View Single Post
  #97  
Old Posted Feb 6, 2013, 1:59 AM
ShooFlyPie ShooFlyPie is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by sayitaintso View Post
Yikes! Such outrage based on statistical fact and my own application of how density creates an urban feel. Are we banning others thoughts and ideas? Are we not allowed to disagree?

These pictures clearly support the FACT that Pitt ISN'T as dense as LA (look it up).

I happen to believe that the single most important factor for judging the characteristics of the traditional city is density. And no Houston and LA are definitely not your classic traditional city. But if LA is more dense than Pitt what does that tell you? Boston-yes, very comparable to Pitt in terms of population & area but very different in terms of density.

And yes I have been to all the cities mentioned and many more including yours. It's nice but.... never-mind I'm afraid to speak my mind for fear of being accosted. Hope you don't treat everyone who disagrees with you this way. Nice photo set by the way. Pittsburgh is pretty. Maybe that's the problem.

So you are comparing a mid-sized city to America's second largest city in regards to density and then conclude it isn't a "traditional city"? You don't consider architecture, urban lay-out, topography in the mix? You just compare two completely different metro regions largely built in completely different decades on a apples to apples basis? Then may I ask, why inject Houston in the argument when it is far less dense than Pittsburgh? Where did your ripe intellect travel to? Monroeville? Your thoughts on what makes a traditional city but leaving Pittsburgh out proved you're an imbecile. Sad to hear that you already classify all those other uniquely badass cities out there even less dense than Pittsburgh. I'm sure they won't need somebody of your intelligence to visit anyways. Stick with your "traditionally dense" cities whatever that means.
Reply With Quote