Jump to content

Medium City Skyline


brewerw

  

270 members have voted

  1. 1. Medium City Skyline

    • Memphis
      15
    • Birmingham
      13
    • Jacksonville
      44
    • Nasvhille
      43
    • Louisville
      12
    • Charlotte
      115
    • Raleigh
      9
    • Richmond
      14
    • Lexington
      2
    • Knoxville
      3


Recommended Posts

I think they can be considered medium sized in the sense that as of the 2000 figures, the urbanized areas of these cities had not yet hit 1,000,000--which is when I start considering a city to be "big."

"Urbanized" is such a BAD definition b/c it reflects a region's sprawl and has - more often than not - little to do with a city's actual "urbanity". In other words, if you love contiguous, uninterrupted, census blocks of sprawl - as opposed to - population clusters surrounded by lower density rural areas, then the "urbanized" definition is your friend.

This isn't it say that older urban areas like NY, Philly, Boston, Chicago, or SF aren't genuinely urban but - and forgive me - applying this standard to "newer" urban areas like Atlanta, Dallas, Northern Virginia, Houston, Phoenix, etc. is just a little disingenious.

Most of what is "urbanized" in these cities is just contiguous sprawl with few, geniune, multiple-use, pedestrian-friendly, multi-modal, "urban" centers. For me, I'd take a metro with discernible, unique, clusters (like New York, Boston, Chicago, Philly, DC's northern metro, even LA, Minneapolis, Portland (OR), Nashville, Birmingham, Charlotte, Richmond, etc.) over one massive blob (like Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, NOVA) any day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 264
  • Created
  • Last Reply

"Urbanized" is such a BAD definition b/c it reflects a region's sprawl and has - more often than not - little to do with a city's actual "urbanity". In other words, if you love contiguous, uninterrupted, census blocks of sprawl - as opposed to - population clusters surrounded by lower density rural areas, then the "urbanized" definition is your friend.

This isn't it say that older urban areas like NY, Philly, Boston, Chicago, or SF aren't genuinely urban but - and forgive me - applying this standard to "newer" urban areas like Atlanta, Dallas, Northern Virginia, Houston, Phoenix, etc. is just a little disingenious.

Most of what is "urbanized" in these cities is just contiguous sprawl with few, geniune, multiple-use, pedestrian-friendly, multi-modal, "urban" centers. For me, I'd take a metro with discernible, unique, clusters (like New York, Boston, Chicago, Philly, DC's northern metro, even LA, Minneapolis, Portland (OR), Nashville, Birmingham, Charlotte, Richmond, etc.) over one massive blob (like Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, NOVA) any day.

You make good points in terms of semantics here. But for cities in which the municipal figures don't do justice to the actual size of the true city (such as SC's cities), the urbanized area definition works. I understand that the term is only referring to a certain density standard spread out geographically, but I was really only referring to the concept itself.

I also find it interesting that you would throw Charlotte, Nashville, and Birmingham in the same category as NYC, Boston, Philly, DC, etc. in terms of metros "with discernible, unique, clusters" as opposed to the "big boys" in the South. Not to discredit the former cities, but I think the only difference between them and Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston is time and size--all have become victims of typical Sunbelt sprawl in very similar ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also find it interesting that you would throw Charlotte, Nashville, and Birmingham in the same category as NYC, Boston, Philly, DC, etc. in terms of metros "with discernible, unique, clusters" as opposed to the "big boys" in the South. Not to discredit the former cities, but I think the only difference between them and Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston is time and size--all have become victims of typical Sunbelt sprawl in very similar ways.

...and the Northern cities have also suffered from sprawl as you point out. Fortunately, however, there are some Southern cities and their attendant regions that, to their ultimate benefit, are growing-up later than their cousins and are taking important steps to define themselves and create boundaries...they've learned from other places....

Nice little skyline.

112456713_990fe54fd4_b.jpg

Wrong thread, but Hartford (and Providence) is a remarkable city in a great context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I vote Richmond beacuase of the density of the skyline and the size of its downtown is great for a city its size, eventhough its said to be growing now. Some of the other cities do not have real density its just alot of tall scrapers. Nothing to level it off slowly. Richmond to me has the most dense skyline in the Mid-Atlantic no, all of the southeast. Well maybe not Miami.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I vote Richmond beacuase of the density of the skyline and the size of its downtown is great for a city its size, eventhough its said to be growing now. Some of the other cities do not have real density its just alot of tall scrapers. Nothing to level it off slowly. Richmond to me has the most dense skyline in the Mid-Atlantic no, all of the southeast. Well maybe not Miami.

Richmond is dense for its size but hardly as dense as some other cities. I drove through downtown Richmond in 2003 and unless it has some new buidings since then, it is sort of like Nashville, Jacksonville, Tampa, maybe even Charlotte, etc. which fits in with the choices but without the single standout tall building most cities that size have. Respectabel but doesn't stand out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To defend Charlotte a little you really can't see a lot of the shorter buildings. They are hidden by the larger buildings because center city is laid out in a dense cluster rather than in a linear pattern. Perhaps if uptown was more linear then we would see a skyline shot like that of Richmond. No worries Richmond does have a nice "money shot" going north on 95. It is in my top five of entrance views.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I would say that Uptown Charlotte is more linear than clustered. Just think of all of the towers along Tryon and College, which run parallel to each other. I think it's just the varying heights of the towers which make for more of a dense effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I would say that Uptown Charlotte is more linear than clustered. Just think of all of the towers along Tryon and College, which run parallel to each other. I think it's just the varying heights of the towers which make for more of a dense effect.

I guees so but when viewed in terms of other city skylines. The towers of significant height are really in close proximity to each other. There is not really a "sore thumb" look about it. Also the midrises and lowrises don't stand out because of the positions of the other towers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.