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.
There's a difference in being "dead", which virtually all Sunbelt cities are, relatively speaking, and feeling "big". Houston still feels big. Bigger than its metro population would suggest? Perhaps not, but I'd say for those who live in the centers of dense cities anchoring metros the size of Houston (i.e. SF, Philly, Boston, DC) often times you don't leave your city and see how big your own metro really is. In that sense, even Manhattan can become a small little island of people who don't leave it. SF can have that island sense, as well - people just don't leave it. In Houston, you're forced to drive around all over the place, and through that you can get a better sense of just how big the place is.
Oh, I see. So having mounted police equals "horses roaming the main streets"? I guess Manhattan also has horses roaming the streets then. And no, I'm not comparing Houston to NYC, but seriously, come on. You make it sound as if downtown Houston is a ghost town in the old West. All that's missing are tumbleweeds and coyotes howling in the distance.
It is true that Houston's downtown isn't exactly the most exciting part of the city. In fact, only the Northern end of downtown really offers any kind of nightlife, but "sleepy" is a bit much. Besides, the premise of this thread is cities, not downtowns. And Uptown and Midtown aren't the only parts of the city with nightlife. I'd say the Montrose beats both Uptown and Midtown hands-down in that department, and even though it's not my scene, Upper Kirby and the Washington corridor are both up and coming nightlife districts.
Houston definitely can't compete with cities like New York, L.A., Chicago, or D.C. for exciting nightlife, but it's hardly what I'd call Mayberry either.
I gotta say, the first time I went to downtown Houston (not the sprawling suburbs, but actual DOWNTOWN) I was struck by how quiet and relatively still it was, compared to other downtown areas in, say, Austin or Dallas or even Fort Worth and San Antonio. I don't know what I was expecting, but I sure wasn't expecting it to be so, well, almost eerily subdued.
Of course, wander a couple of blocks in one direction or the other and you're back in the bustle of a huge metro.
I gotta say, the first time I went to downtown Houston (not the sprawling suburbs, but actual DOWNTOWN) I was struck by how quiet and relatively still it was, compared to other downtown areas in, say, Austin or Dallas or even Fort Worth and San Antonio. I don't know what I was expecting, but I sure wasn't expecting it to be so, well, almost eerily subdued.
Of course, wander a couple of blocks in one direction or the other and you're back in the bustle of a huge metro.
Well, like I said earlier, aside from a small nightlife district on Congress Ave. near Market Square and a small section of Main St. on the Northern end of downtown, Houston's nightlife and vibrancy really shouldn't be judged by it's downtown. You have to go a mile or so South or West of downtown for any kind of real nightlife.
I know that in the past, efforts have been made to make downtown more of a magnet for clubs, bars, live music venues, etc. Sometimes with short-lived positive results, but inevitably the bustle always seems to gravitate elsewhere in the city. I think the lack of zoning has something to do with this.
. . . I'd say for those who live in the centers of dense cities anchoring metros the size of Houston (i.e. SF, Philly, Boston, DC) often times you don't leave your city and see how big your own metro really is. In that sense, even Manhattan can become a small little island of people who don't leave it. SF can have that island sense, as well - people just don't leave it. In Houston, you're forced to drive around all over the place, and through that you can get a better sense of just how big the place is.
If I'm reading this correctly, I think what you're saying here is that the nightlife and urban amenities are scattered around more in many Sun Belt cities, and concentrated more in a central core in older, denser cities. As you drive all over a large Sun Belt city to travel from venue to venue, you get more of a sense of the city's size than you might in an older city where you mainly stay in that concentrated core.
This reminds me of an old thread from a number of years ago, about whether Boston or Atlanta seemed larger. It seems like an interesting idea to make such a comparison between an old city and a new city of broadly similar metro populations. Unfortunately, a lot of that thread was really an ad nauseum back and forth between those who insisted that Atlanta seemed larger because the built-up landscape went out away from downtown for many miles, and others who said that Boston seemed larger because there was more concentrated hustle and bustle right in the city's center.
This shows how it really can be a matter of personal perception. Which one of these layouts feels larger depends on the person. It also points to a difference between the way old-style and new-style cities are built. Sun Belt cities tend to become suburban in character before you get very far out from downtown. The landscape is not built very densely but it is still built up to some degree. Because of the lower density, the population of Sun Belt metros spreads out over a greater distance of land built up to some degree, giving that sense of having to drive out from downtown for about a thousand miles or so before you begin to see semi-rural landscape.
Older cities like those in the Northeast tend to have such a dense concentration of population in highly urban cores of their metro areas that you have a large central population in a relatively small area. It's possible to travel a surprisingly short distance through a tightly packed core before you rather abruptly cross over into leafy suburbia. But then, all that concentration of population, and activity, will tend to make the centers of Northeastern metros seem very busy when compared to Sun Belt downtowns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon
I gotta say, the first time I went to downtown Houston (not the sprawling suburbs, but actual DOWNTOWN) I was struck by how quiet and relatively still it was, compared to other downtown areas . . . I don't know what I was expecting, but I sure wasn't expecting it to be so, well, almost eerily subdued.
Of course, wander a couple of blocks in one direction or the other and you're back in the bustle of a huge metro.
Older cities can have their quiet areas as well. I live in the Boston area. I've observed that Boston's retail district, where you find what's left of the large old downtown stores, and the financial district, which is mostly office towers, are quiet at night. These areas contain mostly daytime kinds of businesses.
However, the last part (in bold) of the quoted post is especially true in older cities. In Boston the buildings are packed in so tightly into physically small areas so that even in the very centers of those downtown districts with little nighttime activity you really have only a very few blocks to walk to arrive in more lively neighborhoods.
Older cities like those in the Northeast tend to have such a dense concentration of population in highly urban cores of their metro areas that you have a large central population in a relatively small area. It's possible to travel a surprisingly short distance through a tightly packed core before you rather abruptly cross over into leafy suburbia. But then, all that concentration of population, and activity, will tend to make the centers of Northeastern metros seem very busy when compared to Sun Belt downtowns.
Not true of New York City, of course. It keeps going and going for a while. For example, 30 miles, much of through neighborhoods that would be among the densest in Boston. Even for the others, Boston and Philadelphia are large enough you still have to go a ways compared to all but the larger sunbelt cities. Then there's San Francisco, where instead of dozens of miles of semi-rural leafy suburbia it's mostly either dense suburbia or uninhabited land depending on direction.
Not true of New York City, of course. It keeps going and going for a while. For example, 30 miles, much of through neighborhoods that would be among the densest in Boston. Even for the others, Boston and Philadelphia are large enough you still have to go a ways compared to all but the larger sunbelt cities. Then there's San Francisco, where instead of dozens of miles of semi-rural leafy suburbia it's mostly either dense suburbia or uninhabited land depending on direction.
True about those examples. Of course it's all relative. Boston and Atlanta offer a pretty good comparison of the layouts of Sun Belt and old city metros because those two metro areas, while not exactly the same in population (and which is larger depends on whether you look at MSA or CSA) are more or less in the same ballpark. If you're talking about NYC, of course its dense suburbs go on out away from the main city for a long distance, just because of the area's overall huge population. In that case, you need to compare it to a metro with a somewhat similar population, like Los Angeles.
Actually in Boston it depends on the direction you travel. There's some pretty heavy population density extending well to the north, but if you go west from downtown, you have really a fairly quick trip through areas of high density and then you're suddenly into those miles of leafy suburbia.
NYC also proportionally less of the very low density suburbs Boston has in its outer parts. Lot sizes are bigger than the sunbelt, but the large 1/2+ acre lots aren't as common. Boston has the lowest density suburbs of the big Northeast Corridor cities as well. Atlanta is by far the least dense large urban area in the US (and likely the world):
Boston's outer suburbs are probably similar to Atlanta density-wise. But Boston in general is patchier, with some barely developed land mixed in with relatively dense old towns, though usually still much less dense than the inside the 128 belt. My perception of Boston is really mostly what's inside the SR 128 / I-95 loop. Most of it is dense enough you can notice it being built up from the road, and the development is more continuous. The parts outside don't feel like they add to the size of the city much, and probably only a fraction of those in the outer suburbs visit the city regularly
NYC also proportionally less of the very low density suburbs Boston has in its outer parts. Lot sizes are bigger than the sunbelt, but the large 1/2+ acre lots aren't as common. Boston has the lowest density suburbs of the big Northeast Corridor cities as well. Atlanta is by far the least dense large urban area in the US (and likely the world):
Boston's outer suburbs are probably sBut Boston in general is patchier, with some barely developed land mixed in with relatively dense old towns, though usually still much less dense than the inside the 128 belt. My perception of Bostoimilar to Atlanta density-wise. n is really mostly what's inside the SR 128 / I-95 loop. Most of it is dense enough you can notice it being built up from the road, and the development is more continuous. The parts outside don't feel like they add to the size of the city much, and probably only a fraction of those in the outer suburbs visit the city regularly
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.
