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.
I think there's several reasons, one of which is that much of the urban areas of the world are built denser than the US in general--not just along the coast.
Another reason is that much of the Pacific Coast of the USA is fairly rough---you wouldn't want to build large dense developments along most of it--especially when the risk of tsunamis or storms are always there. In California as well, you have strict building standards on what can be built right on the coast. And the Atlantic Coast is mostly barrier islands--which are fine to build vacation homes or resorts, although even those are at risk of hurricaines and erosion. But it's different than the sheltered beaches and bays of Rio or the Mediterranean Coast, which is calmer than the ocean and solid ground for the most part. But we do have urban beaches in locations like Chicago or New York---they are just not the palm tree backed images of beaches as a popular vacation spot that we want to imagine when someone says the word beach.
Just for kicks, here's a couple lists ranking the top urban beaches in the world...Take them as you will...
Those cities - NYC, Atlantic City, and San Francisco are not tropical, warm-most-of-the-year, beach cities, which is what I'm talking about here.
LA and Miami are, but they are not the type of walkable urban I'm referring to.
That's my point, in this country you can't get both. I agree Honolulu is as close as it gets, but still not that close.
Well, the US doesn't really have any tropical and warm-most-of-the-year areas outside of South Florida or Hawaii. And in those locations you have Miami Beach and Honolulu which you've admitted is as close as the US gets to what you're looking for.
LA and Miami have elements of urbanity, but they are primarily sprawl-like, driving cities.
Around the world, there are places like Rio de Janiero in Brazil or Tel Aviv in Israel that are warm weather, tropical beach cities - yet they have awesome urban infrastructure, pedestrian friendly streets, endless storefronts and commercial activity - and everybody walks everywhere. The streets (along with the beaches) are packed and lively consistantly in cities like these.
In America, I can't think of one warm-weather beach city that has decently consistant urban infrastructure. Places like LA, Miami, San Diego, etc are better than most, but they are nowhere near the same level as cities in other countries. And for those who point to age, much of Tel Aviv's infrastructure was built in the early-mid 20th century, and it is one of the most walkable cities I've ever been to.
What do you think, why can't we get a tropical beach city like LA or Miami with a consistant, pedestrian friendly urban atmosphere like NYC or SF? Plenty of other cities around the world have pulled it off.
Miami Beach may only be 7 square miles and have only 87,000 full time residents but it typically has more tourists than residents and lots of "residents" who spend part of their lives living there but are never counted in the Census. I think I heard that Miami Beach's 7 square miles typically supports 250,000+ residents/part time residents/visitors at any given time and more at peak times of the season. I'd suspect that more than half that number are in SouthBeach's ~2.5 square miles. That would put it at about 50,000 people per square mile with lots of street life. How urban does an area have to be to qualify?
The Past - I'm talking about cities where people hang out in bathing suits half the time, true beach cities where the beach is a centerpiece of the city and there is warm weather much of the time. Many cities in Spain apply as well.
Soug - Honolulu is probably the closest but still not that close
I'm guessing you have never been to Honolulu.
If Honolulu doesn't fit the mode as an urban beach city, then no city in the world does. People from all over the world spend thousands of dollars just so they can hang out on the beaches on Oahu(also known as city and county of Honolulu), even the Spaniards with their wonderful beaches can be found sunbathing on Waikiki beach.
People may not hang out in bathings suits all day(cause the locals get cold when it gets around 74 degrees) but the beach is a very important part of life when it comes to living in Honolulu.
Also Honolulu is one of the most dense cities in entire country and is very walkable. Most tourists and residents ride thebus, walk, and bike to get around.
I'm sure a higher % of residents in Honolulu hang out at the beach everyday than residents of other cities with beaches around the world.
Waikiki is very walkable and extremely beach oriented. Just saying.
Absolutely. Not sure why the OP does not want to give Kalakaua Avenue its' due, or Collins Avenue in Miami Beach for that matter.
I would venture to guess that the reason that we don't see more American cities with densely developed beach promenades is that the coastal towns that had seaport activity needed the protection of a harbor; developing on the beach would have been impractical in terms of exposure to the elements.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is sized 1024$sx768$s and weights 399$sKB.
