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.
Well yeah Phoenix, Atlanta and Dallas where the first three places that came to mind. Although I don't think any of those cities cores are as weak as many people seem to believe. Their suburbs are just so massive and sprawly that they dwarf the inner city. If I had to pick one city with a subpar core and great suburbs, Dettr
That's not true at all for Atlanta. Economically, you'd have to combine the three biggest suburban office markets (Perimeter, Cumberland, Alpharetta) to compete with the city of Atlanta and while there are some notable venues outside of the city (new Braves Stadium, Cobb Energy Performing Arts Centre, Gwinnett Arena), the city is still the cultural and entertainment hub for the whole metro. I don't think of Atlanta in the same vein as Dallas and Phoenix in terms of their suburbs; unlike the Dallas area, metro Atlanta only has one suburb over 100K and unlike Phoenix, there aren't a bunch of suburban high-profile resorts and recreational areas.
Boy, most US cities have weak cores. Unless you give points for huge parking lots.
And if you're going to compare suburbs to city, in terms of strength (population, wealth, jobs, etc.), there are probably just a few cities that qualify as strong in the core:
NYC
Boston
San Fran
...
Even great cities like Chicago, Philly, Seattle, etc, the suburbs are still wealthier, more populous, and contain an enormous number of jobs. Heck, even if we were to put a % of population to compare the two (not expecting the core to be more populous), the same would be true. This is largely because America hollowed out its cities for half a century. Cars over people....still.
That's not true at all for Atlanta. Economically, you'd have to combine the three biggest suburban office markets (Perimeter, Cumberland, Alpharetta) to compete with the city of Atlanta and while there are some notable venues outside of the city (new Braves Stadium, Cobb Energy Performing Arts Centre, Gwinnett Arena), the city is still the cultural and entertainment hub for the whole metro. I don't think of Atlanta in the same vein as Dallas and Phoenix in terms of their suburbs; unlike the Dallas area, metro Atlanta only has one suburb over 100K and unlike Phoenix, there aren't a bunch of suburban high-profile resorts and recreational areas.
That's still the case in Dallas, with the exception of a few stadiums. Fort Worth is also a cultural hub and does not count as a suburb. It seems like in Phoenix, you have to leave the city often for entertainment, which is clearly not the case in Dallas. The city alone has over 1.2 million people, so a few suburbs over 100K aren't that detrimental.
That's still the case in Dallas, with the exception of a few stadiums. Fort Worth is also a cultural hub and does not count as a suburb. It seems like in Phoenix, you have to leave the city often for entertainment, which is clearly not the case in Dallas. The city alone has over 1.2 million people, so a few suburbs over 100K aren't that detrimental.
It's still a different set-up than Atlanta. It's honestly mind-boggling that DFW overall has that many large suburbs.
It's still a different set-up than Atlanta. It's honestly mind-boggling that DFW overall has that many large suburbs.
True, but it's more comparable to LA-Orange County than Detroit and its suburbs. The former has both a strong core city and strong suburbs. Is it contradiction? I'm not sure. The cat is already out of the bag in terms of suburban sprawl and there's no turning back all of the growth in Plano, Frisco, etc. But the city has realized that urban, vertical growth is the way to go in order to remain relevant. With that, I see DFW becoming more of a series of independent hubs.
While perhaps fun for you to pick on, it's changing for the good and appears to not be slowing down any...."Downtown Detroit residential occupancy is at 98 percent. One study showed that Detroit should be able to absorb 5,000 units in the first five years after the 2013 bankruptcy. Bedrock Development has challenged that estimate, believing the city could absorb closer to 7,000 units."
Boy, most US cities have weak cores. Unless you give points for huge parking lots.
And if you're going to compare suburbs to city, in terms of strength (population, wealth, jobs, etc.), there are probably just a few cities that qualify as strong in the core:
NYC
Boston
San Fran
...
Even great cities like Chicago, Philly, Seattle, etc, the suburbs are still wealthier, more populous, and contain an enormous number of jobs. Heck, even if we were to put a % of population to compare the two (not expecting the core to be more populous), the same would be true. This is largely because America hollowed out its cities for half a century. Cars over people....still.
...But NYC, Boston, and SF all are substantially smaller than their suburbs, which contain a ton of wealth and have several job centers (SF of extreme notoriety, but NYC as well, especially in NJ). I fail to see how NYC, Boston, SF are really any different than cities like Chicago or Philly in this regard.
True, but it's more comparable to LA-Orange County than Detroit and its suburbs. The former has both a strong core city and strong suburbs. Is it contradiction? I'm not sure. The cat is already out of the bag in terms of suburban sprawl and there's no turning back all of the growth in Plano, Frisco, etc. But the city has realized that urban, vertical growth is the way to go in order to remain relevant. With that, I see DFW becoming more of a series of independent hubs.
Oh I'm definitely not saying that Dallas qualifies from the standpoint of the topic in question; Dallas has both a strong core and strong suburbs. I agree that it's more comparable to the LA area and isn't like Detroit at all in this respect.
...But NYC, Boston, and SF all are substantially smaller than their suburbs, which contain a ton of wealth and have several job centers (SF of extreme notoriety, but NYC as well, especially in NJ). I fail to see how NYC, Boston, SF are really any different than cities like Chicago or Philly in this regard.
NYC is ~40% of its metro population. Big enough to be different than the rest.
Boston has a better in-city economy and a good level of density in the core. It's a refined city that's vibrant. It also has a very small footprint with most of the in-city population serving as the core.
SF has a better in-city economy and a good level of density in the core. It's a refined city that's vibrant. It also has a very small footprint with most of the in-city population serving as the core.
Chicago is not dissimilar to Boston and SF, but it's not as vibrant in the core from a residential perspective and has parts of downtown on the south side that are less refined than the other two. That's my perspective having been there for a week three months ago.
Philly has great residential, great density, and decent jobs in the core. But it's not as refined IMO. And it's lacking on the jobs compared to the other three.
Realistically, DC could be included if you felt that all five above should be included together.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,568,606 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconographer
He never said it was, and you missed the whole point. We were referring to metros that are anchored by a city (or in this case, district) that is relatively small compared to said surrounding metro.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutiny77
You missed the point altogether.
I'm thinking you guys missed the point of the OP actually, which I in fact caught. The OP's point was to highlight cities such as Phoenix, where the plethora or even majority of their metro's amenities, and/or activity is not in it's city core but in fact in its suburban areas, such as Scottsdale etc.
This thread is not about cities like DC or Atlanta or Boston with small city limits comparing how many people live in the suburbs vs the city, that goes without saying. Phoenix in fact has huge city limits and still lacks in downtown experience etc.
That is what I took from the OP:
Phoenix city proper with 1.6 million people proper lags behind Scottsdale, Gilbert, Chandler and Tempe in it's offerings.
Last edited by the resident09; 01-04-2018 at 02:16 PM..
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.
