Which cities in N.A. are urbanizing and transforming the most?

[bilbao58]

Originally Posted by JManc

A bunch of tall buildings really isn't a barometer for urbanization. Austin gets notice because its urban environment is changed with the rapid development of mid to high rise living mostly downtown and around Rainey St. Here in Houston, the transformation from low density SFH neighborhoods inside the Loop to denser concentrations of townhomes has been staggering.

EXACTLY! Austin's skyline change is more noticeable (from nothing to something is always noticeable), but much of Houston's streetscape has been totally transformed.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

L.A. has added a LOT of rail line miles in the last decade, so you might be surprised about how you can get around without a car. But unfortunately the covid has cut ridership a lot, as it has in most cities.

LA ridership was already trending down even before COVID.

Metro’s rail network is back to full strength after a long year of repairs, construction, and station closures—and a $2.1 billion train line is expected to open in the year ahead.

So where did all the riders go?

In November, ridership plunged 14 percent year-over-year. Passengers took 300,924 trips on Metro’s train lines on a typical weekday. That was nearly 50,000 fewer rides per day than in November 2018. Compared to one year ago, ridership is down on all train lines.

Some lines are carrying fewer riders than they have in years, and for the past few months, the Gold Line has been emptier than it's been since it began traveling to Azusa.

https://la.curbed.com/2019/12/12/210...hip-stats-2019

[Doady]

Maybe US cities have much more potential for transformation than Canadian cities. More potential for growth of transit ridership, more parking lots to eliminate. Places like Detroit and Oklahoma City, if they can finally start serious investment in transit, those cities can undergo radical transformation. I'm not sure Canada has any cities like that. Maybe Kitchener-Waterloo might fit the criteria. It never had a big, old downtown or inner city, and the transit ridership was never high. But the ridership is now skyrocketing and now there is also LRT. If we can deal with this pandemic, I think we will see major changes for Kitchener-Waterloo in the coming years.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by homebucket

Sounds like someone has never been to Oakland or Berkeley. Or Alameda or San Mateo or Palo Alto.

I agree that Oakland and Berkeley are urban. But Alameda, San Mateo and Palo Alto... not so much. They're "urban" in that suburban/small town with a traditional downtown kind of way... like Claremont, Whittier, Upland, Santa Ana... Actually, Santa Ana is more urban than Alameda/San Mateo/Palo Alto---probably the most "urban" city in all of Orange County.

Much of the Bay Area is indeed suburban in built form. How could it not be, being that much of it was still agricultural until after WWII, and then the suburban explosion happened---just like everywhere else in the US.

When I was in college, I made friends with Bay Area people, from Albany, El Cerrito, Walnut Creek, Hayward, Santa Clara, Fremont, Brentwood, Danville... I visited them in all those cities, and there's nothing urban about them. They're all typical suburban California towns.

[dc_denizen]

Originally Posted by Doady

Maybe US cities have much more potential for transformation than Canadian cities. More potential for growth of transit ridership, more parking lots to eliminate. Places like Detroit and Oklahoma City, if they can finally start serious investment in transit, those cities can undergo radical transformation. I'm not sure Canada has any cities like that. Maybe Kitchener-Waterloo might fit the criteria. It never had a big, old downtown or inner city, and the transit ridership was never high. But the ridership is now skyrocketing and now there is also LRT. If we can deal with this pandemic, I think we will major changes for Kitchener-Waterloo in the coming years.

Hamilton

That’s where I’d put my money

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

I agree that Oakland and Berkeley are urban. But Alameda, San Mateo and Palo Alto... not so much. They're "urban" in that suburban/small town with a traditional downtown kind of way... like Claremont, Whittier, Upland, Santa Ana... Actually, Santa Ana is more urban than Alameda/San Mateo/Palo Alto---probably the most "urban" city in all of Orange County.

Much of the Bay Area is indeed suburban in built form. How could it not be, being that much of it was still agricultural until after WWII, and then the suburban explosion happened---just like everywhere else in the US.

When I was in college, I made friends with Bay Area people, from Albany, El Cerrito, Walnut Creek, Hayward, Santa Clara, Fremont, Brentwood, Danville... I visited them in all those cities, and there's nothing urban about them. They're all typical suburban California towns.

Yeah, Berkeley and Oakland are actually quite urban. San Mateo and such are not really urban, but have some nice walkable parts and are more dense than your typical suburbia like San Ramon or Danville. Outside of these cities, yes the Bay Area is your typical Sunbelt suburban sprawl. However, the original assertion was that outside of SF proper, the Bay does not feel urban "at all", which is obviously incorrect.

[LA21st]

After moving around LA the past few days, it's amazing to see all these stip malls and car washes bite the dust for these giant complexes. From downtown to Santa Monica. Actually its everywhere, but that area is more visible. it's going to be interesting to see what LA looks like at 2025 or for the Olympics..

This is even true for far flung areas like Sun Valley in the SFV and Wesmont in South LA--there's nowhere else to go.

[Labtec]

Originally Posted by Bikemike

These cities are no better (and often worse) than LA. All vertical suburbia, with "walkable" nodes being nothing more than outdoor malls patronized overwhelmingly by suburban visitors, whithout which these "nodes" would not be economically viable. Such "faux walkability" relies on automobile infrastructure (podiums, freeways, garages, curb cuts, wide streets) as enormous crutches. You can't honestly call this "urban progress" by any stretch if the patterns that sustain it are entirely the same as before.

In other words, scarcely anyone in the inner-city lives without a car. Living in such cities can hardly be TYPIFIED as "car-free". LA, while having marginally higher transit prevalence, is hardly better. When you've lived in truly walkable cities (Berlin and Tokyo), arguing between Denver vs LA's urbanism is like arguing which American state has the best COVID response.

Um no, have you heard of the Atlanta beltline?

80% of the people walking in this video live in the area:

• Video Link

There are so many condos and businesses popping up all over the city like this. Especially in West Midtown right now. I know people who live ITP (Inside The Perimeter) without a car who do just fine taking Marta subway and buses. Atlanta is quickly urbanizing all around the city with walkability being a major factor thanks to the Beltline.

This is a topic about NA cities not East Asia or Europe.

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by Labtec

Um no . . . I know people who live ITP (Inside The Perimeter) without a car who do just fine taking Marta subway and buses. Atlanta is quickly urbanizing all around the city with walkability being a major factor thanks to the Beltline.

I think Atlanta is one of the very few up-and-comers with the possibility of taking that next step, and this is almost entirely because of MARTA. No other Southern metro will get multi-line heavy rail in our lifetimes.

But let's not paint an overly rosy picture here: living in any American metro outside NYC without a car is difficult. Living in any American city without a car outside the usual 4-5 suspects is difficult. Living in a Southern metro without a car - in a (as of yet still) red state which hates its own cities no less - is a whole level more difficult.

State governments matter a ton here. Blue cities can only accomplish so much when the statehouse is red. Boston is consistently more successful than Philadelphia, and this is the main reason: Massachusetts loves its cities and bends over backwards to accommodate them, whereas Pennsylvania is . . . well, it's not too far from Philly at one end, Pittsburgh at the other, and a whole lot of Alabama in between.

At least Atlanta is the state capital. That mitigates things somewhat. But not enough.

[dc_denizen]

I expect Atlanta and Dallas to get more redevelopment of shopping centers into midrise and highrise housing, similar to King of Prussia, Philadelphia or Tysons.

aka

KOP:

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0835...7i13312!8i6656

Similar to Harrison NJ

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7408...7i16384!8i8192

Similar to somewhere in Dallas

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.0008...7i16384!8i8192

Merrifield, Virginia (fairfax County, right outside of DC)

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8717...7i13312!8i6656

national harbor, DC

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.7840...!7i8704!8i4352

Columbus OH

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1023...7i16384!8i8192

this is the future of urbanism in this country, and happily, most of the new build units look like these.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by Labtec

Um no, have you heard of the Atlanta beltline?

80% of the people walking in this video live in the area:

• Video Link

There are so many condos and businesses popping up all over the city like this. Especially in West Midtown right now. I know people who live ITP (Inside The Perimeter) without a car who do just fine taking Marta subway and buses. Atlanta is quickly urbanizing all around the city with walkability being a major factor thanks to the Beltline.

This is a topic about NA cities not East Asia or Europe.

are you saying atlanta is more walkable than la? cause...no. There isn't a sunbelt city thats more walkable and never will be. The city is adding tons
of housing to all its street car corridors. The retail and restaurants were already there.

[Omaharocks]

Discussing Atlanta, there's a huge variance within the city and inner burbs as far as walkability.

While L.A. is sort of consistently low-moderate levels of walkability, Atlanta alternates between very unwalkable and very walkable rather abruptly all over.

Midtown, and areas along the eastside Beltline are as or more walkable than any areas in L.A., and yes, has those critical heavy-rail connections. Not as dense as L.A., but density doesn't always correlate to walkability. Eastside Atlanta is very similar to somewhere like east Portland, lots of 1920's era bungalows with pre-war commercial strips, which translates to very pleasant walking conditions. In many of these areas in Atlanta, the streets are very narrow, which provides a more intimate vibe than the L.A. commercial arterials.

It's actually pretty easy to make do without a car in Atlanta - along with all the typical amenities like bars/restaurants/gyms etc, just the east portion of the Beltline has 3 or 4 major grocery stores directly along the trail - some are situated with the entrance directly on the trail. It's hardly high-rise suburbia as Bike-Mike alluded, and there are plenty of other organic walkable areas directly on Marta, such as Decatur square.

High-rise suburbia adequately describes Buckhead, but not much else within the City of Atlanta.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by LA21st

are you saying atlanta is more walkable than la? cause...no. There isn't a sunbelt city thats more walkable and never will be. The city is adding tons
of housing to all its street car corridors. The retail and restaurants were already there.

I would say they are more or less equal in that regard...not very walkable but certainly more than most cities outside the usual suspects. LA has walkable parts but very decentralized, Atlanta seems to be more so in that regard but less dense than LA. I got the impression LA's Metro was less appreciated than MARTA.

LA is, oh yeah...we have a subway while Atlanta is, THIS IS MARTA!

[homebucket]

In terms of transit ridership, they are pretty similar. Here's their data along with some other big sun belt cities. I don't have the numbers but I would figure LA has a higher percentage of pedestrians though.

US Cities by Percent of Workers Using Public Transportation, 2019
9.97% Atlanta, GA
8.75% Los Angeles, CA
7.86% Miami, FL
4.96% San Jose, CA
3.87% San Diego, CA
3.78% Houston, TX
3.49% Dallas, TX
3.29% Austin, TX
2.98% San Antonio, TX
2.93% Phoenix, AZ
2.51% Las Vegas, NV
2.34% Nashville, TN

MSAs by Percentage of Workers Using Public Transportation, 2019
4.7% Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim
4.7% San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara
2.8% Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise
2.8% Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach
2.8% San Diego-Chula Vista-Carlsbad
2.7% Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Alpharetta
1.9% Austin-Round Rock-Georgetown
1.9% Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land
1.8% San Antonio-New Braunfels
1.7% Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler
1.2% Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington
0.9% Nashville-Davidson-Mufreesboro-Franklin

[Doady]

Atlanta is surrounded by some of the absolute worst sprawl out there. Central cities, and the people who live and work within them, don't exist and function in isolation - that's why it's called a metropolitan area. Central city and its suburbs are interconnected, so the design and layout of the suburbs have a huge impact as well. It's important to look at the big picture. Walkability and transit-oriented needs to be consistent thing throughout the whole urban area, or otherwise you will just create boundaries and barriers for people. A more walkable and transit-oriented periphery helps people living in the centre as well, preventing them from becoming isolated, ensuring that they can live a true urban lifestyle.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by JManc

I would say they are more or less equal in that regard...not very walkable but certainly more than most cities outside the usual suspects. LA has walkable parts but very decentralized, Atlanta seems to be more so in that regard but less dense than LA. I got the impression LA's Metro was less appreciated than MARTA.

LA is, oh yeah...we have a subway while Atlanta is, THIS IS MARTA!

But many of the walkable parts of LA are huge. They might not be all connected, but there's far more of it. And every year, these places keep getting closer to being connected. LA's subway system won't really benefit until the Purple Line hits the westside imo. It's still an incomplete system and it sucks it's taken this long.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by Omaharocks

Discussing Atlanta, there's a huge variance within the city and inner burbs as far as walkability.

While L.A. is sort of consistently low-moderate levels of walkability, Atlanta alternates between very unwalkable and very walkable rather abruptly all over.

Midtown, and areas along the eastside Beltline are as or more walkable than any areas in L.A., and yes, has those critical heavy-rail connections. Not as dense as L.A., but density doesn't always correlate to walkability. Eastside Atlanta is very similar to somewhere like east Portland, lots of 1920's era bungalows with pre-war commercial strips, which translates to very pleasant walking conditions. In many of these areas in Atlanta, the streets are very narrow, which provides a more intimate vibe than the L.A. commercial arterials.

It's actually pretty easy to make do without a car in Atlanta - along with all the typical amenities like bars/restaurants/gyms etc, just the east portion of the Beltline has 3 or 4 major grocery stores directly along the trail - some are situated with the entrance directly on the trail. It's hardly high-rise suburbia as Bike-Mike alluded, and there are plenty of other organic walkable areas directly on Marta, such as Decatur square.

High-rise suburbia adequately describes Buckhead, but not much else within the City of Atlanta.

LA does have smaller village type areas. They're not all on the wide streets. Even the wealthy areas like Pacific Palisades and Brentwood have their walkable commercial districts.
How is midtown Atlanta more walkable than downtown LA? Every street in the historic core/fashion district has storefronts like an east coast city. Walking from Arts District /Union Station to the Convention Center is a large area only the older, urban cities can exceed and LA's dense areas go far beyond that.

I looked at the belt line areas. They're fine, but small. I honestly dont see how these areas are more walkable than West Hollywood, Hollywood and the like.

[badrunner]

Yeah I don't get the LA Atlanta comparison at all. Anyone who thinks Atlanta is remotely as urban or vibrant as LA is clearly out of his mind. The beltline is cute and all, but it's not particularly urban or all that busy.

Meanwhile there are about dozen places like this in and around LA.
And if you don't like the freakshow and homeless head down to Manhattan or Huntington Beach.

• Video Link

[LA21st]

Yea, it seems some people on here like to downplay LA's stuff and then overplay other cities. I just stayed in Redondo/Hermosa for a few days and there's people everywhere on the waterfront. I forgot how busy that area is. And nobody really talks about these areas. Even "low key" places like Swatelle (Little Japan) is always vibrant with diners and such. Venice boardwalk is getting criticized for its homeless at the moment, but Abbot Kinney, Rose Ave and Washington Blvd are just as nice and vibrant as usual. There's just so many places to walk around in and because of all the new infill, more are being created. Places like Palms are being transformed like crazy.

Like Decatur looks nice for a suburb, but it's not Santa Monica, Pasadena, Glendale etc. I dont even know if it's Culver City-which is becoming a big thing in the last few years.

[strongbad635]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

I expect Atlanta and Dallas to get more redevelopment of shopping centers into midrise and highrise housing, similar to King of Prussia, Philadelphia or Tysons.

aka

KOP:

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0835...7i13312!8i6656

Similar to Harrison NJ

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7408...7i16384!8i8192

Similar to somewhere in Dallas

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.0008...7i16384!8i8192

Merrifield, Virginia (fairfax County, right outside of DC)

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8717...7i13312!8i6656

national harbor, DC

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.7840...!7i8704!8i4352

Columbus OH

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1023...7i16384!8i8192

this is the future of urbanism in this country, and happily, most of the new build units look like these.

This is simply amazing. I see KOP and think "ok, cool." Harrison, NJ: "ah, similar." Then I click Dallas and my first thought is "Holy f#%$balls, that road is SO wide and just blows the entire sense of spacial definition to pieces!" Second thought is "Oh yeah, the buildings are basically identical to KOP and Harrison, but the ridiculously wide street makes a real sense of place impossible to achieve."