Southern cities with a "big city" feel?

[Segun]

Originally Posted by LA21st

I felt Union Square area was more chaotic than anywhere in Chicago. Only Manhattan felt more nuts. Well, Vegas, butt that's a different ball game.

NYC
SF/Vegas (sort of)
Chicago
Boston/Philly

Coming from Chicago, I feel the opposite. The traffic in Union Square didn't compare to Michigan Avenue. Michigan Avenue has sidewalks twice the size of Union Square, that are usually packed side to side for the whole stretch, whereas Union Square is a single block. Every time I visit SF, it feels like the greatest concentration of people is always on Market, near the Cable Car. I feel like downtown Chicago has a greater amount of people sustained over a larger area too, especially adding in S.Michigan Avenue, Millennium Park, and State Street. Also, SF doesn't have quite near the amount of transit riders piling out of stations like Chicago, being its not a hub on the same level.

SF flows into its neighborhoods better, and has a lot more small specialized businesses and boutique hotels that cater to upscale tourists. It feels more relaxed and European in that regard. It's cozier than Chicago, and not as fast paced.

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

Atlanta felt quiet, rural and slow by comparison, which was odd, because I generally feel Atlanta's pace to be decent / acceptable.

I think one's perspective on this probably depends on your social position.

I'd argue Atlanta is the epicenter of black affluence in the United States. It is also a very gay city. If you are black, or gay, or black and gay, it is an incredible place to be and to socialize I'd say the most vibrant neighborhoods in Atlanta cater to the aforementioned groups.

If you're a cis-hetero white man, you're more likely to experience Atlanta the way a white man experiences Charlotte or Nashville. That is to say, rather blandly. You're probably not hanging out in the bars or restaurants in Midtown or West Midtown or even East Atlanta Village or the West End...and thus you're not really experiencing Atlanta.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by Segun

Coming from Chicago, I feel the opposite. The traffic in Union Square didn't compare to Michigan Avenue. Michigan Avenue has sidewalks twice the size of Union Square, that are usually packed side to side for the whole stretch, whereas Union Square is a single block. Every time I visit SF, it feels like the greatest concentration of people is always on Market, near the Cable Car. I feel like downtown Chicago has a greater amount of people sustained over a larger area too, especially adding in S.Michigan Avenue, Millennium Park, and State Street. Also, SF doesn't have quite near the amount of transit riders piling out of stations like Chicago, being its not a hub on the same level.

SF flows into its neighborhoods better, and has a lot more small specialized businesses and boutique hotels that cater to upscale tourists. It feels more relaxed and European in that regard. It's cozier than Chicago, and not as fast paced.

I worked at LaSalle and Washington for 10 years. Lived next to Michigan and Delaware for 3.
Union Square is more than a block, and unlike Michigan Ave, the retail is spread out over several streets, leading to more consistent activity. Chicago is larger, but the quieter side streets in places can't be ignored . I guess union sq benefits for being more compact.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

As someone who worked in the heart of San Francisco's financial district for four years, I can say without hesitation that it is a ghost town after 6 p.m.

Assuming by "shopping areas" you're referring to either San Francisco's Union Square or the adjacent portion of Market Street, yes, they both have more pedestrian foot traffic than the San Francisco financial district, but to say either is almost "NYC like" is a bit of a stretch.

Maybe I've been there on very busy days. Union sq reminded me of nyc than anywhere else, block to block.

[wwmiv]

IMHO

Washington, D.C. (if anyone still considers that southern...)
Miami
Atlanta
Houston
Dallas
...
Austin-ish

Nowhere else.

[JManc]

Union Sq does have somewhat of a 5th Ave vibe. Minus the Powell St cable car turnaround..

[edale]

Originally Posted by Segun

Coming from Chicago, I feel the opposite. The traffic in Union Square didn't compare to Michigan Avenue. Michigan Avenue has sidewalks twice the size of Union Square, that are usually packed side to side for the whole stretch, whereas Union Square is a single block. Every time I visit SF, it feels like the greatest concentration of people is always on Market, near the Cable Car. I feel like downtown Chicago has a greater amount of people sustained over a larger area too, especially adding in S.Michigan Avenue, Millennium Park, and State Street. Also, SF doesn't have quite near the amount of transit riders piling out of stations like Chicago, being its not a hub on the same level.

SF flows into its neighborhoods better, and has a lot more small specialized businesses and boutique hotels that cater to upscale tourists. It feels more relaxed and European in that regard. It's cozier than Chicago, and not as fast paced.

I think the thing that makes the Union Square area of SF feel busier to me is how 'tight' the whole area is. The streets and sidewalks are pretty narrow, buildings are built at no setback, and the hills make some blocks feel contained in a way. Chicago's Michigan Ave has such wide streets and sidewalks, blocks are longer, buildings are more monumental and less fine grained, and of course it's relentlessly flat, so it feels more...open. Don't get me wrong, the throngs of people on Michigan definitely gives you the feeling of being in a big city, but it seems to lack some of the chaos and overwhelming feeling that I've got in SF or NYC.

Maybe we could split the difference and say that Union Square in SF feels sort of like SoHo, while Michigan in Chicago feels more like 5th Ave.

Union Square
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7874...7i13312!8i6656

SoHo
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7246...7i16384!8i8192

Mag Mile
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8941...7i16384!8i8192

5th Ave
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7599...7i16384!8i8192

....and no southern city comes close to having anything remotely similar to any of these environments in terms of built density, transit, pedestrian traffic, or urban retail (non-mall) offerings.

[JMKeynes]

Chicago is a very nice city, but I think that SF is significantly better.

Also, no Southern City feels urban. I think that Charleston and Savannah feel more urban than Charlotte or Atlanta. Charlotte and Atlanta remind me of large versions of White Plains or Stamford, Ct.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by edale

I think the thing that makes the Union Square area of SF feel busier to me is how 'tight' the whole area is. The streets and sidewalks are pretty narrow, buildings are built at no setback, and the hills make some blocks feel contained in a way. Chicago's Michigan Ave has such wide streets and sidewalks, blocks are longer, buildings are more monumental and less fine grained, and of course it's relentlessly flat, so it feels more...open. Don't get me wrong, the throngs of people on Michigan definitely gives you the feeling of being in a big city, but it seems to lack some of the chaos and overwhelming feeling that I've got in SF or NYC.

Maybe we could split the difference and say that Union Square in SF feels sort of like SoHo, while Michigan in Chicago feels more like 5th Ave.

Union Square
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7874...7i13312!8i6656

SoHo
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7246...7i16384!8i8192

Mag Mile
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8941...7i16384!8i8192

5th Ave
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7599...7i16384!8i8192

....and no southern city comes close to having anything remotely similar to any of these environments in terms of built density, transit, pedestrian traffic, or urban retail (non-mall) offerings.

That's my feel. Less chaotic is a good way to put it. Maybe it's the residential density that makes more frantic, I don't know. But there is a difference.
I walked through River North, literally thousands of times. It has more skyscrapers for sure, but there's less retail and restaurants in general than that Union Square area.
If you want to get off busy Michigan Ave for a quieter street like Superior or Huron, or Erie, you can. Even parts of Dearborn or Clark in those areas area aren't that vibrant.
But in the Union Square area, every street you turned, was packed with people.

That said, the Loop is much more vibrant than SF financial district and SOMA, especially during rush hour.

[Minato Ku]

Does New Orleans count?
When I visited the United States 5 years ago, I went from Boston to Houston (with stop at New York City, Philadelphia, Washington DC, Charlotte, Atlanta, Mobile, New Orleans, Lafayette and Houston.
Among the cities I have visited in the south NOLA felt most "urban" and with the heaviest pedestrian traffic. Especially Canal street.

[ATXboom]

Urban Chicago is much larger than SF... whether by population, square footage of the built environment or just plain area. The entire city of SF would fit in the urban core of Chicago. While SF is great, there is as big a leap to Chicago as there is Chicago to NYC.

[dubu]

there are some cool places in the south like nw arkansas and northern arizona. some day they will probably get a big city. ive never been to the south other then southern california (i think all of cali is called the west coast) ive just heard about the south from people ive met on the internet. they are nice people. like over here, boise gets 0 or 1 murders a year. its not just the people, its mostly the energy. thats why there are big parties in nevada, lighter energy. i guess that why so many people have families in my city. they move from la or sf ect to here, i want to live here but i also want to live in a non family city. oh well, ill have to wait.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

IMHO

Washington, D.C. (if anyone still considers that southern...)
Miami
Atlanta
Houston
Dallas
...
Austin-ish

Nowhere else.

It's certainly arguable whether or not DC is Southern. I don't really think it's "the South" in a historical or present-day context. But if it is, then yeah, it obviously qualifies as having that "big city feel".

The others listed above are just very suburban cities to me. They're all obviously big cities, but I get a more sprawling "big place" feel

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

Also, no Southern City feels urban. I think that Charleston and Savannah feel more urban than Charlotte or Atlanta. Charlotte and Atlanta remind me of large versions of White Plains or Stamford, Ct.

I think New Orleans absolutely feels urban. Because it is urban like northern cities are. Multi-gridded and jam-packed and historic/ethnic-neighborhood-oriented.

It feels like a northern Catholic blue-collar industrial port city plopped down in the Deepest South with a French-Spanish-Afro-Caribbean vibe.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by ATXboom

Urban Chicago is much larger than SF... whether by population, square footage of the built environment or just plain area. The entire city of SF would fit in the urban core of Chicago. While SF is great, there is as big a leap to Chicago as there is Chicago to NYC.

Actually, SF has a larger population living in high densities than Chicago. Something like 100k in SF and 80k in Chicago. They're pretty similar in terms of intense built environment, though expressed in different forms.

Chicago is just a much larger, grander, more complete city, though, and a much bigger cultural heavyweight. SF is better at street level, though, and has a closer feel to the Eastern cities.

[Buckeye Native 001]

Originally Posted by dubu

there are some cool places in the south like nw arkansas and northern arizona. some day they will probably get a big city.

Flagstaff resident/Northern Arizonan here. Flagstaff is already too big and can't keep up with the infrastructure required to support a growing city. Add water (or lack thereof) supply issues and the fact that we're one errant spark away from a massive forest fire, it gets a hell of a lot less appealing.

Prescott/Prescott Valley, Williams and Winslow also suffer from a lot of the same issues.

Also, unlike NW Arkansas, there's no major industry or corporate presence.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by ATXboom

Urban Chicago is much larger than SF... whether by population, square footage of the built environment or just plain area. The entire city of SF would fit in the urban core of Chicago. While SF is great, there is as big a leap to Chicago as there is Chicago to NYC.

Of course it's much larger. I was talking about a specific area that stood out.

[The North One]

Michigan Avenue needs to get rid of that pointless median and expand the sidewalks, it would be a massive improvement and make it feel so much more urban.

[JMKeynes]

Originally Posted by pj3000

It's certainly arguable whether or not DC is Southern. I don't really think it's "the South" in a historical or present-day context. But if it is, then yeah, it obviously qualifies as having that "big city feel".

The others listed above are just very suburban cities to me. They're all obviously big cities, but I get a more sprawling "big place" feel



I think New Orleans absolutely feels urban. Because it is urban like northern cities are. Multi-gridded and jam-packed and historic/ethnic-neighborhood-oriented.

It feels like a northern Catholic blue-collar industrial port city plopped down in the Deepest South with a French-Spanish-Afro-Caribbean vibe.

I agree about New Orleans.

Other than Charleston, Savannah, Nsshville, and New Orleans, Southern cities are crap. Atlanta and Charlotte are ridiculously boring. They're like office parks.

[eschaton]

New Orleans feels like a "big city" because it is so much older than any other southern city (discounting DC, and Baltimore, if you want to count those). It was still the 12th largest city in 1900, with 287,000 people. Besides that there was just Louisville (205,000) at number 18. Memphis came next, at 102,000 and number 37 (oddly, none of 19th century Memphis seems to have survived). No other southern city cracked 100,000, though of course there were small urban cores in cities like Savannah, Charleston, and Richmond which survived through to the present.

Basically though, most of the U.S. stopped building new urban neighborhoods around 1900, when new development transitioned to "streetcar suburbia." Urban development continued decades longer in the megacities like NYC, Philly, and San Francisco, but everywhere else transitioned to block after block of bungalows and foursquares on decent-sized plots of land, before moving to more classic suburbia in the postwar era.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Basically though, most of the U.S. stopped building new urban neighborhoods around 1900, when new development transitioned to "streetcar suburbia." Urban development continued decades longer in the megacities like NYC, Philly, and San Francisco, but everywhere else transitioned to block after block of bungalows and foursquares on decent-sized plots of land, before moving to more classic suburbia in the postwar era.

and some cities, like chicago, we're building plenty of both in the early 20th century.

the suburban neighborhood i grew up in was primarily built out 1900 - 1920 with SFH homes on 50'x150' lots. it is very "streetcar suburbia" in look, if not in actual function (@ 14 miles north of the loop, it was too far for the street cars of the city to reach; instead, it had el train and commuter rail access to the loop).

the city neighborhood i now live in was also primarily built out 1900 - 1920, but with much higher density - 2-flats, 3-flats, 6-flats, courtyard & corner apartment buildings, etc., along with some bungalows and other SFH mixed in.

both were built-out at the exact same period of time, and as products of that era, they're both also are very leafy and green and pleasant, but the latter is roughly 4x more densely populated than the former, and is thus much more urban in function.


typical street where i grew up (tract density: ~6,500 ppsm) - https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0700...7i16384!8i8192

typical street where i now live (tract density: ~25,700 ppsm) - https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9667...7i16384!8i8192