Stop comparing your city to New York, Chicago and San Francisco

[the urban politician]

I tell you what, “ThePhun”...

We urbanites will stop talking up our vastly superior urbanity when you sunbelters stop boasting constantly about how crazy fucking fast your metro populations are growing. Dallas at 6 million? Another 150k in one year? 7 million? 10 million?

We don’t care. Miles and miles and miles of McMansions—we all know that that is like where 95% all those people live. We don’t need to see it—we know.

And yes, we know some skyscrapers and some neat little apartment buildings, and some cute courtyard “town centre” thingies are being built too. We’ve seen them, we have those too. But it’s not the same.

So stop the boasting and we’ll do the same.

[mhays]

That's not far off. I'd personally never bash a place just to bash it. But, for example, claim that Dallas doughnuts or podium highrises are great urbanity and I might take another run at that point.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I tell you what, “ThePhun”...

We urbanites will stop talking up our vastly superior urbanity when you sunbelters stop boasting constantly about how crazy fucking fast your metro populations are growing. Dallas at 6 million? Another 150k in one year? 7 million? 10 million?

We don’t care. Miles and miles and miles of McMansions—we all know that that is like where 95% all those people live. We don’t need to see it—we know.

And yes, we know some skyscrapers and some neat little apartment buildings, and some cute courtyard “town centre” thingies are being built too. We’ve seen them, we have those too. But it’s not the same.

So stop the boasting and we’ll do the same.

McMansions are fine as long as they don't define the central core. All major cities have been afflicted with the McMansions craze in the suburbs.

[mhays]

Good example of where you're wrong. There's a huge difference in mcmansion prevalence from one city to the next. Those who control outward sprawl have less of a problem.

And yes they're a problem on a bunch of levels that are obvious to most people here.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by mhays

Good example of where you're wrong. There's a huge difference in mcmansion prevalence from one city to the next. Those who control outward sprawl have less of a problem.

And yes they're a problem on a bunch of levels that are obvious to most people here.

I didn't say they weren't more numerous in some places compared to others, just that they are everywhere at this point and that it's not so bad as long as the central city isn't defined by them. And in some cases, I'd rather they be the defining feature than dilapidated warehouse districts and equally dilapidated housing.

[BnaBreaker]

Houston is a nice city. There. Can we move on now?

[ThePhun1]

What? One of the threads that inspired this thread was an LA poster comparing the center of town to San Francisco.

I'm not trying to solicit sympathy or fanfare for Houston if that's what you're getting at somehow.

[10023]

If we can’t compare Houston to Chicago, can we still compare Chicago to Houston?

Not allowed:
Houston’s urbanity and walkableness are not as good as Chicago’s.

Allowed:
Chicago’s urbanity and walkableness is superior to Houston’s.

[harryc]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Yeah it's annoying and stupid.

However. . .None of those cities will ever compare to Jacksonville in terms of skyline height and girth. Nobody cares about neighborhoods or surrounding areas.

Jacksonville - Florida ?

[toddguy]

Why does this site always seem to have to be "Urbanitypage" rather than "Skyscraperpage"????
I am sure there are plenty of people who love skyscrapers without necessarily thinking every. single. good. neighborhood is pre-war, walkable with "the right type" of density. Damn. It is sometimes like a damn cult on this site.

*not attacking any particular person, just sayin' and all.

[LouisVanDerWright]

But really though, how does Chicago compare to NYC and how many months until Chicago surpasses NYC in every metric. Inquiring minds need to know!

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

But really though, how does Chicago compare to NYC and how many months until Chicago surpasses NYC in every metric. Inquiring minds need to know!

I see what you’re doing, you’re trying to rope in Crawford...

[JManc]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I tell you what, “ThePhun”...

We urbanites will stop talking up our vastly superior urbanity when you sunbelters stop boasting constantly about how crazy fucking fast your metro populations are growing. Dallas at 6 million? Another 150k in one year? 7 million? 10 million?

We don’t care. Miles and miles and miles of McMansions—we all know that that is like where 95% all those people live. We don’t need to see it—we know.

And yes, we know some skyscrapers and some neat little apartment buildings, and some cute courtyard “town centre” thingies are being built too. We’ve seen them, we have those too. But it’s not the same.

So stop the boasting and we’ll do the same.

Boasting? Who boasts? If anything people from these cities are always having to defend their cities from from the skinny jeans crowd who are constantly reminding them they live in sprawlville with too many cars.

This forum is supposed to be a smart bunch of people. Houston, Dallas, Jacksonville, etc are never going to be New York, Boston or whatever because of when they were developed. Surely people here can deduce that and use some logic before going on a tangent on Mansions.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

McMansions are fine as long as they don't define the central core.

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

... as long as the central city isn't defined by them. And in some cases, I'd rather they be the defining feature than dilapidated warehouse districts and equally dilapidated housing.

Where on Earth do McMansions define the central core of a city?


Congratulations on starting the dumbest thread of 2018.

This really shouldn't be a thread for discussion. Can we end this thing?

[mousquet]

Originally Posted by JManc

Houston, Dallas, Jacksonville, etc are never going to be New York, Boston or whatever because of when they were developed.

I'm not even sure about that. When you read history on the long run, you realize that things are actually on a constant move, like it's really astonishing.

For example, there was a time when Islam was enlightened from its violent and cynical conquests. They stole wonderful things from the Greeks, the Persians and the Indians.
Meanwhile, Christianity was stuck in the dark, obscurantist doctrine of the Roman church.
All our people should deeply thank the rebellious Italians and Protestants for the Renaissance in our own particular bit of the world.

Anyone's lifetime is nothing much after all. Anyone's only like some bacterium in the story of evolution. I know it's scary, especially to those growing old in their minds, but anyone has to learn how to live with it in this day and age.

La gloire est éphémère, they rightfully say. The establishment has to be surpassed. Then Tokyo, NYC, Shanghai, Hong Kong, London, Paris, São Paulo, Seoul... They all will end up "provincial", no matter how great they are for the time being.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I see what you’re doing, you’re trying to rope in Crawford...

I actually read an article today that said Chicago MSA may have already surpassed NYC MSA by some measures.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by mousquet

I'm not even sure about that. When you read history on the long run, you realize that things are actually on a constant move, like it's really astonishing.

For example, there was a time when Islam was enlightened from its violent and cynical conquests. They stole wonderful things from the Greeks, the Persians and the Indians.
Meanwhile, Christianity was stuck in the dark, obscurantist doctrine of the Roman church.
All our people should deeply thank the rebellious Italians and Protestants for the Renaissance in our own particular bit of the world.

Anyone's lifetime is nothing much after all. Anyone's only like some bacterium in the story of evolution. I know it's scary, especially to those growing old in their minds, but anyone has to learn how to live with it in this day and age.

La gloire est éphémère, they rightfully say. The establishment has to be surpassed. Then Tokyo, NYC, Shanghai, Hong Kong, London, Paris, São Paulo, Seoul... They all will end up "provincial", no matter how great they are for the time being.

Yeah...you're reading a bit much into this. I'm talking much closer to the surface...like freeways and Costco's, not philosophy and politics. Sunbelt cities in the US exploded in population well after the mass adoption of cars where as those in the north were established a century or more before then.

[dubu]

The future will be cool. I don't think there will be skyscrapers all over though. There's a bunch of technology we arnt told about, like the box that makes free power. I heard about that a few years ago and a week ago someone confirmed it's real. I wonder what else there is. There's stronger and lighter metal now. That would be good for trains. Also the future sucks because of the smart cities, there's proof how bad 5g is for us.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by harryc

Jacksonville - Florida ?

It's a running joke on this board based on me liking Jacksonville's skyline more than Toronto.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by JManc

Sunbelt cities in the US exploded in population well after the mass adoption of cars where as those in the north were established a century or more before then.

This is an overused point. True urbanity and density have arisen in car-age cities even in the US.

It starts with simply allowing these things, which Sunbelt cities generally make difficult or impossible. The second step is actively encouraging urbanity by restricting outward sprawl by legislation in addition to any natural barriers.