The rising Western skyline

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Yeah I get that SJ is technically a "big city" but my point is that it isn't, really. It's part of the larger Bay Area, and the local "big city" is 50 miles north.

It would be like if you combined all of Long Island into a municpality, and then wondered why this "big city" of nearly 3 million doesn't have a "big downtown skyline". Because it isn't really a "big city".

If you are saying the Bay Area should be one big metro I'll agree with you again (this is getting crazy, all this agreement).

But so far Big Brother doesn't agree with either of us (that means he's wrong, of course, but what can we do?)

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by Boisebro

most intermountain west cities in the U.S. punch below their weight for cities of their size.

Phoenix, Salt Lake City, Albuquerque, El Paso, Fresno, Las Vegas, Boise, Reno, and Spokane -- you could easily argue their skylines are not as impressive as similarly-sized, older and more established cities in the east.

compare Boise to Des Moines, Rochester, or Little Rock, for example... Boise's skyline can't compare.

however... many of these so-called "flyover" cities are starting to develop taller, more dense skylines (when they can). to me, it's exciting to watch these cities start to come into their own.

Even LA has a skyline that is small for its size.

Its just a matter of western cities developing post car and thus less densely, thats all it is.

[mhays]

San Jose is a satellite of San Francisco, and it's definitely a secondary core along with Oakland.

Phoenix does have a tiny, tiny downtown for a city of five million.

Both seem to be filling in at a good clip though.

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by azliam

What? I'm not entitled to my opinion, but you are?

Where exactly did I say / type that you aren't entitled to your opinion? I'll wait.

Or, did I actually concur with your opinion, while also expanding on it to say it's even worse than you initially suggested?

Originally Posted by azliam

IMO, you're arguably the most annoying poster is this thread...

Aww. Did azliam get their feelings hurt? Considering I've posted literally once in this entire thread, IMO you're arguably the most sensitive.

[Mountain man]

Yimby fight!

[azliam]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

Where exactly did I say / type that you aren't entitled to your opinion? I'll wait.

Or, did I actually concur with your opinion, while also expanding on it to say it's even worse than you initially suggested?



Aww. Did azliam get their feelings hurt? Considering I've posted literally once in this entire thread, IMO you're arguably the most sensitive.

LOL - thanks so much for your insight. Funny how whenever someone from PHX speaks about PHX, you can always count on a random, pompous New Yorker who feels the need to clarify for the rest of us just how inferior PHX is without actually adding anything substantive to the conversation, all the while knowing that the city is actually putting forth an effort to turn around its downtown. We get it - it's never gonna be good enough for you and that's perfectly fine, but please stop pretending to know better than the people of Phoenix how Phoenix works, and how Phoenicians should think and live their lives. I believe most people couldn't care less, but there's always someone in NY who does and feels the need to chime in. It's super annoying and you just happened to be that winner today.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Yeah I get that SJ is technically a "big city" but my point is that it isn't, really. It's part of the larger Bay Area, and the local "big city" is 50 miles north.

It would be like if you combined all of Long Island into a municpality, and then wondered why this "big city" of nearly 3 million doesn't have a "big downtown skyline". Because it isn't really a "big city".

Long Island (even sans Brooklyn/ Queens) is huge in area compared to San Jose. The population of Chicago in an area 2x the size of Houston. Now if Hempstead were an actual city as opposed to a town, that too would be considered a 'big city'; the second largest in NYS after NYC itself.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by JManc

Long Island (even sans Brooklyn/ Queens) is huge in area compared to San Jose. The population of Chicago in an area 2x the size of Houston. Now if Hempstead were an actual city as opposed to a town, that too would be considered a 'big city'; the second largest in NYS after NYC itself.

Crawford tends to consider "big city" as in dense urban core city, not population This conversation has been had with him many times.

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Crawford tends to consider "big city" as in dense urban core city, not population This conversation has been had with him many times.

So from that perspective, the Detroit MSA (4,313,002) would adhere to his "big city" metrics, but the Riverside MSA (4,580,670) wouldn't?

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

So from that perspective, the Detroit MSA (4,313,002) would adhere to his "big city" metrics, but the Riverside MSA (4,580,670) wouldn't?

Its hard to say, from what I can tell Crawford only considers Chicago San Francisco, Seattle, NYC and Philly big cities or something to that effect.

[mhays]

San Jose's end of the Bay is PART of a big city...one centered in San Francisco.

Total coincidence, but I just spent 20 minutes listening to Peter Calithorpe at a lunch event in Seattle today. He didn't specifically agree with my point, but his talk had a lot about the whole SF (Bay) area working together. As with most things, it functions as a unit even if it's divided into administrative segments.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

So from that perspective, the Detroit MSA (4,313,002) would adhere to his "big city" metrics, but the Riverside MSA (4,580,670) wouldn't?

Is this a serious question? Detroit is the center of a major metropolis. Riverside isn't. It's essentially a San Jose.

Does anyone seriously ask "why isn't Riverside, CA building supertalls" and the like? It's commonly accepted that the IE is part of greater LA, or, at the least, part of the amorphous Southern CA population sprawl, rather than a traditional city.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Its hard to say, from what I can tell Crawford only considers Chicago San Francisco, Seattle, NYC and Philly big cities or something to that effect.

Ignorance is bliss, I guess. Thanks for our regular reminder.

[edale]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

So from that perspective, the Detroit MSA (4,313,002) would adhere to his "big city" metrics, but the Riverside MSA (4,580,670) wouldn't?

Huh? Are you trying to argue that Riverside is a big city? Riverside is somehow its own MSA, but it's almost entirely LA sprawl. The actual city center of Riverside (and San Bernardino) is tiny.

Detroit is a city. Riverside is an urbanized area, but not a city. In my opinion, Phoenix is more like a Riverside than a Detroit. There is a very small urban core, but outside of that, there is almost nothing resembling urban neighborhoods or a gradient of urbanism out from that core. The Phoenix area is a massive collection of suburbs with some higher density nodes scattered about throughout the metro. Somewhat like if Orange County existed in isolation and not in LA's shadow.

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by edale

Huh? Are you trying to argue that Riverside is a big city?

Merely asking a question isn't "trying to argue" anything.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Ignorance is bliss, I guess. Thanks for our regular reminder.

Ignorance to the way you think? I fully admit that it is bliss

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by edale

Riverside is an urbanized area, but not a city.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverside,_California

"Riverside is a city in Riverside County, California, United States, located in the Inland Empire metropolitan area."

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverside,_California

"Riverside is a city in Riverside County, California, United States, located in the Inland Empire metropolitan area."

I told you, its only a city if it has a dense urban core otherwise its a "who cares those people are dead to me"

[edale]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverside,_California

"Riverside is a city in Riverside County, California, United States, located in the Inland Empire metropolitan area."

Are you being intentionally obtuse, or have you never been to Riverside/the IE? Of course the municipality of Riverside is a city. It's a small city that is surrounded by sprawl from LA. That doesn't make it a city in the way we are talking about here.

This is downtown Riverside: https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9790...7i16384!8i8192

Does that look like the heart of a 4 million person MSA? No, of course it doesn't, because it isn't. Riverside doesn't have its own pro sports teams. It doesn't have any skyscrapers. It doesn't have its own TV stations. The Inland Empire doesn't exist because Riverside and San Bernardino became huge cities. It became a major population center because of LA sprawl.

This is the same argument Crawford was making with San Jose and San Francisco, though I think SJ is certainly more of a real city than Riverside. They have the San Jose Sharks and a decent city center, at least.

[The North One]

^ this

don't know why people are playing mental gymnastics.