What Happened to the American Boomtown?

[The North One]

Originally Posted by Crawford

You're projecting, yet again. If you think Baltimore has better urbanity than NYC, of all places, you're living in Trumpian opposite-land.

NYC is the only U.S. city that has world class urbanity. There are something like 4 million New Yorkers living in high density, transit-dominated census tracts, and in no other metro are there even 100k such residents.

You could combine the most urban tracts and rail ridership of every other American (and Canadian) metro and you still wouldn't assemble a city remotely comparable to NYC.

Projecting what exactly? You seem to like using that word, it's one of your mannerisms. It's pointless to argue your insane NYC boosterism but Boston's neighborhoods are older, much more human-scaled, have smaller streets and cater to the pedestrian in every way possible. The only thing comparable in New York is maybe East Village or Chelsea but Back Bay is a small step above those neighborhoods, so is the North End, Beacon Hill, etc. New York having the highest quantity doesn't mean much.

[mrnyc]

no, the east village isn't the only comparable thing, but you are trying to compare a handful of neighborhoods in various places to all of nyc. hell, dayton has a hip, old, walkable, human scaled, oregon district. i guess its a world class city (well, wait, militarily speaking it certainly is).

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

The article is focusing on city limits. Why? Obviously San Francisco's population would plateau out. Older established cities became built out in the early 20th century. America still has boom towns if you consider MSA's. Since the article mentioned Phoenix, a quick search reveals that it qualifies as a modern day boom town.

MSA figures:
1950 374,961 —
1960 726,183 93.7%
1970 1,039,807 43.2%
1980 1,599,970 53.9%
1990 2,238,480 39.9%
2000 3,251,876 45.3%
2010 4,192,887 28.9%
2015 4,574,531 9.1%

2020: 5 million?

Agreed. Atlanta's an even better example.

Despite the city's population remaining around 450,000 since the 1950s, the metro area's population has increased by nearly 5 million people since the 1970s. Back then, it was a sleepy and slow-paced southern town and irrelevant compared to the legacy big cities such as Detroit, Philly, Chicago, NYC.

Heck, the area I'm in (which is now a full fledged suburb of Atlanta) has undergone rapid development. Most likely, as recently as the 1990s, where I live was likely either woods or cotton fields.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Beacause you're an urbanist. The 99% of the planet that doesn't care about "N highrises per neighborhood" or "modal share of work commutes" would disagree with your singular focus on urbanity.

This is greatly over simplified. Not every urban neighborhood needs to look like Midtown. I agree that most people don't necessarily care to live in an environment like Manhattan, but I do think people appreciate them.

On the other hand, I don't know of many people who are enthusiastic about the built environment of Frisco, Texas. Truth be told, I think most people fall somewhere in the middle. People appreciate walkability and shopping/entertainment nearby. Suburbs of Chicago such as Arlington Heights have literally built downtown's from the ground up that are tremendously popular and frequented by people who live in MF housing downtown and those in the SFH neighborhoods surrounding it. There's a push for "more city in the burbs", but that doesn't necessarily mean everyone is looking to turn their quiet suburban town into Times Sq.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

no, the east village isn't the only comparable thing, but you are trying to compare a handful of neighborhoods in various places to all of nyc. hell, dayton has a hip, old, walkable, human scaled, oregon district. i guess its a world class city (well, wait, militarily speaking it certainly is).

You're making zero sense, how about enlightening me on the colonial neighborhoods of New York that look anything like Beacon Hill or the North End? Show me the narrow European-esque streets that are entirely dedicated to pedestrians that you find in Boston and Philly and yes Baltimore. I think there's one or two in Lower Manhatten that managed to survive but it's dark and dreary, surrounded by high-rises that block all sunlight, and it doesn't make for a neighborhood.

Nobody is denying that New York has the highest quantity but that doesn't make it the only world-class urban fabric in the US.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by The North One

You're making zero sense, how about enlightening me on the colonial neighborhoods of New York that look anything like Beacon Hill or the North End? Show me the narrow European-esque streets that are entirely dedicated to pedestrians that you find in Boston and Philly and yes Baltimore. I think there's one or two in Lower Manhatten that managed to survive but it's dark and dreary, surrounded by high-rises that block all sunlight, and it doesn't make for a neighborhood.

Nobody is denying that New York has the highest quantity but that doesn't make it the only world-class urban fabric in the US.

Your last statement is 100%. Crawford gonna Crawford.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by The North One

Projecting what exactly? You seem to like using that word, it's one of your mannerisms.

The word is entirely appropriate. See essentially all of your posts in this thread, which contain nothing but fantasy and absurd comparisons.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by The North One

You're making zero sense, how about enlightening me on the colonial neighborhoods of New York that look anything like Beacon Hill or the North End? Show me the narrow European-esque streets that are entirely dedicated to pedestrians that you find in Boston and Philly and yes Baltimore.

There are no colonial-era neighborhoods in any of these cities, really, but you probably knew that. And Beacon Hill is very different from North End so I have no idea what you're talking about.

If you're looking for prewar, pedestrian-oriented, small street neighborhoods of high density and transit orientation, easily 80-90% of such U.S. neighborhoods are in NYC, so obviously you're trolling. Just saying random stuff doesn't make it true.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by The North One

Projecting what exactly? You seem to like using that word, it's one of your mannerisms. It's pointless to argue your insane NYC boosterism but Boston's neighborhoods are older, much more human-scaled, have smaller streets and cater to the pedestrian in every way possible. The only thing comparable in New York is maybe East Village or Chelsea but Back Bay is a small step above those neighborhoods, so is the North End, Beacon Hill, etc. New York having the highest quantity doesn't mean much.

Have you explored much of Boston? Yes, it's a wonderful urban city...one of my favorites...right up there with NY but it was ravaged by urban renewal and probably half the original city was left intact. You pointed out the few remaining areas that weren't wiped out in the 60's and 70's.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

looks like houston has a good shot at being considered fully world class, whatever that means, at some point. i guess if their energy business continues to provide and the graph trend continues at that pace.

the second rung of boom cities is coming up too, and then there are always the regional capitals (like phoenix mentioned above, i was thinking of exactly that), so who is to say which or where makes a great leap forward again?

Houston already is world class unless your list is exclusive, which is fair btw.

[mhays]

In what way?

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by The North One

New York is the only city with world-class urbanity? That's ridiculous, Boston and Philly even Baltimore have better urban neighborhoods than New York City. Chicago is without a doubt world class urban, that's not even arguable.

Crawford troll logic at it's finest.

You didn't even mention Washington.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by JManc

Have you explored much of Boston? Yes, it's a wonderful urban city...one of my favorites...right up there with NY but it was ravaged by urban renewal and probably half the original city was left intact. You pointed out the few remaining areas that weren't wiped out in the 60's and 70's.

Yes I have, Boston might be carved up a bit but the city is filled with these colonial neighborhoods, it's not just a "few" neighborhoods.

Philly has even more and it's not as split up as Boston.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by Crawford

There are no colonial-era neighborhoods in any of these cities, really, but you probably knew that. And Beacon Hill is very different from North End so I have no idea what you're talking about.

Yeah, Boston and Philly and Baltimore totally have zero colonial neighborhoods, wa wa what?? Thanks for the 1984 doublethink.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The word is entirely appropriate. See essentially all of your posts in this thread, which contain nothing but fantasy and absurd comparisons.

You don't know what projection means, cute.

[dave8721]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

Las Vegas and Miami are forgettable places?

Just as an aside, it should be pointed at that Miami's biggest boom in % and even in raw numbers was actually between 1920-1930 when the city grew by 274% adding over 81,000 people, the most the city ever added in any decade. Of course city limits data is silly but that's what the article uses.

[Crawford]

Vegas and Miami are two of the most distinctive metros in North America, IMO.

They aren't my favorites, but I don't think it can't be argued that they don't have a unique sense of place.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

World class is subjective.

No, it's really not subjective. One can create a subjective definition and call it "world-class," but it is just as easy - and arguably easier - to create and apply an objective definition of "world-class."

Originally Posted by JManc

Have you explored much of Boston? Yes, it's a wonderful urban city...one of my favorites...right up there with NY but it was ravaged by urban renewal and probably half the original city was left intact. You pointed out the few remaining areas that weren't wiped out in the 60's and 70's.

Boston has suffered a great many indignities. I like it well enough, but in truth I like Chicago better.

[Vlajos]

Vegas is one of the worst places. It's repulsive.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by emathias

No, it's really not subjective. One can create a subjective definition and call it "world-class," but it is just as easy - and arguably easier - to create and apply an objective definition of "world-class."



Boston has suffered a great many indignities. I like it well enough, but in truth I like Chicago better.

I love Chicago too but: