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 she means my post really *wasn't* interesting to her. "Interesting", as I've heard it spoken in MN, is kind of a dismissive comment. Has to do with passive-aggression, a trait exhibited by many who live here. In other places, people would just say "Whatever."
Ah. I speak "Portland," so I was able to translate it easily. (Also a passive-aggressive city).
Ah. I speak "Portland," so I was able to translate it easily. (Also a passive-aggressive city).
As I previously explained, my daughter who went to college in Minnesota told me "interesting" was a diplomatic way of saying "I don't like it", or "I disagree".
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 02-27-2008 at 08:47 PM..
Reason: addition
Please explain to me why city propers limits are more relevant than metropolitan limits in comparing one city to another .
I said in the case of a large city proper, like Houston. The city proper limits do just fine, as part of the city of Houston is suburban itself. People who want city life in Houston live inside the main highway, the loop and people who want suburban lifestyle live outside of it. It's urban and suburban all in one city. Once you go out of Houston's city limits then you're just talking about a something different. Houston is like a metro in itself. A lot of other major U.S. cities are different...not that that's bad, they just are. A lot of cities have a small city proper with a large metropolitan area. Houston is the opposite.
As I previously explained, my daughter who went to college in Minnesota told me "interesting" was a diplomatic way of saying "I don't like it", or "I disagree".
Yes, I heard you the first time. I was just joking around.
California's big cities are the most integrated & diverse. Not saying everybody is throwing cross-cultural block parties or anything, but you're quite likely to see alot of people of various races shopping together in malls, or seen together in various contexts, in LA, San Fran & San Diego. Compared to the South & Northeast that's for sure.
No problem. While Houston is indeed getting more and more ethnically diverse, it is nowhere near being one of the most diverse cities in the country yet.
guess again, my dear. foreign born population has little to do with diversity.
you tell me that a city has 56% of foreign born natives, and for all i know, that could mean all 56% was born in mexico, while the rest of the city is white.
now let's say a city has only 24% of foreigners. in that 24% there could be hundreds and hundreds of different nationalities, in relatively smaller numbers, but it still makes that city highly diverse, with a rainbow of different people.
notice that on all those graphs, all of the nationalities could not fit in the circle. you can't prove a point if you don't have all the facts.
see what i'm saying? houston has the third largest number of consulates of any city in the united states, and only new york and los angeles have more. more than 90 different languages are spoken here. not only this, but the city is highly integrated, making it the most eligible city on this list. those are the facts.
Large cities (land wise) like Houston and Phoenix are unattractive if the population isn't there to justify the size. Take Chicago, which is large in my opinion. It has 2.8 million people in 230 square miles which averages out to over 12,000 per square mile. Because of its size, Houston is at a disadvantage. 600 square miles is great if you have 16 million people. NYC has 300 square miles of urbanity with 8 million people. With only 2.4 million people in 600 square miles that equals out to 3,000 people per square mile. Some states in the US have better density.
Large cities (land wise) like Houston and Phoenix are unattractive if the population isn't there to justify the size. Take Chicago, which is large in my opinion. It has 2.8 million people in 230 square miles which averages out to over 12,000 per square mile. Because of its size, Houston is at a disadvantage. 600 square miles is great if you have 16 million people. NYC has 300 square miles of urbanity with 8 million people. With only 2.4 million people in 600 square miles that equals out to 3,000 people per square mile. Some states in the US have better density.
I've lived in D.C., Boston, NYC and Houston. I don't think that this was density/urbanity contest. Not to offend anyone, but when I think of density I kinda get the image of a bunch of people smushed together on a really funky train, which I have seen all too often There are differences. Houston and Phoneix are just fine the way they are, they are different cities and they are justified by a lot of other things besides just population. People can have city and suburb at the same time..it looks like someone else has the disadvantage. If there are so many people in the city proper, I would think that most people would be fine with just city proper values.; However, for some reason (on here) people love their metros. To you the cities are unattractive (and I get the feeling you have never been to Houston or Phoneix before and if you have my apologies for that assumption, as I do respect your opinion) but maybe not so for the millions of people that live there...some people like to be able to have room to "stretch their legs."
Some states in the US have better diversity and intergration.
There are parts of Atlanta that are diverse and quite a few interracial couples are there. There are also parts of the city that are compleately segregated.
O_o....Houston is diverse and Houston is very integrated. You do know its like one of the most diverse cities in the US?
It is very diverse, but I see more diversity in LA and New York.
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.
Not to offend anyone, but when I think of density I kinda get the image of a bunch of people smushed together on a really funky train, which I have seen all too often There are differences. Houston and Phoneix are just fine the way they are, they are different cities and they are justified by a lot of other things besides just population. People can have city and suburb at the same time..it looks like someone else has the disadvantage. If there are so many people in the city proper, I would think that most people would be fine with just city proper values.; However, for some reason (on here) people love their metros. To you the cities are unattractive (and I get the feeling you have never been to Houston or Phoneix before and if you have my apologies for that assumption, as I do respect your opinion) but maybe not so for the millions of people that live there...some people like to be able to have room to "stretch their legs."
