Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-07-2009, 06:00 PM
 
14,256 posts, read 26,789,930 times
Reputation: 4560

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheProf View Post
In terms of what MOST people see as quality, I think more would see character in the old, New England-y suburbs of Cleveland (Chagrin Falls, Gates Mills, Hudson), old-Colonial/Euro shopping areas (Shaker Square), old Victorian neighborhoods (Ohio City, Tremont), and even a classic New York-Central Park-type area loaded w/ top flight, international museums and educational institutions (University Circle),... as opposed to Orlaondo's endless shopping Malls and cookie-cutter faux Spanish-resort buildings-- Orlando's interchangable with Tampa-St. Pete, Daytona and Ft. Lauderdale, but, ... oops, those areas have a leg up w/ ocean-side beaches, with sand, and palm trees and... and Orlando? -- well, there's always Mickey!
Tampa Saint Pete has history. Most of florida has history and culture, but it's just not the same ANGLO SAXON history that is common up north. You'll find plenty of Spanish, Native American, Carribean, heck even pirate artifacts, in Florida. Florida just dosen't have the same ANGLO SAXON american history and culture of the states up north.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-07-2009, 06:00 PM
 
4,464 posts, read 5,010,639 times
Reputation: 4717
Quote:
Originally Posted by polo89 View Post
Exactly it is what it is. And some people like that, I agree with you. But my thing is, how do people try to say things like Cleveland is a REAL city because of certain things like density, and public transit and what not, that's all great, but not everyone prefers a REAL city. The problem I have is people try to sell it like it's the way of life EVERYONE should live by. I don't know how to explain myself. What I mean is, people on C-D act like if you prefer the NEWER cookie-cutter cities of the sunbelt, the people who prefer the more dense cities act as if YOU'RE in the wrong for prefering the newer cities. As if that is the WRONG way of life. They try to sell it like it's FACT, like THIS is how a city should be, and THIS is how it shouldn't be, like there is soem handbook. They interject there preferences of city, say it as if MY city should be like theres. Im not saying YOU in particular, that is just what I observed by people on C-D. YOUR city is like THIS, and MY city is like THIS, therefore YOUR city sucks. Things like that. Not you, just EVERYBODY in general.

Polo, it's not just a matter of YOUR preference or MINE; in fact, urbanologists and a greater and greater number of Americans are having preferences toward real cities: good mass transit, main-street areas (w/ mixed use development and walking districts), greater density and less travel area; as opposed to SUV/freeway spawned cul-de-sacs and sprawl. The former are more efficient cities and especially more gas-spike immune as opposed to the cookie-cutter Hummervilles by the look-a-like, homogeneous burbs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-07-2009, 06:03 PM
 
Location: Orlando - South
4,194 posts, read 11,639,175 times
Reputation: 1674
The point is, Cleveland AND Orlando are both REAL cities. No matter what any of these people are saying.

Orlando is more of a new suburban type city where 90% of the population or more uses their cars to travel anywhere, a lot of our homes are cookie cutter, most of our grass is imported, and we have more entertainment and shopping, than we do history. But you know what? Metro Orlando's population increased by 25% in just 8 years. While Cleveland, the traditional, more urban, established city, is decreasing in population.. Orlando must be doing something right. Just cause it's not like a "traditional" city doesnt mean it isnt a good place to live, maybe the people who live here like this type of living, thats why the area is one of the fastest growing areas in the country.

It's all personal preference. Just because YOU don't like how this city runs doesn't give you the right to say it's a bad city or it isn't a city at all..

BTW: The beaches are only a short 45 min drive away, which is perfect because hurricane damage isn't nearly as bad here compared to coastal cities, and we don't have to deal with the salty air. Yet we can still go to the beach on a daily basis if we wanted to. I think Orlando distance from the ocean is just fine.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-07-2009, 06:08 PM
 
3,282 posts, read 5,180,658 times
Reputation: 1935
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheProf View Post
Polo, it's not just a matter of YOUR preference or MINE; in fact, urbanologists and a greater and greater number of Americans are having preferences toward real cities: good mass transit, main-street areas (w/ mixed use development and walking districts), greater density and less travel area; as opposed to SUV/freeway spawned cul-de-sacs and sprawl. The former are more efficient cities and especially more gas-spike immune as opposed to the cookie-cutter Hummervilles by the look-a-like, homogeneous burbs.
Even cities that formerly were champions of sprawl are trying to go back and develop their transit and build their density to solve things like traffic issues that doing more of the same has only agitated.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-07-2009, 06:12 PM
 
Location: Orlando - South
4,194 posts, read 11,639,175 times
Reputation: 1674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoarfrost View Post
Even cities that formerly were champions of sprawl are trying to go back and develop their transit and build their density to solve things like traffic issues that doing more of the same has only agitated.
Orlando is actually doing the same thing...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-07-2009, 06:14 PM
 
3,282 posts, read 5,180,658 times
Reputation: 1935
Exactly! Which illustrates why this is the superior way to go!...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-07-2009, 06:15 PM
 
14,256 posts, read 26,789,930 times
Reputation: 4560
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheProf View Post
Polo, it's not just a matter of YOUR preference or MINE; in fact, urbanologists and a greater and greater number of Americans are having preferences toward real cities: good mass transit, main-street areas (w/ mixed use development and walking districts), greater density and less travel area; as opposed to SUV/freeway spawned cul-de-sacs and sprawl. The former are more efficient cities and especially more gas-spike immune as opposed to the cookie-cutter Hummervilles by the look-a-like, homogeneous burbs.
I don't know about that. It may seem efficient, but in the end if the economy in the city is struggling, no public transit or densness can save it. I see what you mean in terms of gas and all that, BUT at the same time you still need ENERGY and gas, for the trains, buses and other public transit. There are a hanful of bus systems that cause pollution daily. And on top of that you still have to pay plenty of tax, to support these public transit systems, which is just as bad as the gas gussling freeway cities. I see what you mean though, I would love it if EVERY city had as good public transit as the ones up north, I LOVE the new light-rail systems down south, but not every public transit system nessecarily mean super efficient. And there are sprawly cities that have good air quality. Well, maybe I overexaggerated alittle bit, the city with good air quality I was refering to was Miami. And I heard NYC has poor air quality, not the WORST but pretty poor. And I heard it was from the gas emissiond from ALOT of the Taxi's that drive through the city daily. And Orlando is trying to get light-rail from what I've seen on the internet. I think it's gonna be called SunRail, or something like that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-07-2009, 06:19 PM
 
14,256 posts, read 26,789,930 times
Reputation: 4560
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoarfrost View Post
Even cities that formerly were champions of sprawl are trying to go back and develop their transit and build their density to solve things like traffic issues that doing more of the same has only agitated.
But even density and public transit can't save the economy of a city. They're still building many suburbs outwards. We just need better public transit to GET to those suburbs. Density is not the ONLY way to go. And not always the best.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-07-2009, 06:24 PM
 
5,969 posts, read 9,491,966 times
Reputation: 1614
Quote:
Originally Posted by GLS2010 View Post
Orlando must be doing something right. Just cause it's not like a "traditional" city doesnt mean it isnt a good place to live, maybe the people who live here like this type of living, thats why the area is one of the fastest growing areas in the country.
You are using numbers prior to the real estate bust of Florida. In the current economy Orlando will see a completely different growth pattern. People are moving where the jobs are, and Florida is not a leader in jobs or wages.

Here is a more updated list:

Ten Cities Where Americans Are Relocating - Forbes.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-07-2009, 06:27 PM
 
4,464 posts, read 5,010,639 times
Reputation: 4717
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoarfrost View Post
Even cities that formerly were champions of sprawl are trying to go back and develop their transit and build their density to solve things like traffic issues that doing more of the same has only agitated.
Exhibit A: Los Angeles, formerly THE freeway city of America. But over the past 20 years, they've developed a growing heavy/light rail network for LA and close-in suburbs in tandem (and inter-facing with) a 400-mile commuter rail system spreading over much of the very wide LA region. The results? A much tighter, livlier downtown; tuns of high-density TOD along rail routes and a lot more transit-friendly walking districts, like downtown and Hollywood (where tons of visitors now take the Metro Red Line directly to Hollywood & Vine)... In the early years of the rail system, critics poo-poo-ed: 'you'll never get Angelenos out of their cars' -- you sure don't hear that crap much anymore; folks are now just as prone to be fighting over seats on the Long Beach Blue Line -- now the busiest single light rail line in America!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top