Quote:
Originally Posted by austlar1
Here's the deal as I see it. Most US cities aren't "cities" in the traditional sense. Even some of the older cities with 19th Century cores no longer function as traditional "cities", especially the economically and socially challenged cities. Most of the economic activity is spread out in a way that is similar to what you find in newer Sunbelt cities. I think those of us who participate on this site prefer traditional urban environments, but it is important to recognize that LA, Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, etc. do function as cities in a very real way in spite of the fact that their form is something rather alien to much of the world.
|
Exactly.
The definition of “city” or “ urban” in this website has to be more flexible to accommodate the reality of today.
None of the Sunbelt cities have the row homes, transit heavy infrastructure, and other aesthetic subjective crap that more “classical” cities like NYC, Philly, Chicago, and Boston have. The Sunbelt cities may be completely “suburban” in character like Atlanta or Charlotte.
However, all of these Sunbelt cities still function as cities. There is a downtown, people largely drive, but have the choice to walk around and take transit in the core of the cities and other nodes. The Automobile, like it or not, is even a significant aspect of most of the urban cities. Even much of NYC made way for the car.
So you guys can remain purists and argue about subjective crap all you want, but to say that the Sunbelt cities are objectively not “urban” in any way is stupid. Your opinion is your opinion. None of these cities function like suburban tracts all throughout.
As for the second most urban city, I also agree that it depends on the qualifications we’re talking about
2nd in population: LA
2nd in density: SF
2nd in scale: Chicago
2nd in urban similarity to NYC: Philly