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 know it would be awful! Don't worry though, I'm not saying trees aren't a good thing! I was making the point that while many urban metros have trees, trees detract from a city whose sole intrest is urbanity, and therefore a comparison of urbanity is less limited within that context (because open fields, parks, etc., decrease density).
good, ya had me worried for a sec! although, I dont see where the green spaces detract from the urbanity, its like they provide a visual comma before you get to another wonderful piece of architecture..... too many design classes for me, I suppose.
I tend to look at green settings like jewelry, a great setting for a fabulous stone, if you get my analogy.
good, ya had me worried for a sec! although, I dont see where the green spaces detract from the urbanity, its like they provide a visual comma before you get to another wonderful piece of architecture..... too many design classes for me, I suppose.
I tend to look at green settings like jewelry, a great setting for a fabulous stone, if you get my analogy.
Urbanity IMO is about ceaselessness. There are no commas even though are nice.
When it comes to urban cities New york, Chicago, and Los angeles are numba one!
So far as population density is a good indicator of urbanity, DC, Philly, and Boston are all more urban than L.A. While L.A.'s 8,205 people/sq. mile pop. density is pretty urban in its own right, you shouldn't discount the fact that the other three aforementioned cities beat L.A. by around 1,000 people/sq. mile or more.
Notice how many of these cities were part of the initial stages of the industrial revolution. Cities of the east coast were first and one of the last great ones is considered to be Mnpls/St Paul MN
* San Fran would be an exception due to the gold rush
Seattle also had humble beginnings as a gold rush boomtown.
Most of America's east coast cities. Why? Because they have the history, the culture, the diversity, and are still going strong. Chicago, New York, Boston, New Orleans, Philadelphia, Baltimore, D.C., Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, St. Louis, Detroit, Milwaukee, and San Francisco get my vote.
I know it would be awful! Don't worry though, I'm not saying trees aren't a good thing! I was making the point that while many urban metros have trees, trees detract from a city whose sole intrest is urbanity, and therefore a comparison of urbanity is less limited within that context (because open fields, parks, etc., decrease density).
I'll take a stab: the "sole interest" of cities is not (what you call) urbanity. Cities have developed to serve many purposes, not just one. Trade and commerce are a couple biggies, but so there are also social purposes. And humans in general don't want to live in a block of concrete. You could say that alloting space to parks and green spaces are conciously-made choices by those who live there to make their urban places liveable.
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.
although, I dont see where the green spaces detract from the urbanity, its like they provide a visual comma before you get to another wonderful piece of architecture..... too many design classes for me
even though are nice.
?LOL
