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, I guess my perception of small towns has changed dramatically. I used to think that being in the top 20 largest MSA's was considered large, now it's shifted since I live in the #4 MSA. I probably should have said "small city" rather than "town" b/c that would imply a place like Iowa City, IA, or Peoria, IL, or Waco, TX...but then to rural Texans, WAco may seem like the big city or "Tyler". I guess San Antonio feels like a "small city". It doesnt have the same feel as Dallas or Houston. But it has a nice charm about it. I actually in all fairness like San Antonio. Though out of the 4 Texas cities, I rate it last. I'd probably take Dallas, Houston, Austin over San Antonio...but having said that, when I stack up San Antonio to similar sized cities such as Cincinatti, OH, Pittsburgh, PA, Columbus, OH, Kansas City, MO, I would pick San Antonio. Though I do feel other cities a/b the same size may edge San Antonio...such as Portland, OR.
Those are the most laid-back cities over a million that I can think of offhand.
San Antonio is partly unique because it's majority Hispanic and that culture is more laid back than Anglo culture. Seattle is so completely dominated by spectacular scenery and so divided up by topography, it doesn't have the feel of other cities its size. It's very easy to live a hedonistic lifestyle there and not worry about those who are gunning for money and status, tied to tight schedules. Those types tend to congregate more in the wealthy suburbs.
Unfortunately Seattle has changed a lot in the past 20 years. It used to be much more friendly, now I have trouble getting strangers to chat with me when I'm walking my dog. (I've spent a good chunk of the last 2 summers there.) Used to be a place where strangers chatted and didn't seem so closed, but all the growth and rising crime has damaged that friendly small-town spirit. Nevertheless, it's still a VERY pleasant city.
Well, I guess my perception of small towns has changed dramatically. I used to think that being in the top 20 largest MSA's was considered large, now it's shifted since I live in the #4 MSA. I probably should have said "small city" rather than "town" b/c that would imply a place like Iowa City, IA, or Peoria, IL, or Waco, TX...but then to rural Texans, WAco may seem like the big city or "Tyler". I guess San Antonio feels like a "small city". It doesnt have the same feel as Dallas or Houston. But it has a nice charm about it. I actually in all fairness like San Antonio. Though out of the 4 Texas cities, I rate it last. I'd probably take Dallas, Houston, Austin over San Antonio...but having said that, when I stack up San Antonio to similar sized cities such as Cincinatti, OH, Pittsburgh, PA, Columbus, OH, Kansas City, MO, I would pick San Antonio. Though I do feel other cities a/b the same size may edge San Antonio...such as Portland, OR.
New Orleans is definitely slow paced. Much more so than the "yuppie" lifestyle of its neighbor Baton Rouge. Not that im trying to put down on BTR. BTR is alot cleaner and the infrastructure is in alot better shape than the NO, even b4 Katrina. Oh, also, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. It's a fairly good sized city that seemed very easy-going and slow paced when I spent a few days there last July
Do you have population numbers on the post Katrina New Orleans? Is this city still half the size it used to be. Pre-katrina, if I remember correctly, the city proper limits had roughly one half million people...then it was halved post Katrina, and has gained some, but not near pre-Katrina levels.
Do you have population numbers on the post Katrina New Orleans? Is this city still half the size it used to be. Pre-katrina, if I remember correctly, the city proper limits had roughly one half million people...then it was halved post Katrina, and has gained some, but not near pre-Katrina levels.
according to Wikipedia, there are about 255,000 residents in the city proper. That is 56% of pre-Katrina population
Frankly, I lived in St. Louis all my life and can't understand why people say it has a small town feel. It has two major downtowns, for Christ's sakes! It has many companies headquartered here (the most recent one is Wachovia deciding to relocate here) and one only need look at the traffic here on all four interstate highways on the weekdays/and weekends to notice that this city is anything but laid back. Project after project on endless things, whether it be buildings or roads...something new is being developed here. I've always felt St. Louis is very fast-paced, not laid-back at all. Very rarely do you see people just laying around doing nothing here. Everybody's doing something hehehehe....the Illinois side is a bit different since that's more in the country...but the Missouri side in St. Louis city and St. Louis County really seems to be on the fast track. This city is developing very rapidly in its suburbs. St. Louis always felt like a big busy city to me, especially when TWA was around. When TWA was around, St. Louis felt like a smaller version of Chicago to me. I also disagree about Minneapolis being laid back from what I've seen that city seems very fast-paced and busy, especially with NW being headquarted there the airport certainly gives the impression the city isn't laid back. St. Louis may have a rust-belt reputation but it's slowly in the process of bringing itself back to life.
everyone is saying SD is laid back, which it is. but you, ajf 131 are saying that traffic can be a factor in deciding laid backed-ness. well if that's the case, then SD is nowhere near being laid back because its traffic is almost as bad as LAs
everyone is saying SD is laid back, which it is. but you, ajf 131 are saying that traffic can be a factor in deciding laid backed-ness. well if that's the case, then SD is nowhere near being laid back because its traffic is almost as bad as LAs
Is the SD a traffic issue b/c there are not enough lanes across?
Or is it a quantity issue of not enough freeways for the population for SD?
Cities can have bad traffic issues simply b/c older cities may not have enough lanes or enough freeways (possibly due to poor city planning or due to geographical or topographcial limitations). FOr example, traffic is considered bad in Honolulu b/c there is absolutely no room to build freeways given the mountains that are literally just behind the city...it's a narrow strip of land.
IN Texas, where space is wide open, DFW and Houston probably boast the one of the highest concentrations of freeways in the country...however, both cities still rank very highly in terms of bad traffic...perhaps it's b/c even with all this they still need more lanes and HOV lanes....but to add to it, they need to expand their light rails. DFW is doubling the size of its light rail over the next 5 years from it's current 45 miles to 90 miles of track. IT also has the TRE line. But they're also building more freeways as well. HOuston , like Dallas, is working on its 3rd loop.
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.
