# What do you consider an urban city



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

Because they closed my last thread because it apparently was "city vs city" i want to make a new thread which talks about urbanity.i just think we should debate about urbanity in general,and compare different types of cities to each other,but NOT make it city vs city please!so what are your thoughts about this?which cities can serve as an example of well-thought urbanity?factors to include are:good city planning,population and building density,good and big PT systems,good transportation systems(streets and airports) and also the aesthetic appearance of the city...so again the question is not really which city is the best,but what type of city is the best!


----------



## FMR-STL (Dec 1, 2006)

The crime, corruption or terrorism doesn't make for a great city..! Parks, entertainment and a place to call home are high on the list.. :cheers:


----------



## LMCA1990 (Jun 18, 2005)

maimi-dade is pretty suburban (minus downtown).


----------



## Yardmaster (Jun 1, 2004)

Is there such a thing as a non-urban city?


----------



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

Yardmaster said:


> Is there such a thing as a non-urban city?


yes...for example most american cities are compared to european cities non-urban,because most of the cityscape is made out of one-family and rowhouses...especially LA is like that!a good example of an urban city would be IMO aris for a historic ,but still very good urban city with its big boulevards,19th century apartment buildings,and its parks...berlin is a good example for a modern european urban city,same goes for vienna!


----------



## RawLee (Jul 9, 2007)

Yardmaster said:


> Is there such a thing as a non-urban city?


Of course.Like this:
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=15371249&postcount=13
This city has ~5000 inhabitants,thus earning the status of city(at least,here).


----------



## Yardmaster (Jun 1, 2004)

^^ We would call it a "town".

Sorry, English semantics.


----------



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

well,i meant to show examples of citys and discuss the differences between them,and then discuss what the best urban style of a city is!


----------



## Yardmaster (Jun 1, 2004)

^^ no worries: nice town! 

Like I said, English (or maybe Australian) semantics: next time I go downthe country I'll check out what the folks there think is "urban".


----------



## oliver999 (Aug 4, 2006)

Yardmaster said:


> Is there such a thing as a non-urban city?


lol, maybe there are some no "surburb" cities.


----------



## gladisimo (Dec 11, 2006)

The definition differs for everyone. 

I remember distinctly that many people considered Berkeley to be an urban setting when I first went there. Probably because my perceptions have been skewed from Hong Kong (I lived half my life there), I didn't consider it to be urban at all.

Another distinct memory is a kid online who lived in a town of 5,000 people, in the wine country. To him, my humble suburb seemed urban (with a population of 30,000). I can only imagine what he would classify Hong Kong or Manhattan as.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

Urban would describe dense groupings of buildings that meet the sidewalk with no grounds to speak of. Wide sidewalks, roads that break often for stop signs or traffic lights, thus, allowing limited speed. Green spaces that are designed parks rather than simply patches of grass. No detached or semi-detached residential housing. A city with a plethora of galleries, cinemas, theatres, sports infrastructure, colleges and universities, offices, condos, retail, clubs, pubs, restaurants, public squares, abundant taxis, suburban rail service that runs at least every 10 minutes, a dedicated rail line to the airport, water routes if waterways exist, a subway stop every 6-7 blocks in every direction, 24 hour bus service, and a city where you can shop or be entertained 24 hours/day.

If any of these criteria are not met, the city is less urban. The fewer that are met, the more a city departs from my definition of urban space.


----------



## DanielFigFoz (Mar 10, 2007)

To me Urban is mabye a place with well it's a place where people live and well more than a few houses.


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_area


----------



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

isaidso said:


> Urban would describe dense groupings of buildings that meet the sidewalk with no grounds to speak of. Wide sidewalks, roads that break often for stop signs or traffic lights, thus, allowing limited speed. Green spaces that are designed parks rather than simply patches of grass. No detached or semi-detached residential housing. A city with a plethora of galleries, cinemas, theatres, sports infrastructure, colleges and universities, offices, condos, retail, clubs, pubs, restaurants, public squares, abundant taxis, suburban rail service that runs at least every 10 minutes, a dedicated rail line to the airport, water routes if waterways exist, a subway stop every 6-7 blocks in every direction, 24 hour bus service, and a city where you can shop or be entertained 24 hours/day.
> 
> If any of these criteria are not met, the city is less urban. The fewer that are met, the more a city departs from my definition of urban space.


Toronto doesn't meet a lot of those factors(no rail to airport,lots of semi and detachede buildings in the city!),Munich meets almost every of those...when the transrapid will be finished in 2012 it willl be an almost perfect urban city IMO


----------



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

for me real urbanity means that the city is designed in a way which encourages density,which has mixed buildings(mostly midrise though),where you can find a lot of architectural styles,which has a modern centre(doesnt necessarily to be downtown though),and a good and extensive PT network which includes:subway,Suburban trains,trams and buses!(both),and an extensive and intelligently designed street network,which includes highways,boulevards but also should be designed to give pedestrians enough room...i believe many,if not most european cities fit this description,but a lot of North american cities don't...i don't know about asian or South american cities,maybe somebody could give some infos about this cities?


----------



## hudkina (Oct 28, 2003)

I understand that Munich has a large, beautiful historic core with lots of lovely traditional "European" architecture, but the idea that Munich or any European city doesn't have supposedly "American"-style sprawl is ridiculous.

All three of the following images show Munich neighborhoods that are only a few kilometers from the city center.



























According to your definition, a significant chunk of Munich's urban area isn't even close to being urban. In fact, I would venture to say that most people who live in Munich aren't living in an urban environment, according to your standards.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

A place with a lot of people.


----------



## PedroGabriel (Feb 5, 2007)

Yardmaster said:


> Is there such a thing as a non-urban city?


nope. Meaninless thread.


----------



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

hudkina said:


> I understand that Munich has a large, beautiful historic core with lots of lovely traditional "European" architecture, but the idea that Munich or any European city doesn't have supposedly "American"-style sprawl is ridiculous.
> 
> All three of the following images show Munich neighborhoods that are only a few kilometers from the city center.
> 
> ...


well,the 2nd picture is definetily urban...in america it would be considered very urban i believe..the 1st pic are gardens with huts,but no houses so i dont know what you can consider them..the 3rd pic i would consider semi-urban since it also includes some appartment buildings!


----------



## MDguy (Dec 16, 2006)

I think that baltimore is an urban American city










would you agree?


----------



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

MDguy said:


> I think that baltimore is an urban American city
> 
> 
> 
> ...


maybe more than some other,but sorry still no coomparison to most european cities of similar size..sure it has a lot of rowhouses,but a lot of the city is dilapidated,i doonno about PT but guess it isn't so great...so still not really what i consider to be a prime city for urbanity...


----------



## svs (Dec 5, 2005)

An "urban city" is an oxymoron. All cities are "urban" by definition. Houston is as "urban" as Tokyo. This typre of thread is a waste of time.


----------



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

svs said:


> An "urban city" is an oxymoron. All cities are "urban" by definition. Houston is as "urban" as Tokyo. This typre of thread is a waste of time.


no it isn't..well some people don't seem to listen,ok?


----------



## Xelebes (Apr 1, 2007)

OMH said:


> maybe more than some other,but sorry still no coomparison to most european cities of similar size..sure it has a lot of rowhouses,but a lot of the city is dilapidated,i doonno about PT but guess it isn't so great...so still not really what i consider to be a prime city for urbanity...


The vibrancy of a community does not determine the urbanity of a community. Urbanity refers to the built-up structure and infrastructure - an abandoned city would be even more urban than a thriving village.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

svs said:


> An "urban city" is an oxymoron. All cities are "urban" by definition. Houston is as "urban" as Tokyo. This typre of thread is a waste of time.


That's not how most people use the word "urban". Urbanity comes in different styles, and there's also "more urban" and "less urban".


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

OMH said:


> well..atmosphere maybe but a really urban feeling only comes up in the downtown with high buildings IMO


I think this is definitely a America-centric opinion. You definitely dont need highrises for a real urban feeling. 

Actually those areas in the American cities I have been to, that had the most urban feeling often, where totally low rise districts....

The central business district only too often is just a working place where people exclusively rush through...


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

MDguy said:


> I think that baltimore is an urban American city
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Looks fine actually  
If there is some life in the mainstreets there I have no problem to agree with you that this looks urban.

How is the PT system there?


----------



## DanielFigFoz (Mar 10, 2007)

In Portugal urban is officialy +10 000


----------



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

Xelebes said:


> The vibrancy of a community does not determine the urbanity of a community. Urbanity refers to the built-up structure and infrastructure - an abandoned city would be even more urban than a thriving village.


yes,i agree-this is why even russian cities thend to be more urban than NA cities!(even if they're dying)


----------



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

Slartibartfas said:


> I think this is definitely a America-centric opinion. You definitely dont need highrises for a real urban feeling.
> 
> Actually those areas in the American cities I have been to, that had the most urban feeling often, where totally low rise districts....
> 
> The central business district only too often is just a working place where people exclusively rush through...


in amrica i mean..how somebody explained,you get a urban feeling mostly with the buildings,and not necessarily just the "bustle,which you might consider urban-even an restaurant in the alps can be very lively and loud in the winter,but it certainly hasn't an urban feeling to it!


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

An urban city is just a built-up environment with a lot of people.

All this stuff about skylines, activity, public transportation, and development pattern ties into urbanity, but it can't be the "be-all and end-all" of considering what is an urban city and what is not. That ties into personal tastes and opinions.


----------



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

TenRot said:


> An urban city is just a built-up environment with a lot of people.
> 
> All this stuff about skylines, activity, public transportation, and development pattern ties into urbanity, but it can't be the "be-all and end-all" of considering what is an urban city and what is not. That ties into personal tastes and opinions.


NO,NOT REALLY..SORRY ,but a city full of one-family houses (like some Us suburb0 can't be considered more urban than a city of similar size which has a historic center and mostly is made out of apartment blocks and some rowhouses!!


----------



## hudkina (Oct 28, 2003)

I'm curious as to why you think a city with single-family homes can't be just as urban as a city with rowhouses or even apartment complexes.

Hamtramck is a suburb of Detroit, Michigan that is primarily made up of single-family homes. In 1930, when it reached its peak population the city had over 56,000 people in an area of 2.1 square miles. That's about 27,000 people per square mile (or about 10,500 per square kilometer). While the population is about half of that today, it still is a relatively dense city. The city is very walkable with commercial districts every few blocks.

single-family homes in Hamtramck:

































Commercial districts are accessible from all over the city:









































Just because a city may primarily be single-family homes, doesn't mean that it is not urban. (Unless, of course, you don't think those are pictures of an urban city.)


----------



## DanielFigFoz (Mar 10, 2007)

Hamtrack is urban and beautiful.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

OMH said:


> Toronto doesn't meet a lot of those factors(no rail to airport,lots of semi and detachede buildings in the city!),Munich meets almost every of those...when the transrapid will be finished in 2012 it willl be an almost perfect urban city IMO


Why do you think that just because I am from Toronto that I think Toronto is the pinnacle of urban space? I don't. People are capable of objectivity you know. Never been to Munich, but it wouldn't surprise me if Munich met most of my criteria.

Toronto is rapidly getting closer and closer to my urban ideal, but isn't there yet. The central city is booming, densifying, and building alot of cultural assets. A dedicated rail line to the airport is crucial, and 2-3 more subway lines in the core are needed. Toronto should come close to satisfying all of my criteria within the next 20 years or so.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

TenRot said:


> An urban city is just a built-up environment with a lot of people.
> 
> All this stuff about skylines, activity, public transportation, and development pattern ties into urbanity, but it can't be the "be-all and end-all" of considering what is an urban city and what is not. That ties into personal tastes and opinions.


Thats not my opinion.
Actually you can have lots of people in a place and still not a single of the advantages of urbanity due to bad city planning. 

Well its certainly a matter of definition, but in my opinion urbanity has to do with a different life style. And the predominant life style in classic spread out, function seperated suburbs does not belong to what I consider "urban".


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

hudkina said:


> I'm curious as to why you think a city with single-family homes can't be just as urban as a city with rowhouses or even apartment complexes.
> 
> Hamtramck is a suburb of Detroit, Michigan that is primarily made up of single-family homes. In 1930, when it reached its peak population the city had over 56,000 people in an area of 2.1 square miles. That's about 27,000 people per square mile (or about 10,500 per square kilometer). While the population is about half of that today, it still is a relatively dense city. The city is very walkable with commercial districts every few blocks.
> 
> ...


Never said that single family homes can't have a good layout. They dont have to be those mono-use deserts. 

Penn Ave near Reading in Pensylvania has also a comparable character. But what irritated me was that on an entire km you had a lot shops for different stuff and accessoiries, also some restaurants etc, but not a single crocery or food store... 

And to be honest, for being a place to shop, you did not see many people at all walking around. Well, perhaps, everyone gets there by car... hno: 


Normally the east coast is considered the least car dependent region in the US. At least I believe so, maybe I am wrong? But the suburbs there are as car dependant as it could get. And funnily even if they would not have to be that way, they still are. That means it was only a walk of 20 min from the house to the city center, but the reactions of locals was reaching from calling us the hero of the day for walking that distance and not driving it, to asking in disbelieve if it is really possible to walk to the city center from there.


----------



## Chicagoflo (Oct 8, 2007)

A place with skyscrapers der lol...


----------



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

hudkina said:


> I'm curious as to why you think a city with single-family homes can't be just as urban as a city with rowhouses or even apartment complexes.
> 
> Hamtramck is a suburb of Detroit, Michigan that is primarily made up of single-family homes. In 1930, when it reached its peak population the city had over 56,000 people in an area of 2.1 square miles. That's about 27,000 people per square mile (or about 10,500 per square kilometer). While the population is about half of that today, it still is a relatively dense city. The city is very walkable with commercial districts every few blocks.
> 
> ...


no...apartments are just more urban than single-family homes..it may be dense,but still it isn't urban!!


----------



## hudkina (Oct 28, 2003)

*OMH*, have you ever been to the U.S.? It seems that you have the opinion that American cities are nothing but office parks surrounded by sprawling McMansions. You think that just because American cities don't look exactly like European cities, they provide an inferior urban experience. That's like me saying that European cities aren't as good as American cities because they don't offer this:









ifmuth

Also, there are quite a few American cities that offer an urban experience comparable to Europe, despite having a different style of architecture. Sure most would think of New York and Chicago, but several others include:

San Francisco:








Gajanan Adalinge

Boston:








LaneMahan

Philadelphia:








abrin523

New Orleans:








NCB641

Cincinnati:








Joe Dunckley

And there are tons more such as St. Louis, Cleveland, Baltimore, Detroit, etc.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

-Akira- said:


> @ Slartibartfas: I think it just interrupts the flow of a thread. Imagine if everyone posted 3 or 4 times in a row...we'd have to seek through pages and pages just to get through the thread. Multiple quoting within your _single_ post is just as easy as making three posts. This is surprisingly the ONLY site I have ever seen people do this on, and I am on literally 100s of different forums.


You make a good point, its about pages. I'll try to change my habits on this...




hudkina said:


> *OMH*, have you ever been to the U.S.? It seems that you have the opinion that American cities are nothing but office parks surrounded by sprawling McMansions. You think that just because American cities don't look exactly like European cities, they provide an inferior urban experience. That's like me saying that European cities aren't as good as American cities because they don't offer this:
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


I guess Boston is anyway the most European city in the US, but I have never been to it.

Philadelphia is a city where I can definitely confirm that it has nice urban charm. I could use even the PT system even though I did not live that centrally. 

But I guess the problem is that even around those very urban old style cities suburbs developed who stand in hardly any connection to the city cores anymore. I saw also east coast cities, where inhabitants of the suburbs really evade going to the urban city cores as far as they can. Also suburbs that are in walking distance to the city center...


----------



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

-Akira- said:


> @ Slartibartfas: I think it just interrupts the flow of a thread. Imagine if everyone posted 3 or 4 times in a row...we'd have to seek through pages and pages just to get through the thread. Multiple quoting within your _single_ post is just as easy as making three posts. This is surprisingly the ONLY site I have ever seen people do this on, and I am on literally 100s of different forums.
> 
> @ OMH: ok, so now you are dictating where single family houses should be? Ever seen single family houses in NYC? In Chicago? There are lots, believe me. Does this make NYC, one of the greatest urban environments in the world, less urban? Again, I said that I agree that multistory apartments looks and feels more urban, but single family houses can feel urban as well.
> 
> Chicago bungalow neighborhood:


doesn't feel urban,feels very suburban IMO...


----------



## Xelebes (Apr 1, 2007)

OMH said:


> doesn't feel urban,feels very suburban IMO...this is the problem with many US and canadian cities...


Looks similar to London, to be honest.


----------



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

hudkina said:


> *OMH*, have you ever been to the U.S.? It seems that you have the opinion that American cities are nothing but office parks surrounded by sprawling McMansions. You think that just because American cities don't look exactly like European cities, they provide an inferior urban experience. That's like me saying that European cities aren't as good as American cities because they don't offer this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


well...ist a different style of urbanity,i agree...but i still prefer the european type of urbanity with streets lined with 19-20th century 6-9 floor apartment buildings and i would say its also more urban
sure european cities also have more than that ,but its the most dominant form of buildings in the inner city!


----------



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

Xelebes said:


> Looks similar to London, to be honest.


maybe...i dont know,but it certainly isn't "urban: at all!


----------



## Xelebes (Apr 1, 2007)

OMH said:


> maybe...i dont know,but it certainly isn't "urban: at all!


Mmkay.


----------



## Northsider (Jan 16, 2006)

airsound said:


> ^^ That doesn't feel urban at all, where are the people, and where are the shops??...
> 
> Anyway i don't agree with OMH about the baltimore pic, i think it looks very urban and have a very good density.


Umm, the shops are down the street and the people are at work...I dunno. Not every neighborhood has muli-use 12 story apartments lining the streets with bustling street activity. If you define urban as that, no city in NA falls into that "urban" category. Not every city looks like Tokyo or HK


----------



## hudkina (Oct 28, 2003)

OMH said:


> well...ist a different style of urbanity,i agree...but i still prefer the european type of urbanity with streets lined with 19-20th century 56-9 floor apartment buildings and i would say its also more urban
> sure european cities also have more than that ,but its the most dominant form of buildings in the inner city!


That's pefectly fine to prefer the style of architecture predominant in Europe, but just because you prefer one style doesn't mean the other style is not "urban" in its own sense.


----------



## spongeg (May 1, 2006)

to me urban is something that is not rural

you have rural, urban and suburban areas - suburban being a mix of urban and rural


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

spongeg said:


> to me urban is something that is not rural
> 
> you have rural, urban and suburban areas - *suburban being a mix of urban and rural*


That's not quite what "suburban" means. It's not an apartment building next to a corn field.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

OMH said:


> well...ist a different style of urbanity,i agree...but i still prefer the european type of urbanity with streets lined with 19-20th century 56-9 floor apartment buildings and i would say its also more urban
> sure european cities also have more than that ,but its the most dominant form of buildings in the inner city!


Thats true about Euro cities but mostly those of Western Europe. Eastern European cities like Warsaw and Moscow have a different layout.

Arguebly, I find *Asian cities* the most urban.


----------



## Northsider (Jan 16, 2006)

WANCH said:


> Arguebly, I find *Asian cities* the most urban.


I'd agree with that. I also find that 3rd world cities in general to be the most urban.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

-Akira- said:


> I'd agree with that. I also find that 3rd world cities in general to be the most urban.


Here's how I see it, Asian cities especially in The Far East can be classified to 3 categories.

The first are the cities of Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. Their urban planning is similar in a way. Its a sea of mostly mid-rise buildings with some high-rises scattered around. 

Then you have the Chinese cities where the cityscape is mostly high-rise flats and office buildings. 

Third you have the South East Asian cities. They are similar to US cities in a way with low-rise suburbs and high-rise city centres or CBDs.


----------



## James Saito (Nov 6, 2002)

Tokyo must be the most urban city by far.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

James Saito said:


> Tokyo must be the most urban city by far.


It's the largest. Also has a large urban sprawl, fast-paced way of life and vibrant nightlife.


----------



## Delirium (Oct 8, 2005)

OMH said:


> no...apartments are just more urban than single-family homes..it may be dense,*but still it isn't urban*!!


disagree with this bit, unless you mean detached housing, but even then...


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

hudkina said:


> That's pefectly fine to prefer the style of architecture predominant in Europe, but just because you prefer one style doesn't mean the other style is not "urban" in its own sense.


I dont know what OMH thinks, and probably I disagree with him on many aspects here as well, but I have to contest this remark.

Its totally insignificant if the buildings are all of similar height or not (like in many European city centers) or if they are baroque, classicist, historicist ...

Its not about styles of the facades, its about how a city functions. And in this regard the question if an area is multifunction or not is a very important one that goes far beyond "style" and affects the entire city in nearly all aspects profoundly. 

Its more than a blunt question of "I like yellow more than red". Urbanity is all about how a city works.


----------



## hudkina (Oct 28, 2003)

But that's assuming that one style works "better" than another, which isn't necessarily true. Whether someone lives on top of where they shop or a block from where they shop doesn't matter as both are dense, walkable communties.


----------



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

-Akira- said:


> Umm, the shops are down the street and the people are at work...I dunno. Not every neighborhood has muli-use 12 story apartments lining the streets with bustling street activity. If you define urban as that, no city in NA falls into that "urban" category. Not every city looks like Tokyo or HK


well,i define urban as following:apartment buildings at least 6 floors THROUGHOUT big parts of the city,mixed with office and retail buildings(which should be high too),shops and restaurants,a lively street atmosphere at least on the major roads,and a good and extensive Pt network at least including Subway,Bus or tram,and a suburban rail network(s-bahn).


----------



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

hudkina said:


> That's pefectly fine to prefer the style of architecture predominant in Europe, but just because you prefer one style doesn't mean the other style is not "urban" in its own sense.


it is urban,yes but one-family and rowhouses just ARE less urban than apartment blocks...thats a fact i believe!!


----------



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

Slartibartfas said:


> I dont know what OMH thinks, and probably I disagree with him on many aspects here as well, but I have to contest this remark.
> 
> Its totally insignificant if the buildings are all of similar height or not (like in many European city centers) or if they are baroque, classicist, historicist ...
> 
> ...


well,i agree but its more about the building density...a good pt and good shopping are obviously facts too,but don't you think vienna is more urban then baltimore??


----------



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

-Akira- said:


> I'd agree with that. I also find that 3rd world cities in general to be the most urban.


maybe the most dense,but not necessarilly the most urban..density doesn't automatically mean urban,i don't think slums should be considered urban!


----------



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

Helium said:


> disagree with this bit, unless you mean detached housing, but even then...


explain me how you disagree with this,please...how do you consider one-family houses the same or even more urban than apartments??


----------



## Northsider (Jan 16, 2006)

OMH said:


> maybe the most dense,but not necessarilly the most urban..*density doesn't automatically mean urban*,i don't think slums should be considered urban!


...but..wait... you said "apartments are more urban than single family homes...". huh? And how come slums don't count for anything? EVERY urban place on the planet has a low-income area much of which consists of multi-unit housing, all of the sudden they don't count for anything.


----------



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

-Akira- said:


> ...but..wait... you said "apartments are more urban than single family homes...". huh? And how come slums don't count for anything? EVERY urban place on the planet has a low-income area much of which consists of multi-unit housing, all of the sudden they don't count for anything.


slums really aren't apartments ,but just huts...


----------



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

so what do you think is more urban:this(in Nashville,Tennessee:http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v...=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=14395079&encType=1
or this:Lyon,France):http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v...=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=11049184&encType=1
have in mind that both cities are of similar size and that both areas are located close to the downtown area.I certainly consider the 2nd pic more urban,but what do you consider more urban now?


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

OMH said:


> i'm not too sure about that...but i don't know how asian cities are!!
> show me some pics to prove it then!


Oh, they are, IMO. 





































And that's just Tokyo, one city, and there are even denser pics out there on the net.

Asian cities are the most dense, and by your definition, most urban on Earth.


----------



## Northsider (Jan 16, 2006)

OMH said:


> slums really aren't apartments ,but just huts...


<sigh> <shakes head>



> so what do you think is more urban


They are both urban, in _different ways._
http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v...=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=14394894&encType=1
^^ just a mile north of the TN link you posted. You just said, look at post 103, that density doesn't automatically mean it's more urban!!!


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

hudkina said:


> But that's assuming that one style works "better" than another, which isn't necessarily true. Whether someone lives on top of where they shop or a block from where they shop doesn't matter as both are dense, walkable communties.


If its really normally just a block away, than it really doesnt matter. Actually that still would be mixed use of neighborhoods. (for being urban it still should have a minimum density though, at least more than a random rural village)

But I experienced cities where you need to go a little bit further than just a block. And often alone the parking area is as large as a block, where the periphery starts which can happen pretty soon in the more "modern" American cities. Of course there are quite a proud number of older American cities, which are not like that, I dont want to claim that you dont have them as well.

@omh
I dont know Baltimoore. So I really can't judge. I would dare to say that for example Phillie could at least compete with Vienna in certain aspects (Of course its no capital though, thats another point). And New York of course plays in another league. 
Regarding Washington, well, thats pretty clear, Washington has no chance against Vienna in terms of urbanity. It has its nice corners as well, they are really neat as well, but the have more the kind of a provincial feel. (Well, I actually liked that as well )


----------



## philadweller (Oct 30, 2003)

Many newer US cities are not urban at all. City and urban are 2 different mindsets.
Anything built after the invention of the automobile seems to be guily of not being urban.
Cities like Houston, Dallas, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Charlotte and Atlanta are mostly suburban with many of their residents living outside of downtown. All this is changing for the better though.

Then of course you have cities that were once very urban until the car or other mistakes destroyed the infrastructure. Detroit and St. Louis are products of this evil corporate phenomenon. They were once extremely urban.

Some urban examples....Boston, Providence, Jersey City, NYC, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington DC, Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, Miami, New Orleans (South Beach and Downtown/Midtown (Design District) are true US urban cities. LA is really getting there.

Europe is much more in tune with the definition of urban than we will ever be. Americans are too selfish and we love our fast food and cars. Most Americans don't see strip malls as the devil's child of development.

Fortunately we have a little bit of everything here in terms of urbanity.


----------



## Ian (Nov 26, 2006)

OMH said:


> well,i define urban as following:apartment buildings at least 6 floors THROUGHOUT big parts of the city,mixed with office and retail buildings(which should be high too),shops and restaurants,a lively street atmosphere at least on the major roads,and a good and extensive Pt network at least including Subway,Bus or tram,and a suburban rail network(s-bahn).


^^ Great... down here in Argentina, in the "third world" :nuts:... most of our cities are like that


----------



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

TenRot said:


> Oh, they are, IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


dense,but very chaotic compared to european cities!


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

airsound said:


> ^^ Great... down here in Argentina, in the "third world" :nuts:... most of our cities are like that


Since when is Argentina "third world"? It just had a hard time lately...



OMH said:


> dense,but very chaotic compared to european cities!


_Too _urban for you?


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

edit: double post


----------



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

-Akira- said:


> <sigh> <shakes head>
> 
> 
> They are both urban, in _different ways._
> ...


lol..you don't seem to understand what i mean...well,the lyon pic IS more urban regardless what you say,the first pic looks very suburban IMO,and its just a few kms from the city centre...and a lot of american cities are just like this,IMO only Ny,boston and maybe chicago or San francisco can even compete wit Lyon(for example,but also with most other european cities of similar size)...sorry,but i still can't see how the 1st pic is the same urban as the 2nd...but maybe you have never visited europe,i did visit america and i know how american cities look...


----------



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

philadweller said:


> Many newer US cities are not urban at all. City and urban are 2 different mindsets.
> Anything built after the invention of the automobile seems to be guily of not being urban.
> Cities like Houston, Dallas, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Charlotte and Atlanta are mostly suburban with many of their residents living outside of downtown. All this is changing for the better though.
> 
> ...


yeah,i agree!


----------



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

airsound said:


> ^^ Great... down here in Argentina, in the "third world" :nuts:... most of our cities are like that


i know...i think Latin american and especially argentinian cities are very urban and much more similar to european than to american cities....and i wouldn't say its 3rd world,i would say its 1st world....


----------



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

Slartibartfas said:


> Since when is Argentina "third world"? It just had a hard time lately...
> 
> 
> 
> _Too _urban for you?


no,not rally,just different from what i know!


----------



## Ian (Nov 26, 2006)

Slartibartfas said:


> Since when is Argentina "third world"? It just had a hard time lately...


I know...

Later i would post some pics to see if we can pass "OMH standards" for urban cities


----------



## Northsider (Jan 16, 2006)

OMH said:


> sorry,but i still can't see how the 1st pic is the same urban as the 2nd


Jeeze! Don't you read!?! I didn't say _anywhere_ that it's the same! Please re-read post 109. They are NOT the same, but both urban. 



> but maybe you have never visited europe


Ugh, *yes* I have visited Europe. I have _also_ visited Asia. Each are very different from the US and from each other. London is not Tokyo, Paris is not Chicago, Manila is not Lyons. Each are unique in their own way and have different urban streetscapes. You are suggesting that single family housing is not urban at all. I am saying that it _is_ urban, to some degree in some areas. 

That TN shot you showed me is certainly different than say...Podunk Indiana, a two farm town. But of course it's not HK! NYC is the most urban city in the US by most standards, yet Queens has a huge number of single family housing, as does Staten Island. Europe has some very urban parts and very urban cities...but not as urban as some parts of NYC. I just don't get what you are trying to get at...that tall buildings are more urban? Then you say that density _isn't_ the only thing that makes it urban! I think you are just tooting Europe's own horn a little bit. I agree that in some aspects, yes, it's much more urban than the US.



> Since when is Argentina "third world"?


3rd world doesn't necessarily mean a bad thing. 1st world = the "west", most of Europe, US. 2nd world = "east", Russia and China. 3rd world = nations that are still catching up to the industrialized nations. It's not a bad thing...


----------



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

airsound said:


> I know...
> 
> Later i would post some pics to see if we can pass "OMH standards" for urban cities


i believe you can..:lol:


----------



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

-Akira- said:


> Jeeze! Don't you read! I didn't say _anywhere_ that it's the same! Please re-read post 109. They are NOT the same, but both urban.
> 
> 
> Ugh, *yes* I have visited Europe. I have _also_ visited Asia. Each are very different from the US and from each other. London is not Tokyo, Paris is not Chicago, Manila is not Lyons. Each are unique in their own way and have different urban streetscapes. You are suggesting that single family housing is not urban at all. I am saying that it _is_ urban, to some degree in some areas.
> ...


i agree that there are different forms of urbanity,but you certainly can see when a city is more urban than another...maybe its not easy to explain what i see as urban,but i tried it..so i showed you the Lyon picture,and this is just what i consider urban...sure,there are also other forms of urbanity,but i'm sorry one family housing is NOT one of them...it only can be urban when its in an area which is mixed with apartment blocks...but even thats more semi-urban than really urban!sure,NY is a very urban city,and so is Chicago(at least parts of it),and sure also european cities have more suburban parts,but OVERALL european cities are more urban than US cities and better fit the defintion of urbanity...they're more dense,have more apartment buildings,less detached housing,and have better PT's!


----------



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

-Akira- said:


> Jeeze! Don't you read!?! I didn't say _anywhere_ that it's the same! Please re-read post 109. They are NOT the same, but both urban.
> 
> 
> Ugh, *yes* I have visited Europe. I have _also_ visited Asia. Each are very different from the US and from each other. London is not Tokyo, Paris is not Chicago, Manila is not Lyons. Each are unique in their own way and have different urban streetscapes. You are suggesting that single family housing is not urban at all. I am saying that it _is_ urban, to some degree in some areas.
> ...


argentina isn't a 3rd world country though...it's already industrialized,and it is at least on the same level as poland,croatia or taiwan...


----------



## Marco_ (Jan 15, 2006)

TenRot said:


> Oh, they are, IMO.
> 
> And that's just Tokyo, one city, and there are even denser pics out there on the net.
> 
> Asian cities are the most dense, and by your definition, most urban on Earth.


That's not urban, that is insane :nuts:


----------



## Northsider (Jan 16, 2006)

3rd world has nothing to do with being urbanized. It has to do with economic development.


----------



## Ian (Nov 26, 2006)

-Akira- said:


> 3rd world doesn't necessarily mean a bad thing. 1st world = the "west", most of Europe, US. 2nd world = "east", Russia and China. 3rd world = nations that are still catching up to the industrialized nations. It's not a bad thing...


OK,... but your concepts are a bit weird, if Argentina is a third word country, how come other nations like China or Russia that have much lower standards of living than the southern cone, are second ones... :sly:


----------



## Northsider (Jan 16, 2006)

airsound said:


> OK,... but your concepts are a bit weird, if Argentina is a third word country, how come other nations like China or Russia that have much lower standards of living than the southern cone, are second ones... :sly:


I didn't make up the terms, look them up.


----------



## Ian (Nov 26, 2006)

^^ sorry, yes, i was googleing and it seems that "second world" are the ex-communist countries... it's a very strange classification.


----------



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

-Akira- said:


> 3rd world has nothing to do with being urbanized. It has to do with economic development.


i know....and i wouldn't say argentina is 3rd world because of this!


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

-Akira- said:


> 3rd world doesn't necessarily mean a bad thing. 1st world = the "west", most of Europe, US. 2nd world = "east", Russia and China. 3rd world = nations that are still catching up to the industrialized nations. It's not a bad thing...


Well I think thats the point. Argentine has been in the club of the wealthy countries once. 

Its not about being bad or not, I just think that its not really the case. Argentine is also pretty much part of what you call "west". It just had a devastating economic crises and lived for too long under a dictatorship. Thats the difference.

Argentine is at best a bit delayed and had to suffer a devastating set back currently. But it has nonetheless a higher GDP per capita than Poland... I hope you dont call Poland a third world country...


OK, you might refer to the old terminology... but thats freakingly outdated and inappropriate anyway. And to be honest, I dont think anyone today uses the term "3rd world" in this way as once, meaning: Everything that is not Europe, the US and Japan or communist...


----------



## Delirium (Oct 8, 2005)

OMH said:


> explain me how you disagree with this,please...how do you consider one-family houses the same or even more urban than apartments??


well what do you define as single family homes?


----------



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

Helium said:


> well what do you define as single family homes?


how i define it??well-as a building where only one family lives,like the name says...


----------



## Delirium (Oct 8, 2005)

OMH said:


> how i define it??well-as a building where only one family lives,like the name says...


thats rather vague.


----------



## Northsider (Jan 16, 2006)

Single family home is a building with only ONE unit, simple as that.


----------



## Delirium (Oct 8, 2005)

figured as much.


if thats the case then apartments aren't any more _urban_, it just depends :blahblah:
over here i wouldnt say neighbourhood of dense 3 story rowhouses are more urban than flats, or vice versa.


----------



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

Helium said:


> figured as much.
> 
> 
> if thats the case then apartments aren't any more _urban_, it just depends :blahblah:
> over here i wouldnt say neighbourhood of dense 3 story rowhouses are more urban than flats, or vice versa.


so you don't think lyon is more urban than nashville?


----------



## svs (Dec 5, 2005)

OMH said:


> so you don't think lyon is more urban than nashville?


My daughter went to school in Lyon and I have cousins in NAshville so I have some familiarity with both and my answer to your question is NO! Nashville definitely has a more active music scene although the cooking is better in Lyon. 

People make cities, not buildings and there is more than one way to be "urban". Nashville is a state capitol and has several excellent Universities iincluding Vanderbuilt and Fisk. There is active street life in downtown Nashville. 

If buildings were everything Dubai would be the most "Urban" city around. I really doubt that is the case. You need to re-examine your stereotypes and try to think critically about how different cities function in spite of different housing styles.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

Lyon is much, much more urban than Nashville. Nashville has some great areas, but it's not dense or transit/walking-oriented like Lyon.


----------



## Minato ku (Aug 9, 2005)

The urban city by exellence; and one of most beautiful in the world (less than Tokyo) :cheers:


----------



## princeofseoul (Jun 8, 2004)

TenRot said:


> ...and Asian cities are more urban that European cities.




Japanese cities generally are car oriented, have a rather low population density, few apartment blocks, lots of row houses and some power malls to go shopping. Not so different from the u.s, the house size excepted.


----------



## Narcisse (Aug 15, 2006)

svs said:


> People make cities, not buildings and there is more than one way to be "urban". Nashville is a state capitol and has several excellent Universities iincluding Vanderbuilt and Fisk. There is active street life in downtown Nashville.
> 
> If buildings were everything Dubai would be the most "Urban" city around. I really doubt that is the case. You need to re-examine your stereotypes and try to think critically about how different cities function in spite of different housing styles.


I don't know this Nashville, but this is a good point. This is why for example a "city" like Los Angeles is a great world city but does not always look like it. Ask Werner Herzog who says this ""If you go to Florence, it has all surface beauty, but like Venice, it's simply a museum of Renaissance times. Los Angeles is raw, uncouth and bizarre, but it's a place of substance. It has more new horizons than any other place." Or you can take a city like San Jose California which looks very ugly and boring but beneath the surface there is much more going on than a few stately-looking European cities combined.


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

a bit unfair to compare Venice and Florence with Los Angeles though, try comparing Rome or Milan then, and they are also very organic, alive places, not just museums.


----------



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

svs said:


> My daughter went to school in Lyon and I have cousins in NAshville so I have some familiarity with both and my answer to your question is NO! Nashville definitely has a more active music scene although the cooking is better in Lyon.
> 
> People make cities, not buildings and there is more than one way to be "urban". Nashville is a state capitol and has several excellent Universities iincluding Vanderbuilt and Fisk. There is active street life in downtown Nashville.
> 
> If buildings were everything Dubai would be the most "Urban" city around. I really doubt that is the case. You need to re-examine your stereotypes and try to think critically about how different cities function in spite of different housing styles.


lol..since when does music make a city more urban?..and i still don't get it like a city mostly maked up of 1-2 floor houses is more urban than a city mostly maked up of 6-8 floor apartments,which has great shopping and a godd PT!sorry,but urbanity has to do more with the "non-people"facters,that means with material factors and olnly then comes the "people factor!


----------



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

Minato ku said:


> The urban city by exellence; and one of most beautiful in the world (less than Tokyo) :cheers:


Paris?yes,i agree one of the best examples for almost perfect urbanity IMO...it has everything what a real world-class city should have:a very dense city,with high building density not just in downtown,a very good PT network,many architectural styles which can be found throughout the city...and obviously a modern CBD with La Defense,IMo one of the 3 best skylines in europe!


----------



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

Narcisse said:


> I don't know this Nashville, but this is a good point. This is why for example a "city" like Los Angeles is a great world city but does not always look like it. Ask Werner Herzog who says this ""If you go to Florence, it has all surface beauty, but like Venice, it's simply a museum of Renaissance times. Los Angeles is raw, uncouth and bizarre, but it's a place of substance. It has more new horizons than any other place." Or you can take a city like San Jose California which looks very ugly and boring but beneath the surface there is much more going on than a few stately-looking European cities combined.


i think thats a prejudice of you that this cities aren't lively...sure they're historic,but why shouldn't they been lively...and i wouldn't say LA is very lively!


----------



## Northsider (Jan 16, 2006)

svs said:


> People make cities, not buildings


ARRRHHHH!!!! Thank you!



princeofseoul said:


> Japanese cities generally are car oriented, have a rather low population density


Juh?! Erm, which ones are you referring to?!



OMH said:


> and i wouldn't say LA is very lively!


Good grief! That's quite a statement. We need to get some LA forums in here stat to rebut this!


----------



## Minato ku (Aug 9, 2005)

OMH said:


> Paris?yes,i agree one of the best examples for almost perfect urbanity IMO...it has everything what a real world-class city should have:a very dense city,with high building density not just in downtown,a very good PT network,many architectural styles which can be found throughout the city...and obviously a modern CBD with La Defense,IMo one of the 3 best skylines in europe!


Actually it is not La Defense, but the upper middle class residencial towers of Paris main chinatown


----------



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

Minato ku said:


> Actually it is not La Defense, but the upper middle class residencial towers of Paris main chinatown


i know...looks very impressive..Paris certainly has it all a big city needs,and is very multicultural to it!


----------



## hudkina (Oct 28, 2003)

So let's just get this straight:

This is urban because it is in Europe:









This is not urban because it is in the United States:








btmoc

Oh, and I almost forgot...

This is _*too*_ urban because it is in Asia:


----------



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

-Akira- said:


> ARRRHHHH!!!! Thank you!
> 
> 
> Juh?! Erm, which ones are you referring to?!
> ...


i would say that most european cities definetily are more lively than la ,maybe except the mexican parts!


----------



## svs (Dec 5, 2005)

OMH said:


> lol..since when does music make a city more urban?..and i still don't get it like a city mostly maked up of 1-2 floor houses is more urban than a city mostly maked up of 6-8 floor apartments,which has great shopping and a godd PT!sorry,but urbanity has to do more with the "non-people"facters,that means with material factors and olnly then comes the "people factor!


ROTFL! This is a great example of exactly how wrong headed you are. If I read this correctly a bunch of slum tenements would be more "urban" than London which has quite a few row houses inhabited by single families. That's a joke.


----------



## Northsider (Jan 16, 2006)

OMH said:


> i would say that most european cities definetily are more lively than la ,maybe except the mexican parts!


Your absolute close-mindedness really is amazing. I have no doubts that Europe has exciting districts in its cities. But to say that an international city like LA is not lively...


----------



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

svs said:


> ROTFL! This is a great example of exactly how wrong headed you are. If I read this correctly a bunch of slum tenements would be more "urban" than London which has quite a few row houses inhabited by single families. That's a joke.


no,i wouldn't say that but i do consider the rowhouses less urban than apartment blocks...


----------



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

hudkina said:


> So let's just get this straight:
> 
> This is urban because it is in Europe:
> 
> ...


OMG you can't really help it,what?:bash:...i didn't say the 2nd pic is none-urban,its just differently urban...and,yes i do! consider paris to be more urban because of factors i already listed here before,and not only i did but also some others did it!(even americans did it and so admitted that european cities are more,or "better" urban than most american cities!)but i feel that you got a complex with european cities...IMO they're more urban ,and i also explained how they're more urban!so maybe now you can explain why american cities should be considered the same,oe even more urban than european ones...but i'll list the reasons again:A continually built-up city with mostly apartment and mid-to highrise buildings,having good and extensive PT and a good designed road network,having different types of architecture and building types,and obviously a vibrant street life(in this case probably Southern European cities , latin american and asian cities are first!)
But most important IMO is that the predominant building type is midrise,not lowrise buildings...and most americaan cities don't seem to fit into this,actually i believe only NY,chicago and boston do...so you understand now what i mean?


----------



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

-Akira- said:


> Your absolute close-mindedness really is amazing. I have no doubts that Europe has exciting districts in its cities. But to say that an international city like LA is not lively...


maybe i'm wrong,sorry!but i've been in chicago and NY,while NY definetily is very lively(at least manhattan),chicago downtown i found to be a bit less lively than european downtowns!


----------



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

this is what i consider urban and its in america:
http://maps.live.com/#JnE9eXAuTmV3K...lN2UyMC4yMjA5NjU3Nzk1MjIzJTdlLTEzOC4xNjQwNjI1


----------



## Northsider (Jan 16, 2006)

OMH said:


> maybe i'm wrong,sorry!but i've been in chicago and NY,while NY definetily is very lively(at least manhattan),chicago downtown i found to be a bit less lively than european downtowns!


Erm, I was talking about LA...thought I would beg to differ about NYC and Chicago. LA, NYC, and Chicago are all lively cities. Maybe NYC has a lively downtown area, more so than Chicago and LA. But I am sure LA-ers will agree with me when I say that Chicago's and LA's most lively areas are NOT in the downtown areas...they are in the neighborhoods.

And I am not saying you are wrong, I am saying that your ideas are skewed. I never said the US was _more_ urban than Europe or Asia. In some aspects Europe is "more" urban than the US...say in housing density. The US is just different, not more or less urban. I think you are starting to catch onto that when you posted: _"i didn't say the 2nd pic is none-urban,its *just differently urban*"_


----------



## hudkina (Oct 28, 2003)

But how is that second picture "less" urban than the first picture? They are basically the SAME thing. The only difference is that one is in your utopian world of Europe and the other is in the supposedly "world's-densest-non-urban-city".


----------



## svs (Dec 5, 2005)

OMH said:


> i think thats a prejudice of you that this cities aren't lively...sure they're historic,but why shouldn't they been lively...and I wouldn't say LA is very lively!


I can answer this one too. I live quite happily in Santa Monica. 

Lots of street life in Hollywood, Pasadena, Santa Monica, Westwood, Venice, North Hollywood, Long Beach, Hermosa Beach, Silver Lake, etc. 

I have my handy copy of this week's LA Weekly (which generally only lists activities in LA County so this doesn't cover the greater metropolitan areas) lists about 120 different live plays going on this week (I have tickets Thursday for Brecht's Galileo with stacy Keach); another 110 clubs playing live music which doesn't count the live music in concert halls and other large venues such as the Hollywood bowl, the Greek theater, the Gibson auditorium, the Wiltern, the Santa Monica Civic, the new Nokia Theater, the Shrine, Royce Hall, Pasadena Civic, Long Beach Auditorium, etc. etc. 

Some of the acts playing this week include Morrissy, Genesis, Kool and the Gang, Machine Head, PJ Harvey, Rilo Kiley, Meshell Ndegocello, the Eagles, Dixie Chicks, Wierd Al Yankovic, Bela Fleck, Jill Scott, Sarah Silverman, the Bobs,the Donnas, Sex Pistols, Jim Kweskin, Fergie, John Hammond, Don Ellis Big Band, Milcho Leviev,, Morrie Louden, MAvis Staples, Mickey champion, Zydeco Patry Band, Brooks and Dunn, Alan Jackson, O'JAys, etc. I apologize because this appears to be kind of a slow week in town.

There are about fifteen additional comedy clubs playing people such as Jay Leno, Bobby Collins, John Lovitz, and Paul Rodriquez as well as most of the talent that shows up on the late night TV shows. Don't forget the Groundlings the local improv troup that with Chicago/Toronto's Second City provides most of the talent for Saturday Night Live. 

Oh yeah and the Cirque Du Soliel is also in Town.

As for clasical music, beside the LA PHil, Andre Watts, Andres Schiff, the Youth International Orchestra, the PAsadena Symphony, the Brentwood/Westwood symphony Orchestra, the california Ear Unit, John Williams, LA Chamber Society, LA Master Chorale, Mills college center for Contenporary Music, and some miscellaneous chamber groups are playing this week. The opera is temporarily quiet Jenufa just left. Not much dance, but the Jazz Tap Ensamble, Bill T. Jones/Arnie Zane, LA Contemporary are in town this week as are a few national "world dance" companies, etc.

I really can't count all the movie screens in town but suffice to say there are three film festivals going on in town this week. ONe on Animation, the Hungarian Film Festival, and a LAtino Film festival. This doesn't count the ongoing stuff done on a daily basis at the American Film Institute, the Art Museums, the Universities, and the Silent Movie Theater.

Miscellaneous stuff that doesn't fit the above includes several magic venues including the MAgic Castle, The National Puppet Theater of Japan, LA Fashion Week, Pasadena Art Weekend, and at least thirty three author's readings at bookstores all over town.

There are 41 art shows opening in town this week. My LA Weekly isn't listing all the galleries but mentions 28 of them in the Silver LAke, Echo Park, Los Feliz Area. I know there are lots more in Santa Monica, Venice, Downtown, Pasadena, etc. 

Did I mention the 300 Museums in the greater metropolitan area? Or the Sports Stadiums? We can get 150,000 fans at college football games when both USC and UCLA have home games.

Like I said, it appears to be a quiet week in town and folks in LA do tend to go to bed a little earlier than in New York, but we hold our own with any town in Europe including London and Berlin. This is not only my opinion but the opinion of my sister who lives in Paris.


----------



## svs (Dec 5, 2005)

OMH said:


> maybe i'm wrong,sorry!but i've been in chicago and NY,while NY definetily is very lively(at least manhattan),chicago downtown i found to be a bit less lively than european downtowns!


You're wrong here as well. Chicago has a very lively arts and club scene; it's just not located in the loop(downtown). If you go to the near north side, you will find lots of clubs. For God's sake, Chicago is where Eric Clapton goes, when he wants to hear the blues. Clubs are scattered all over the city as well.


----------



## Narcisse (Aug 15, 2006)

OMH said:


> i think thats a prejudice of you that this cities aren't lively...sure they're historic,but why shouldn't they been lively...and i wouldn't say LA is very lively!


I think the response by SVS might explain this better. In this respect the only European cities that compete with NYC and LA in sheer number of happenings every week are London and Paris. There are other great cities in Europe that are as "lively" as it is possible to be, like Rome or Madrid, but they are a little provincial and not really world cities on the same level. Have you noticed that European luminaries, artists, actors, move to LA and NYC? Any European fashion boutique that wants to be recognized must open in one of these cities. These are lively places. Nobody is moving somewhere like Vienna or Munich because there is cafes and people walking around...they visit yes, but there is not enough substance or activity to really make a life in these sorts of places. There is what is happening in Berlin but that is an exception...cheap rent.


----------



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

-Akira- said:


> Erm, I was talking about LA...thought I would beg to differ about NYC and Chicago. LA, NYC, and Chicago are all lively cities. Maybe NYC has a lively downtown area, more so than Chicago and LA. But I am sure LA-ers will agree with me when I say that Chicago's and LA's most lively areas are NOT in the downtown areas...they are in the neighborhoods.
> 
> And I am not saying you are wrong, I am saying that your ideas are skewed. I never said the US was _more_ urban than Europe or Asia. In some aspects Europe is "more" urban than the US...say in housing density. The US is just different, not more or less urban. I think you are starting to catch onto that when you posted: _"i didn't say the 2nd pic is none-urban,its *just differently urban*"_


sorry,but i still think european cities are more urban than North american ones in most aspects...they're more dense,have btter PT and so on...these aren't opinions but facts!


----------



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

hudkina said:


> But how is that second picture "less" urban than the first picture? They are basically the SAME thing. The only difference is that one is in your utopian world of Europe and the other is in the supposedly "world's-densest-non-urban-city".


well,maybe you didn't really look...i do see a difference between the 1st and 2nd picture...the 1st shows a dense city made out of mostly apartment blocks,the 2nd shows a city (i guess SF) made out of mostly low and midrise housing,and a few skyscrapers,but it isn't as dense as the 1st pic!


----------



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

svs said:


> You're wrong here as well. Chicago has a very lively arts and club scene; it's just not located in the loop(downtown). If you go to the near north side, you will find lots of clubs. For God's sake, Chicago is where Eric Clapton goes, when he wants to hear the blues. Clubs are scattered all over the city as well.


the same in european cities...


----------



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

Narcisse said:


> I think the response by SVS might explain this better. In this respect the only European cities that compete with NYC and LA in sheer number of happenings every week are London and Paris. There are other great cities in Europe that are as "lively" as it is possible to be, like Rome or Madrid, but they are a little provincial and not really world cities on the same level. Have you noticed that European luminaries, artists, actors, move to LA and NYC? Any European fashion boutique that wants to be recognized must open in one of these cities. These are lively places. Nobody is moving somewhere like Vienna or Munich because there is cafes and people walking around...they visit yes, but there is not enough substance or activity to really make a life in these sorts of places. There is what is happening in Berlin but that is an exception...cheap rent.


looool...thats a very ignorant statement calling Rome or madrid"provincial"..if you say that i also would say chicago and LA are a bit "provincial"...anyway IMO only NY can compete with Paris,London and other big european cities in terms of culture!


----------



## Westsidelife (Nov 26, 2005)

Wow, this guy is an idiot.


----------



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

Westsidelife said:


> Wow, this guy is an idiot.


wow,great comment,huh??:bash:


----------



## Westsidelife (Nov 26, 2005)

Since you're always on everyone's back, it's hard to have a decent conversation with you.


----------



## gladisimo (Dec 11, 2006)

I think hudkina nailed it, lol.


----------



## Northsider (Jan 16, 2006)

OMH said:


> .if you say that i also would say chicago and LA are a bit "provincial"...anyway *IMO only NY can compete with Paris,London and other big european cities in terms of culture!*


WTF?! LA has no culture?!?!?! Chicago??!?!? Boston!?! I'm sorry, but I'd have to say LA and NYC have just as much, if not *more* culture than ANY European city. The US is the melting pot, and LA and NYC are the biggest centers of immigration.


----------



## Westsidelife (Nov 26, 2005)

OMH said:


> looool...thats a very ignorant statement calling Rome or madrid"provincial"..if you say that i also would say chicago and LA are a bit "provincial"...anyway IMO only NY can compete with Paris,London and other big european cities in terms of culture!


Chicago and Los Angeles have their own respective cultures. To say that they are "provincial" in that respect is just ludicrous.

Chicago - Art Institute of Chicago (easily one of the world's best art museums, better than many of the ones in Europe), Field Museum, Adler Planetarium, Shedd Aquarium, Museum of Science and Industry, Museum of Contemporary Art, lively music scene, lively theater scene, top notch universities, great restaurants and ethnic eateries/enclaves, diversity left and right, and of course, an architectural paradise with a wondrous skyline.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

Hudkina: Hook, line, and sinker. :yes:

This thread is seriously a joke. It has more to do with the OP's opinion than fact.


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

^^ exactly, some people here should find better things to do ....


----------



## svs (Dec 5, 2005)

Westsidelife said:


> Wow, this guy is an idiot.


Obviously it is not only the cities in Europe that are denser than in America.


----------



## harvesterofsorrows (Nov 5, 2005)

When you constantly see cars and people outside.


----------



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

-Akira- said:


> WTF?! LA has no culture?!?!?! Chicago??!?!? Boston!?! I'm sorry, but I'd have to say LA and NYC have just as much, if not *more* culture than ANY European city. The US is the melting pot, and LA and NYC are the biggest centers of immigration.


lol..this is an ignorant statement!sorry,but 1st:i don't really consider taco stands or chinese restaurants to really show that a city has great culture...also many european cities are very multicultural!just look at Paris,london,amsterdam,or even frankfurt!


----------



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

Westsidelife said:


> Chicago and Los Angeles have their own respective cultures. To say that they are "provincial" in that respect is just ludicrous.
> 
> Chicago - Art Institute of Chicago (easily one of the world's best art museums, better than many of the ones in Europe), Field Museum, Adler Planetarium, Shedd Aquarium, Museum of Science and Industry, Museum of Contemporary Art, lively music scene, lively theater scene, top notch universities, great restaurants and ethnic eateries/enclaves, diversity left and right, and of course, an architectural paradise with a wondrous skyline.


i know what chicago has,but you can't say it has more than madrid or rome,sorry-culturally speaking definetily not!


----------



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

TenRot said:


> Hudkina: Hook, line, and sinker. :yes:
> 
> This thread is seriously a joke. It has more to do with the OP's opinion than fact.


maybe becuase its not pro-american!?


----------



## Westsidelife (Nov 26, 2005)

OMH said:


> i know what chicago has,but you can't say it has more than madrid or rome,sorry-culturally speaking definetily not!


Chicago has everything Madrid and Rome have, sans the rich history.


----------



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

LANative said:


> Exactly. There was a thread that some stupid girl started a few months ago talking about the failures of North American cities. That thread went on for almost a month with nearly 20 pages long before it was finally locked. And I know the mods were fully aware of that thread and it got out of hand. The thread starter of that ridiculous thread was not even banned.
> 
> Had that been a thread about failures of European cities, the thread would have been locked before it even got started.


is it possible that you americans just can't handle criticism??well,i would recommend you to read a book which is critical of america,maybe this one:"dark Ages America" from Morris Berman,he's american and he talks about the decline of american culture..and he also talks about the failure of american cities!!so see,its not just my view,bbut also that of many respected persons,including americans!!


----------



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

WANCH said:


> This may sound crazy but here's how I see it when it comes to urbanity
> 
> 1) Asian
> 2) Latin American
> ...


why do you see NA in front of european cities..pls explain it!!


----------



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

shovel_ready said:


> A city is much more than building typology and architecture.
> 
> Though, my definition of urban city would be measured by how the inner-city neighborhoods/districts interact with the urban core. If a majority of city neighborhood residents work and do most of their shopping in the outer city and suburbs, (likely because of a dead and/or socially alienating downtown) than the urbanity of the city in question is very weak.
> 
> ...


i certainly agree,but building typology DOES define how urban a city is..maybe its not the MOST important part,i donno what its officially,but it certainly is one of the factors..also with walkability and PT american cities can't really challenge european cities,shops can be found in cities equally in both continents ...so you still didn't prove me that american cities are as urban as european ones!!


----------



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

TenRot said:


> Plenty African cities are chaotic, dense, and "urban". But the lack of an real functioning infrastructure in many cities, with the added bonus of vast slums (which isn't an African trait) doesn't really help many of them. It also doesn't help (this forum isn't an exception) that general knowledge of African cities is next to nil for a large portion of the world.
> 
> African cities are booming population-wise at the moment...urbanization is moving at a fast pace in most countries. When it comes to urban development, Africa is pretty going down the way of Asia, but is several decades behind in areas.
> 
> When it comes to population, I would look at Lagos and Kinshasa among others.


i actually can't imagine african cities much..maybe you should post some pics.??i believe actually they're quite urban and have a lot of life in the streets....sure they lack the grand european buildings,but i saw Maputo in mozambique and it looked quite urban and even clean!


----------



## Delirium (Oct 8, 2005)

OMH said:


> so you don't think lyon is more urban than nashville?


edit:kdsfjkfslkd

i dont know how the hell you came up with *that* random assumption. oke:

here a typical terrace looks far more urban than an apartment building, but its not just that though.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

OMH said:


> i actually can't imagine african cities much..maybe you should post some pics.??i believe actually they're quite urban and have a lot of life in the streets....sure they lack the grand european buildings,but i saw Maputo in mozambique and it looked quite urban and even clean!


Sadly, finding GOOD pics of many African cities (i.e not outdated or of poor quality) is harder, so that may take me some time. I look for some later tonight.

I do believe there was a photo thread in SSC showing African cities, but I don't know where it is.


----------



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

Helium said:


> edit:kdsfjkfslkd
> 
> i dont know how the hell you came up with *that* random assumption. oke:
> 
> here a typical terrace looks far more urban than an apartment building, but its not just that though.


england's pretty strange then...but i know this english cities,they really don't have the grandeur of continental cities(london's ok though)


----------



## Xelebes (Apr 1, 2007)

OMH said:


> ...so you still didn't prove me that american cities are as urban as european ones!!


There is nothing that can be used to prove that something is more urban than any European city - it is getting irrational to argue here. I'm suggesting a lock on this thread.


----------



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

Xelebes said:


> There is nothing that can be used to prove that something is more urban than any European city - it is getting irrational to argue here. I'm suggesting a lock on this thread.


if you don't like to argue,then don't..its not about arguing here,but about talking and discussing-what threads are about actually!


----------



## svs (Dec 5, 2005)

OMH said:


> this is an ignorant statement!
> 
> i don't really consider taco stands or chinese restaurants to really show that a city has great culture


This is true.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

Check out this link to see some African skylines (warning: large thread):

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=6361101#post6361101


----------



## hudkina (Oct 28, 2003)

*OMH*, I think most people have given up on you for the fact that you seem to be thick-headed. I think the general assumption is that everyone else agrees that European cities are urban and American cities are urban. You may prefer the European style of urbanity for the reasons you've stated, but that doesn't change the fact that both types are examples of urbanity. Others might prefer the American style of urbanity for other reasons, but that doesn't make the American style more or less "urban" than the European style.


----------



## Northsider (Jan 16, 2006)

hudkina said:


> *OMH*, I think most people have given up on you for the fact that you seem to be thick-headed. I think the general assumption is that everyone else agrees that European cities are urban and American cities are urban. You may prefer the European style of urbanity for the reasons you've stated, but that doesn't change the fact that both types are examples of urbanity. Others might prefer the American style of urbanity for other reasons, but that doesn't make the American style more or less "urban" than the European style.


:bash: He won't get it...He'll just make another post about Europe being Gods gift to mankind and then show another single family housing neighborhood of Atlanta, and decry it unurban


----------

