urban.
Second, the census tract density maps don't show much of a difference between Richmond and Charlotte in their respective cores.
Not trying to be argumentative here, as I like Richmond, but I don't agree that it is more urban than Charlotte. I believe Charlotte is more urban because it's population, national importance, skyscrapers, census tract density, suburbanization and the extent of developed land area are either the same or greater in Charlotte. All of those qualities are quantifiable.
Can a "new urbanist" or "new South" city ever feel as "urban" as a pre-WWII city? I am just curious. For me Charlotte may be the better city overall and better metro area overall, but despite having shiny glass towers it still feels less urban than Richmond.
I'll admit, though, that I'm one of these Pennsylvania snobs who detests most new construction because today's architects, in my opinion, typically can't compete with the ones 100-150 years ago.
Can a "new urbanist" or "new South" city ever feel as "urban" as a pre-WWII city? I am just curious. For me Charlotte may be the better city overall and better metro area overall, but despite having shiny glass towers it still feels less urban than Richmond.
I'll admit, though, that I'm one of these Pennsylvania snobs who detests most new construction because today's architects, in my opinion, typically can't compete with the ones 100-150 years ago.
I think today's architects can compete BUT it's just not happening at a very high rate or even at a mid-size rate in American cities. Exception might be Arlington, VA or Jersey City, NJ. Granted it's some older buildings mixed in with some newer sleek looking buildings in Jersey City to be specific. I think the problem is some of the younger sunbelt cities had been car centric so long that when newer developers started to develop projects geared towards walkability and pedestrian friendly infrastructure it simply too much to fill in because of decades of building for the automobile. That and the fact we live in a very commercialized society now compared to pre-WW2 so it's less emphasize on uniqueness and more so on productivity. That's why a lot of newer lifestyle centers, apartments complexes and SFH communities all start looking the same all throughout America.
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.
