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.
Point taken Steve-o, there is an interest factor at work also, and I love looking at the skyline of Hong Kong, or Singapore, etc.
But still virtually any European city is vibrant without skyscrapers, and Portland, and DC are not skyscraper cities. Atlanta, Charlotte, Houston, et. al. are almost lifeless at night despite the thrust upwards,
Point taken Steve-o, there is an interest factor at work also, and I love looking at the skyline of Hong Kong, or Singapore, etc.
But still virtually any European city is vibrant without skyscrapers, and Portland, and DC are not skyscraper cities. Atlanta, Charlotte, Houston, et. al. are almost lifeless at night despite the thrust upwards,
I hope your referring to their downtowns being lifeless at night, even though your still wrong.
Point taken Steve-o, there is an interest factor at work also, and I love looking at the skyline of Hong Kong, or Singapore, etc.
But still virtually any European city is vibrant without skyscrapers, and Portland, and DC are not skyscraper cities. Atlanta, Charlotte, Houston, et. al. are almost lifeless at night despite the thrust upwards,
I agree. But I love to hang out deep inside a city center at night, and none of those places will fulfill what Im looking for, especially at night.
I think public transit is the underlying key point to be made. The cities in the US with vibrant downtowns normally have a lot of people together who come in on trains/buses. Look at Chicago, you have roughly 750,000 people coming downtown each day for work, school or leisure. You're going to be able to support a lot of stores, restaurants, events, etc at all times with that many people to pick from as far as shopping, etc.
Downtown Chicago literally would not exist in its present form if it weren't for CTA and especially Metra. Metra has 11 lines which run out 50 miles in every direction bringing in an average of 310,000 suburban office workers to the downtown core each weekday. This influx of mostly white collar professional jobs is what kept downtown Chicago a very competitive place to work in the 70's and 80's when many other cities were throwing up gleaming office parks throughout the burbs for the skilled workers.
You can't have 750,000 people come downtown each day in cars and park. There's just literally no way the roads could handle it, or the cars would have anywhere to go. There would be so many freeways that downtown would be cut off by 15 lane roads in every direction. Downtown would be some island cut off from the neighborhoods.
I love how you can walk out of downtown Chicago to the north and go up 10 miles through extremely dense urban neighborhoods without even crossing anything more than a 4 lane road. There's no concrete barrier that's slicing the people off from downtown.
Same in NYC, Boston, San Fran....you have a great many people using public transit to get into the core, and it's not all de-humanized and isolated by cars.
Of course we're talking about downtowns. No one, I hope, would be dumb or reckless enough to say there is no life in Atlanta, HOuston, Charlotte. And they would be wrong, of course.
People on this board think the sunbelt is vibrant??? All I see on these boards is hate for those cities. No one judges those cities by their skylines and they are vibrant cities. Just because you didn't even enjoy yourself in some of the most vibrant cities in America,dosen't mean no one else did.
I being to doubt that you even ever been to anyone of these cities. I know people who extremely hate the south, but they atleast enjoy themselves in some cities,but you just flat out say the south sucks without even listing a resonable explanation.
I lived in a couple of the cities mentioned. But I have also lived in real cities, so I know the difference between a glorified office park surrounded by suburbs and a real downtown. It isn't "hatred" for the South- Charleston does not have anything in the form of skyskrapers, yet it is far more vibrant and urban feeling than the interchangeable southern office parks I mentioned. I posted this thread largely in response to the pictures that are often posted of certain cities, taken from certain angles, that suggest these cities have downtown cores similar to vibrant cities, which they do not.
I lived in a couple of the cities mentioned. But I have also lived in real cities, so I know the difference between a glorified office park surrounded by suburbs and a real downtown. It isn't "hatred" for the South- Charleston does not have anything in the form of skyskrapers, yet it is far more vibrant and urban feeling than the interchangeable southern office parks I mentioned. I posted this thread largely in response to the pictures that are often posted of certain cities, taken from certain angles, that suggest these cities have downtown cores similar to vibrant cities, which they do not.
Good observation. But really, what does and does not constitute a downtown that function merely as a "glorified office park". Lack of museums? Lack of bars and clubs? Lack of retail and/sporting facilities? Ect. What is your criteria?
Also, I just returned form a trip to Dallas and visited downtown and uptown. Though I find Portland to be more "vibrant" as you said, I did not find it more urban.
I lived in a couple of the cities mentioned. But I have also lived in real cities, so I know the difference between a glorified office park surrounded by suburbs and a real downtown. It isn't "hatred" for the South- Charleston does not have anything in the form of skyskrapers, yet it is far more vibrant and urban feeling than the interchangeable southern office parks I mentioned. I posted this thread largely in response to the pictures that are often posted of certain cities, taken from certain angles, that suggest these cities have downtown cores similar to vibrant cities, which they do not.
I'm guessing you haven't been to either of these cities in the last 5-10 years. Houston is densifying outside its downtown (Literally,right outside the downtown). Dallas is densifying even quicker with lots of TODs being created and developed all around the city and the brownstones/lofts going on in Uptown Dallas. Atlanta really surprised me with what's going on down there.
Houston just broke ground on its new rail line and planning to break ground on the others soon. Dallas is already expanding its lines and soon to have it reach DFW Airport.
I'm guessing you haven't been to either of these cities in the last 5-10 years. Houston is densifying outside its downtown (Literally,right outside the downtown). Dallas is densifying even quicker with lots of TODs being created and developed all around the city and the brownstones/lofts going on in Uptown Dallas. Atlanta really surprised me with what's going on down there.
Houston just broke ground on its new rail line and planning to break ground on the others soon. Dallas is already expanding its lines and soon to have it reach DFW Airport.
When you are used to places like SF, NYC, Chicago, Portland, Seattle and you visit these "cities", they disappoint.
Youre correct, a big skyline doesnt necessarily mean it will be vibrant, but it usually is the case. Where there are lots of skyscrapers, there are lots of workers, which attracts lots of eateries, which attracts people who dont normally go downtown (ie tourists, suburbanites, etc), which attracts other venues (ie museums, live theater, etc), which makes the city planners want to put in nice parks so the tourists/workers/etc have a place to relax, which.... you catch my drift.
Skylines are really cool to me, and I enjoy wandering around them, deep inside the steel and concrete canyons. I love the energy in places like NYC, Chicago, etc. I love the sights, sounds, smells, the whole experience is awesome, especially at night where it seems more magical. The only thing that sucks is by the end of the night I have monster neck and headaches from gazing upwards all night.
Now, when I go to places like Phoenix, or Louisville, or Jacksonville, etc, I cannot replicate that experience for the most part. The downtowns are small, pitifully dead, boring. I dont like the fact that there is no centrally located energy or buzz or vibrancy. I dont like the fact that I could probably picnic on the busiest street in their downtown and not get hit by a car or a maniacal bus driver. It bores me. It DOESNT MEAN THAT THE CITY ITSELF IS BAD, but for people like me, a good skyline makes a city that much more beautiful and fun, especially when its world class and tons of fun.
Hope this explains.
Perfectly stated. San diego has 12 years to go! I'm excited!!
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.
It bores me. It DOESNT MEAN THAT THE CITY ITSELF IS BAD, but for people like me, a good skyline makes a city that much more beautiful and fun, especially when its world class and tons of fun.
