# Most Deceptive Cities



## Küsel (Sep 16, 2004)

American cities generally have a small-town feeling. Maybe apart from New York and on a lesser scale Philly and Boston. They generally have a very small CBD with a few skyscrapers and an density, then comes an endless carpet of suburban sprawl. Just compare LA with Sao Paulo or London that are more or less on the same metro level - it's worlds apart. But as I said it has something to do with the morphology of the cities and it is approved that this is very different in Europe, NA, SA and Asia.


----------



## nomarandlee (Sep 24, 2005)

staff said:


> North American cities feel a lot smaller (compared to European and Asian cities, at least) than their metro figures show. Of course there are exceptions though.



I could see that. I think even for some Europeans it is hard to conceputilize just how far out modern American suburbs spread. In Chicago you can drive 90 minutes (in so-so traffic) and it will be green along much of the highway. A few blocks in though it is lawn to lawn suberb housing. It is like that for most major American cities. Even when traveling away from the city the green that is along the highways is deceptive in telling you how much is really beyond.


----------



## samsonyuen (Sep 23, 2003)

Birmingham UK feels smaller than it should.


----------



## earthJoker (Dec 15, 2004)

Well Zürich looks smaller because of its topography, even from the Uetliberg you can't see Schwammendingen nor Affoltern. Also it's suburbs are lined up in several valleys, so it doesn't look like a big metro either.


----------



## DnH (Aug 3, 2003)

staff said:


> North American cities feel a lot smaller (compared to European and Asian cities, at least) than their metro figures show. Of course there are exceptions though.


I agree..
In some american cities like Los Angeles the city is made up of Villas etc. It does'nt give it a very urban feeling like New York has for example (Which has almost exclusively multi-story apartment-buildings like European Cities, except for some mediterranean ones)


----------



## goonsta (Sep 11, 2002)

The only city in the US that really feels close to 10 million by international standards is NYC.

The thought of auto-centric clusters seperated by nearly-lifeless development is an American-bred concept.


----------



## kyenan (Mar 22, 2003)

I think cities with high density tend to give you feelings that the cities are bigger than their actual sizes. But the cities lower in density tend to make you feel that they are smaller than their real sizes.


----------



## dave8721 (Aug 5, 2004)

Miami can be deceptive depending on which direction you drive. If you are going North-South you can take a 2-hour drive (when there no traffic) from Miami to West Palm on I-95 and never leave dense urban development and you think man...this place is huge. But you can drive East-West and go from dense urban core to the Everglades in 20 minutes to a half hour and think man...this place is tiny.


----------



## Rene Nunez (Mar 14, 2005)

hudkina said:


> The LA metro does not feel like 3 million. The southern portion of Los Angeles county alone has over 9 million people and if you've traveled through it, it definitely shows. Add in Orange county and the population of the core shoots to over 12 million. The thing with Los Angeles is that it is a city of extremely dense low rise buildings.
> 
> These numbers are for the year 2000:
> Los Angeles - 11.9 million people in 2,203 sq. mi.
> ...


Um HELLO did you read the threadstarters opening? He/she asked how you felt when you visited. I dont remember having the same brain as you...


----------



## Nouvellecosse (Jun 4, 2005)

My city/town called Halifax is somewhat European in the sense that it has a very dense (for NA) central area since it's on a peninsula mostly surrounded by harbour. The central area is very busy and urban and feels like a city of twice the size at times, but then outside the peninsula there is fairly little suburban area. When you're entering town, it's actually quite startling how quickly you go from virtual forest to dense urban area.


----------



## LANative (Aug 28, 2005)

Rene Nunez said:


> Um HELLO did you read the threadstarters opening? He/she asked how you felt when you visited. I dont remember having the same brain as you...


 Your the one that said that L.A. didn't feel like a city of over 3 million and he/she was just explaining to you why it doesn't.


----------



## Nick in Atlanta (Nov 5, 2003)

Boston looks very modern when you see photos of its downtown from the waterfront, but when you drive in from the western suburbs, you realize how old of a city it is. Much of it really looks old and dilapidated. Downtown, the Back Bay and Cambridge are very nice looking though.


----------



## hudkina (Oct 28, 2003)

Rene Nunez said:


> Um HELLO did you read the threadstarters opening? He/she asked how you felt when you visited. I dont remember having the same brain as you...



You're right, but there is also a difference between saying Los Angeles doesn't feel like a metro of 17 million and saying it feels like a metro of 3 million. Anyone who's been to Los Angeles would not honestly mistake it for a city of less than 3 million, let alone a METRO of 3 million.


----------



## brooklynprospect (Apr 27, 2005)

Kuesel said:



> American cities generally have a small-town feeling. Maybe apart from New York and on a lesser scale Philly and Boston. They generally have a very small CBD with a few skyscrapers and an density, then comes an endless carpet of suburban sprawl. Just compare LA with Sao Paulo or London that are more or less on the same metro level - it's worlds apart. But as I said it has something to do with the morphology of the cities and it is approved that this is very different in Europe, NA, SA and Asia.


Depends what you consider small town. metro LA is huge if you drive from one end to the other. Far more extensive than any European metropolitan region, including London. Never-ending human settlement. And even though it's so large, the LA region does function largely as one unit. People do commute long distances to go to work, shop, visit friends, etc.

I certainly wouldn't describe LA as dense, or as a traditional city, but I also wouldn't call it small.


----------



## _00_deathscar (Mar 16, 2005)

mhays said:


> After visiting Hong Kong, I can understand why a Hong Kongite would think Chicago felt small.


Nail. Head. Hit. On. The.



I explored a lot of Chicago - and it's a lovely city...but it didn't quite feel as big as it should've...


----------



## Metropolitan (Sep 21, 2004)

_00_deathscar said:


> Nail. Head. Hit. On. The.
> 
> 
> 
> I explored a lot of Chicago - and it's a lovely city...but it didn't quite feel as big as it should've...


I've never been to Chicago but I'd tend to agree with this.

When you see Chicago in the movies or in pictures, you see a very dense city, with big areas made of apartment buildings. The huge skyscrapers in the center make it even feel like some kind of little NYC. However, when I've made my research about the municipalities accross the world, I've been amazed to realize that there's only 2.9 million people on the 606 km² of Chicago's municipality.

That figure can easily be compared with Madrid, which is supposed to be twice smaller. Indeed, the municipality of Madrid has 3.1 million people on 607 km². That simply means that the urban sprawl around Chicago is thrice bigger than the urban sprawl around Madrid.

Using that kind of comparison, Paris and its 3 neighbouring districts (departements) make 6.2 million people on 762 km². And despite this, Paris metro is about the same size as Chicago's metro.

All this to confirm that the feeling about being in a large city is more about density than about population. Something which has already been repeated several times in this thread.


----------



## samsonyuen (Sep 23, 2003)

^Don't forget, there are lots of people who work in Chicago, but might live in the neighboring suburbs. So the daytime population swells!


----------



## _00_deathscar (Mar 16, 2005)

I'm from Hong Kong. It's hard to actually refer to a city as 'dense' in such cases.


----------



## HirakataShi (Feb 8, 2004)

Osaka is very deceptive. Officially Osaka City has 2.6 million people in 220 square kilometres. Osaka prefecture has 8.7 million. It feels like the entire prefecture lives in the city though.


----------



## GlobalJoe (Sep 11, 2004)

SF definetely looks bigger than it really is.


----------



## Rene Nunez (Mar 14, 2005)

LANative said:


> Your the one that said that L.A. didn't feel like a city of over 3 million and he/she was just explaining to you why it doesn't.


 It's my OPINION and anything and everything anyone else says is IRRELEVANT.My reply to the topic is not open to comments.


----------



## staff (Oct 23, 2004)

pottebaum said:


> This gives you an idea of how vast Chicago is:
> http://img344.imageshack.us/img344/3937/408807794dc.jpg


Still, I'm not talking about which city that looks the largest from the air. 
It's what city that feels the larger when you're there. If you, before a visit, hear that Chicago has 9-10 million in it's metro, I guess it's easy to be somewhat "dissapointed". Deceptive.


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

I was more trying to point out the city's dense housing stock, which stretches for miles and miles. Chicago's city proper is more dense, for example, than London's. Given, its outer-ring suburbs (while still accessible by rail) can be a mess, but many of its most populous suburbs are quite dense.


----------



## fierce_latino (Feb 21, 2005)

San Diego feels a LOT smaller than it actually is. you would never know you're in the 7th largest US City.


----------



## Nick in Atlanta (Nov 5, 2003)

^^San Diego (The City) maybe the 7th largest city in the US, but metropolitan San Diego is not. The City of San Diego is about 1.2 million people, but metro San Diego is about 2.8 million people. It's metro area is about the 14th largest metro area in the US. 

Most people don't even know when they have left the City of San Diego. It looks the same. Houses, hills, etc. The only difference has to do with the Mayor in his/her office in downtown. 

There is a big difference in the US between a Cities population and a metropolitan areas' population. Take the three largest metro areas in the US.
1) City of New York: 8 million people. Metro New York: 21 million people.
2) City of Los Angeles: 3 million people. Metro LA: 15.5 million people.
3) City of Chicago: 2.8 million people. Metro Chicago: 9 million people.

Comparing a city or metro area any other way is just going to lead to confusion and inaccuracy.


----------



## ChrisLA (Sep 11, 2002)

Nick in Atlanta said:


> There is a big difference in the US between a Cities population and a metropolitan areas' population. Take the three largest metro areas in the US.
> 2) City of Los Angeles: 3 million people. Metro LA: 15.5 million people.
> 
> Comparing a city or metro area any other way is just going to lead to confusion and inaccuracy.


Just one little correction, the city of LA is more like 3.9 million, and some estimates are already at 4 million.


----------



## globill (Dec 4, 2005)

staff said:


> Still, I'm not talking about which city that looks the largest from the air.
> It's what city that feels the larger when you're there. If you, before a visit, hear that Chicago has 9-10 million in it's metro, I guess it's easy to be somewhat "dissapointed". Deceptive.



Chicago isn't built for tourism, like virtually every European city is.


It's a breathing, living, creating, mass of millions of folk that frankly aren't being orchestrated by socialist overlords to create a perfect touristic experience.


But, if you want to experience urban Chicago. 


Put on your walking shoes in downtown Evanston, walk south on Chicago Ave, until it turns into Clark Street, head south until you hit downtown.

If, after nearly 20KM of non-stop urbanity, you are still disappointed by Chicago's offerings, 


by all measures, head on south to Hyde Park, a further 8KM or so south of the Loop....


----------



## mopc (Jan 31, 2005)

Socialists overlords creating a perfect touristic experience? Interesting, I never thought of it that way.


----------



## staff (Oct 23, 2004)

globill said:


> Chicago isn't built for tourism, like virtually every European city is.
> 
> It's a breathing, living, creating, mass of millions of folk that frankly aren't being orchestrated by socialist overlords to create a perfect touristic experience.


Are you kidding me there, mate? It's exactly the opposite.

Do you really think people thought of what was coming when they built the cities 700-1000 years ago? The word tourist wasn't even invented when the European cities were founded and developed.

People don't come to Europe, the world's leading tourist destination by far, to see the world's largest/tallest/fastest/widest etc (which, in most cases, are in America - with the goal to attract visitors). European cities don't have to try and become tourist destinations, people are coming anyway.



> But, if you want to experience urban Chicago.
> 
> 
> Put on your walking shoes in downtown Evanston, walk south on Chicago Ave, until it turns into Clark Street, head south until you hit downtown.
> ...


I'm not sure what you're telling me here. Chicago (along with many other North American cities) feels smaller than than it is. End of story.


----------



## cpddavis (Apr 26, 2005)

I don't think it is the end of story - I think we just have differing perceptions of what 'feels big'.

Frankly, when I'm in some European families I find it just the opposite and found it hard to believe that Barcelona, for instance, had 3 million people. I mean - I could practically walk from end to end in the course of an afternoon. 

To me, North American cities feel much bigger - there's more built up space. Not as dense for the most part, but they feel like they go on forever and thus they are a littel bit harder to 'know completely' as place with a smaller area. I mean - even travelling by car, places like Chicago, Toronto or Houston feel endless.

I'm not saying this is better or worse - just my perception. Obviously, places like London, Paris or Moscow are absolutely monstrous by any definition.


----------



## SDfan (Apr 7, 2005)

Nick in Atlanta said:


> ^^San Diego (The City) maybe the 7th largest city in the US, but metropolitan San Diego is not. The City of San Diego is about 1.2 million people, but metro San Diego is about 2.8 million people. It's metro area is about the 14th largest metro area in the US.
> 
> Most people don't even know when they have left the City of San Diego. It looks the same. Houses, hills, etc. The only difference has to do with the Mayor in his/her office in downtown.
> 
> ...


The metro of San Diego is 3 million, and if you factor in Tijuana its around 6 million.


----------



## I-275westcoastfl (Feb 15, 2005)

North American Cities tend to build vertical in theyre urban areas as europe in general builds out but densly but over all there are less highrises thats why most european skylines dont match theyre population like London who would guess that its a part of the big 3?


----------



## wickedestcity (Jul 23, 2004)

Accualy comming from Chicago i find that almost every city i go to seems like a little hick town!!!! i when to toronto last week (dont get me wrong Toronto is a very cool city)and i was very unimpressed by the citys size . the size of its skyline also seemed punny. and after hearing how its used to film movies that depict NY , i laughed when i saw it. the only exception so far was NY but i havent been to asia or europe. i have been to the middle east which also has small cities in comparisson.But its interesting to hear how some of you were dissapointed in chicagos size. its accualy the opposite for me. im never impressed with almost any other city after seeing chicago. i mean for crying out loud i drove once from tip to tip of the metro area and it took me nearly 2 1/2 hours...on the highway!!!.... withought trafic!!!!!! (a rarity btw lol) and some 30-35 miles of that stretch are back to back buildings dence as hell!! the skyline streatchees from noth to south nearly 4 1/5 miles in length and 3- 31/2 miles wide. if a 15 square mile cbd packed to hell with highrises and skyscrapers doesent impress u then idont know what will.


----------



## hudkina (Oct 28, 2003)

If Chicago isn't a large city, the ego of many of its citizens sure is...


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

Staff, when you were in Chicago (?) did you travel mostly South-North or from East to West? That'd explain quite a bit.


----------



## oshkeoto (Sep 21, 2004)

Nah, I know what they're talking about as far as Chicago goes. We don't have a lot of highrises, as major global cities go, although the ones we do have are spectacular enough to give us one of the best skylines in the world. Our neighborhoods are lowrise and generally modest. Outside of downtown, we're a pretty laid-back city.


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

oshkeoto said:


> We don't have a lot of highrises, as major global cities go


I know most of the neighborhoods, excluding the lakeside (which spans for miles) are lowrise---but was this statement of yours supposed to be sarcasm?!


----------



## Hecago (Dec 1, 2005)

hudkina said:


> If Chicago isn't a large city, the ego of many of its citizens sure is...


You're talking about 10 million people in its metro. Are you surprised? If I judged New York from the majority of what I see of it's citizens, I would not have kind words for it. In other words, every major city has more than a fair share of ego-maniacs.


----------



## pwright1 (Jun 1, 2003)

When I moved to Seattle I was almost in shock at the size. I was expecting something much smaller and quieter. It's big and spread out with lots of traffic.


----------



## Nouvellecosse (Jun 4, 2005)

wickedestcity said:


> Accualy comming from Chicago i find that almost every city i go to seems like a little hick town!!!! i when to toronto last week (dont get me wrong Toronto is a very cool city)and i was very unimpressed by the citys size . the size of its skyline also seemed punny. and after hearing how its used to film movies that depict NY , i laughed when i saw it. the only exception so far was NY but i havent been to asia or europe. i have been to the middle east which also has small cities in comparisson.But its interesting to hear how some of you were dissapointed in chicagos size. its accualy the opposite for me. im never impressed with almost any other city after seeing chicago. i mean for crying out loud i drove once from tip to tip of the metro area and it took me nearly 2 1/2 hours...on the highway!!!.... withought trafic!!!!!! (a rarity btw lol) and some 30-35 miles of that stretch are back to back buildings dence as hell!! the skyline streatchees from noth to south nearly 4 1/5 miles in length and 3- 31/2 miles wide. if a 15 square mile cbd packed to hell with highrises and skyscrapers doesent impress u then idont know what will.


You seem to be focusing predominantly on built form, while many of the other people are also considering more subjective aspects of cities like the ambiance, energy level, and overall vibe. Not everyone's measure of a city is purely architectural, but I can understand why that would be an important aspect for you since that's obviously an area in which Chicago excels.


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

These were all taken by Goonsta, too; Michigan Avenue this year:









I prefer State Street, though. It's not as busy, but it has a more classic feel to it. 



















The traffic on Michigan is still pretty bad, though. :lol:


----------



## staff (Oct 23, 2004)

AMS guy said:


> It gave me impression of a city, completely deserted in some areas, a huge urban area without people... [...] ... The streets around that area were completely empty.
> I don't know why, but american urban sprawl doesn't look in my eyes like something that I'd associate with a big city feeling. Is it wrong? No, it's just how we see and feel it.


Exactly my point. Now, it has to be said, I haven't been to Chicago - but this is the general feeling of most North American cities excluding New York City and maybe San Francisco. 
Toronto was vibrant in some areas and completely dead in others, gritty parking lots occupied large areas - in the middle of the downtown. The district where all the skyscrapers are was completely dead in the afternoon/evening.
It's a really strange thing for a European to witness, even though you know that the NA urbanized areas covers miles and miles of land.

Cities on different continents are built differently - European (and Asian) cities tend to feel bigger (and I'm, like I stated before, not talking about which city looks larger from a bird's perspective).

It could be about city population classification as well. In the "how many people live in a 100 km radius from your city"-thread, a lot of European cities (100k, 250k, 500k etc.) tend to have 5-10 million in that area, while that number for North American cities equals the Metropolitan area in most cases. Maybe European cities are bigger than the numbers show (many people living very near the city but not in it - hence not being counted into the metro area). My friend is in Texas at the moment, and all of the cities that he has visited so far (including Phoenix in Arizona) felt a lot smaller than his home town, Malmö (280.000 inhabitants) according to him. But then again, over 3 million people live in the area around Malmö, and those people are not counted in the city (280k) nor metro (600k) population.

A very interesting topic this.


----------



## goonsta (Sep 11, 2002)

Chicago lost around 800,000 people. At one time, vibrant streets were dispersed among most of the entire city. Chicago's population gain has not been as even as its growth as most people moved to the North Side. 

Lets give you an idea of some of the odd juxtapositions as the result.

here is a streetscape SW of the loop









just 5 minutes west of that is the *2nd largest shopping district in Chicago*, a Mexican neighborhood.

























Now, the casual person would not know this exists, especially if they saw the street above and noticed how dead it was. The North and NW Sides are seamless urbanity with very few breaks. Elsewhere in the city its a different story.


----------



## spxy (Apr 9, 2003)

globill said:


> And I would bet a million euros that if any European would spend an hour some fifty floors off the Loop floor, they would concur that Chicago is WAY WAY busier and more hectic than anyplace in Europe.
> 
> It's called productivity.
> 
> ...



????????either you are on drugs or you're about 6 years old :weirdo:


----------



## eomer (Nov 15, 2003)

micro said:


> Hamburg is deceptive because you would expect more from Germany's second biggest city. Hamburg's metro area is not much larger than many others in Germany, and Hamburg has a definite smalltown feel to it. Only few international tourists find their way to Hamburg.


Don't forget that Hamburg (like Dresden, Hannover, Bremen, Leipzig...) was destroyed at 90% during WWII. If you except the Rattaus, rebuild has it was before, all parts of the city looks like the same.


----------



## wickedestcity (Jul 23, 2004)

AMS guy said:


> ^^ @ pottebaum
> *I was in Chicago in 1996, almost 10 years ago*. When I look now at some pics of downtown (from the street level) I notice that the city becomes more and more pedestrian friendly, more "cosy" (probably a wrong word, but I think you will understand what I want to say). It could be that Chicago downtown is now busier than the days I've seen it.
> 
> However I still remember very well that I was walking along the river in that sunny afternoon, admiring Marina City and other great buildings, and asking myself: "Where on Earth are people"?


 that really sums it up for me. 10 years ago the city was far more dead than it is today , nearly 120,000 people moved in tht central areas over that time making a huge dif. in the street vibrancy. also as of late theres been a renewal intrest in downtown as a whole , more visiers, more shoppers etc. what used to be a relitively seemingly quiet city , is now , busyer and more crowded with pedestrian traficc than ever! eccpecialy in the summer when everyone comes out of there caves from the winter hibernation. its almost become anoyingly crowded in some areas.people also used to leave downtown after 5 but now people are hangin out at milleniume park etc. till way later. come to chicago now, or betteryet wait till june/july and it will knock your sockes of!


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

Goonsta, isn't the Southwest side one of Chicago's fastest growing areas, though?


----------



## goonsta (Sep 11, 2002)

Yeah, but growth is still situated in already crowded areas. Industry is close to dead now, so there will remain large desolate areas until massive redevelopment occurs. Not just loft conversions, but development on a scale that includes infrastructure changes. Little Village is vibrant because a huge number of hispanic immigrants moved into a neighborhood with an already vibrant environment.


----------



## AMS guy (Jun 27, 2003)

^^ @ wickedestcity
I agree with you. I think it's now a new trend in the US cities, to bring more life into downtown. A girlfriend of mine was recently in Dallas and Houston, and she said they were making tramways there, opening cafes in the city core to attract more people.
I think that American cities go in a good direction.

Wondering how Miami downtown looks nowadays. I was there in 2000 and it surprised me how empty it was after 6 p.m. Even more deserted than LA.


----------



## UrbanSophist (Aug 4, 2005)

wickedestcity said:


> that really sums it up for me. 10 years ago the city was far more dead than it is today , nearly 120,000 people moved in tht central areas over that time making a huge dif. in the street vibrancy. also as of late theres been a renewal intrest in downtown as a whole , more visiers, more shoppers etc. what used to be a relitively seemingly quiet city , is now , busyer and more crowded with pedestrian traficc than ever! eccpecialy in the summer when everyone comes out of there caves from the winter hibernation. its almost become anoyingly crowded in some areas.people also used to leave downtown after 5 but now people are hangin out at milleniume park etc. till way later. come to chicago now, or betteryet wait till june/july and it will knock your sockes of!



I remember walking on Michigan Ave. about 10 years ago during the winter in the evening, and not that many people were out. Now, during the winter and in the evening, that same street has a very healthy dose of people walking around.

I can only imagine what 10 years from now will look like!


----------



## kool maudit (Jul 23, 2004)

we should stop even addressing this guy's 'european cities feel busy because socialist overlords keep people wandering aimlessly about drinking coffee theory.' it's too stupid.

the chicago neighbourhood streets look great though. vast place.


----------



## carlisle (Nov 10, 2005)

Maybe it's about time we had a threat to discuss the differences between cities in different parts of the world. What is clear to me from both this thread and the 'where's your city's mid-town' thread is that North American city centres tend to be far more subdivided, with different districts of the centre, such as downtown, mid-town, Chicago Loop, southside etc, and then yet more city centre activities such as nightlife (in Chicago's case so someone said) much more spead out around hte whole city, even outside of the centre. Whereas in Europe there is usually one city centre where nearly everything goes on, spread throughout the city centre, while there is clear distinction between city centre and suburbs


----------



## globill (Dec 4, 2005)

spxy said:


> ????????either you are on drugs or you're about 6 years old :weirdo:



It's a FACT that Americans spend more time working than Europeans, depending on the country, quite a bit more. And, it's a fact that American homes are nearly twice as large as your average European homes.

So it wouldn't be hard to imagine that Americans spend comparitively less time in public places and more time at their desks or on their very comfortable couches.

I really do think this helps explain the difference in perceived vitality between American and European cities. Same thing goes for Asian cities, where young people are desperate to escape from small crowded apartments. Many American young people simply have their friends over for a pizza party in the basement rec room.


----------



## AMS guy (Jun 27, 2003)

^^ I agree that Americans spend more time working than Europeans and that, in general, their cities - due to the urban sprawl, offer more living space. But you generalise too much. 
If I took over your way of thinking, I could say that the only reason why many North American cities look deserted in their city centres, is that they aren't attractive for an average tourist.

It's silly to say that people that you see walking in European or Asian cities, during the office hours, are unemployees, homeless or those ones who don't want to stay in their small appartments. 
You don't know much about European way of life or base your opinion on some strange statistics. Many European cities have as much space in their suburbs, as the American ones and in Europe you can have a comfortable house as well. It just depends on what you prefer yourself.
We've had discussion on this topic before on SSC, but I'm too lazy now to look for the link.

No offence, but may I ask how old you are?


----------



## AMS guy (Jun 27, 2003)

@goonsta
Fantastic pics of crowded Chicago. I love this kind of shots!



















Here Amsterdam centre.


----------



## Latoso (Mar 23, 2005)

Beautiful Amsterdam pics AMS!


----------



## Nouvellecosse (Jun 4, 2005)

globill said:


> It's a FACT that Americans spend more time working than Europeans, depending on the country, quite a bit more. And, it's a fact that American homes are nearly twice as large as your average European homes.
> 
> So it wouldn't be hard to imagine that Americans spend comparitively less time in public places and more time at their desks or on their very comfortable couches.
> 
> I really do think this helps explain the difference in perceived vitality between American and European cities. Same thing goes for Asian cities, where young people are desperate to escape from small crowded apartments. Many American young people simply have their friends over for a pizza party in the basement rec room.


Even if Americans spend more time at home and work than Europeans, I'd say that the comparative lack of bustle in American city centres could have more to do with Americans spending more time walking around suburban shopping malls and big box stores. I've encountered people here who live in the central areas who drive or take transit to suburban shopping areas outside the central city so I'd assume that this happens to some extent in the US as well. And even if it doesn't, suburbanites in the US would probably be less likely to travel the greater distances into town to shop than would their European counterparts.


----------



## globill (Dec 4, 2005)

AMS guy said:


> ^^ I agree that Americans spend more time working than Europeans and that, in general, their cities - due to the urban sprawl, offer more living space. But you generalise too much.
> If I took over your way of thinking, I could say that the only reason why many North American cities look deserted in their city centres, is that they aren't attractive for an average tourist.
> 
> It's silly to say that people that you see walking in European or Asian cities, during the office hours, are unemployees, homeless or those ones who don't want to stay in their small appartments.
> ...


Probably older than you, and I've lived in 5 countries on 3 continents. Including a lovely town named Leiden.

I actually DO KNOW what I'm talking about. I loved my cozy Dutch apartment. It's just my observation.

Americans feel much less compelled to leave their homes (on average...generalization I know) than do MOST East Asians and West Europeans. Most Americans work very hard to build/buy a big house and chill on the weekends in their backyards by their pools, or in their basements playing pingpong, or just sitting outside on their patios grilling burgers. Not all, but most. And my guess is, most Europeans, if given the choice, would do much the same. 

When you have LIVED on all three continents, please let me know what you think.


----------



## staff (Oct 23, 2004)

globill said:


> And my guess is, most Europeans, *if given the choice*, would do much the same.


Standard of living/quality of life/livability is generally better in most Western European cities than American cities. Salaries are higher, living is more expensive, prices are higher etc.

The European lifestyle is not about living in a house several miles from the city centre, hanging out by a swimming pool or playing ping-pong in the basement. Europeans like to live in the middle of a city - strolling around the jam-packed streets in their sparetime, hanging out with other people in the parks, going to cultural institutions such as museums and operas, going to clubs etc. The American city which resembles that lifestyle is New York City.

It's not like Europeans "couldn't have" the American lifestyle even if they wanted to. America is generally a dirt cheap country compared to western Europe.


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

Here at least, when people want to live in sprawl far from the city center in a big house, consuming and staying at home, they definitly can, just look at all the new towns and malls around Paris.


----------



## 909 (Oct 22, 2003)

globill said:


> It's a FACT that Americans spend more time working than Europeans, depending on the country, quite a bit more. And, it's a fact that American homes are nearly twice as large as your average European homes.
> 
> So it wouldn't be hard to imagine that Americans spend comparitively less time in public places and more time at their desks or on their very comfortable couches.


It's a fact that there are more countries with a lower unemployment rate than the US and still have more vibrant public places.

Just look at this list from Forbes, from 2002. A lot of countries which has more employment and life in public places at the same time. And it's a well know fact that the US hasn't got the highest productivity.



















And Americans are not the persons who spend more time working than others. Remarkable it that a country like Japan or Poland have what they shouldn't have according to you, people spending time in public places. 










Perhaps a large part of the Americans homes are bigger, but it's a well known fact that the most American cities doens't have a descent city center and that's the reasons why Americans are not packed on the streets, because of the car reliant cities.


----------



## globill (Dec 4, 2005)

909 wrote
Perhaps a large part of the Americans homes are bigger, but it's a well known fact that the most American cities doens't have a descent city center and that's the reasons why Americans are not packed on the streets, because of the car reliant cities.

All true. I live in Asia and one of the joys of returning home is to walk through a giant American store free of carts bumping into me and no lines at the check-out. A giant football-field sized store all to myself.

But I also like coming back to Asia, where things are crazy and hectic. Europe is somewhere in the middle, not as spacious as America, nor as urban as Asia.

Maybe it's ideal...

I like extremes.


----------



## spxy (Apr 9, 2003)

globill said:


> Americans feel much less compelled to leave their homes (on average...generalization I know) than do MOST East Asians and West Europeans. Most Americans work very hard to build/buy a big house and chill on the weekends in their backyards by their pools, or in their basements playing pingpong, or just sitting outside on their patios grilling burgers. Not all, but most. And my guess is, most Europeans, if given the choice, would do much the same.


For a start no one feels compelled to leave their homes, people go out because they want to and realise theres a lot of life to be lived out there.
Staying in all the time is a rather boaring and isolating experience.Its much more interesting to go out and meet people.But when you have a life style where every thing is far away it makes it a lot more difficult to go out and also amenities tend to spread around the place rather than be centred.

Europeans do have the choice in , we choose not to stay indoors.


----------



## spxy (Apr 9, 2003)

globill said:


> Americans feel much less compelled to leave their homes (on average...generalization I know) than do MOST East Asians and West Europeans. Most Americans work very hard to build/buy a big house and chill on the weekends in their backyards by their pools, or in their basements playing pingpong, or just sitting outside on their patios grilling burgers. Not all, but most. And my guess is, most Europeans, if given the choice, would do much the same.


For a start no one feels compelled to leave their homes, people go out because they want to and realise theres a lot of life to be lived out there.
Staying in all the time is a rather boaring and isolating experience.Its much more interesting to go out and meet people.But when you have a life style where every thing is far away it makes it a lot more difficult to go out and also amenities tend to spread around the place rather than be centred.

Europeans do have the choice to stay in or go out.Most feel the suburban life style leaves a lot to be desired.
You world view seems very imature.


----------



## globill (Dec 4, 2005)

And I counldn't locate a stat/chart, but I read somewhere that the average US home is nearly 2 times the size of a European home, person for person.

Correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## spxy (Apr 9, 2003)

double post


----------



## globill (Dec 4, 2005)

spxy said:


> For a start no one feels compelled to leave their homes, people go out because they want to and realise theres a lot of life to be lived out there.
> Staying in all the time is a rather boaring and isolating experience.Its much more interesting to go out and meet people.But when you have a life style where every thing is far away it makes it a lot more difficult to go out and also amenities tend to spread around the place rather than be centred.
> 
> Europeans do have the choice to saty in or go out.
> You world view seems very imature.


I was speaking mainly of young people living with their parents. They UNIVERSALLY have a desire to leave home. However, younger Americans often don't NEED TO......if you know what I mean. 

And my point is, Americans don;t just stay in their big homes by themselves, if that's what you think. They are constantly giving parties, having people over for dinner, slumber parties as kids.

These things almost never happen in Asian homes, unless it is family, and a bit more so in European homes (according to my personal experiences).

It is not uncommon for an American to visit dozens of homes every year for everything from birthday parties, to Sunday football game parties, to poker parties etc., etc., etc.

And I know, many Europeans go to one another's homes for dinner parties etc.

But I still believe much much more entertaining/drinking/partying is done in private homes in America than anywhere else in the world.


I'm not saying which is better. I'm just offering my observations.


----------



## goonsta (Sep 11, 2002)

staff said:


> Standard of living/quality of life/livability is generally better in most Western European cities than American cities. Salaries are higher, living is more expensive, prices are higher etc.
> 
> The European lifestyle is not about living in a house several miles from the city centre, hanging out by a swimming pool or playing ping-pong in the basement. Europeans like to live in the middle of a city - strolling around the jam-packed streets in their sparetime, hanging out with other people in the parks, going to cultural institutions such as museums and operas, going to clubs etc. The American city which resembles that lifestyle is New York City.
> 
> It's not like Europeans "couldn't have" the American lifestyle even if they wanted to. America is generally a dirt cheap country compared to western Europe.


So NYC also doesn't have over 10 million people living in suburbs?

I've been to Amsterdam and London. While overall the cities are different, You place the North Side of Chicago (an entire area of 1 million people) in the both of these central cities and you wouldn't miss a heartbeat in vibrant street activities. I live that lifestyle you speak of, 40 minutes from downtown Chicago, as do millions of residents of other cities. To think that NYC is the only city with people strolling about in European levels is absolutely ridiculous. You need to learn about urban renewal, racism, and other government policies and how they ravaged all US cities, (including NYC). In some cases, they destroyed nearly the entire cities, but others, such as NYC,SF,Chicago,Boston, etc...theres still a decent amount left.

Another thing, if anyone here is visiting a financial district in downtown and its dead....well.....duh.....its a financial district. Its your fault for not learning about it. I also have no pity for people who wander into dead areas adjacent from downtown in cities where there is activity.


----------



## DrJoe (Sep 12, 2002)

> I agree that Toronto felt a lot smaller than a 5-6 million city. Mainly because the downtown was surprisingly small. Still, it's a very nice city, one of my favourites so far.


Staff im glad you enjoyed Toronto but please stop lecturing people on how large the city is when you missed 3/4 of it.

did you check out the east side of the city?? not likely cause you stopped at the tall buildings










how about the distillery district??









Kensington Market?










I could go forever here


----------



## globill (Dec 4, 2005)

staff said:


> Standard of living/quality of life/livability is generally better in most Western European cities than American cities. Salaries are higher, living is more expensive, prices are higher etc.
> 
> The European lifestyle is not about living in a house several miles from the city centre, hanging out by a swimming pool or playing ping-pong in the basement. Europeans like to live in the middle of a city - strolling around the jam-packed streets in their sparetime, hanging out with other people in the parks, going to cultural institutions such as museums and operas, going to clubs etc. The American city which resembles that lifestyle is New York City.
> 
> It's not like Europeans "couldn't have" the American lifestyle even if they wanted to. America is generally a dirt cheap country compared to western Europe.


You say Europeans "like to live" in the middle of a city......

do they really have a choice?

And to me, as a past resident of both East and Western Europe, it is sooo obvious you have no idea what America is nor how Americans live, save for certain regurgitated euro-mantras along the lines of America-this, America-that....

I'm reminded of a certain French exchange student in my suburban Chicago high school in the 80's, who LITERALLY gave a lecture to over 600 students about America's lack of urbane culture.

A year later, I bumped into him in a Chicago house music club, singing the praises of his adopted homeland.

Europeans tend to sneer at America, until they have a good experience. Then their minds tend to open.


----------



## lokinyc (Sep 17, 2002)

geez, this got ugly.


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

globill said:


> You say Europeans "like to live" in the middle of a city......
> 
> do they really have a choice?


They most certainly do. Just look at city center vrs metropolitan area populations. London has an urban area of 8.6million (12.2 using the U.S. version) with 18million in the surrounding metropolitan area. 

Frankfurt has about 1.8million in it's direct urban area with 4.9million in it's metro. 

This is reflected in cities right across Europe.

There are plenty of options outside the main urban area, where the houses are larger and more open space.

It is true however, that the main urban centers are quite dense, and many people prefer urban apartment living. If I ask all the people I know why do they choose to live where they do, it's by choice, usually it's family's that opt for the outer metropolitan area's, or those who were born there.

We do have choices here.

I come from Australia, so I know all about ultra low density suburban living, and can compare it quite well to my lifestyle here in Europe.


----------



## staff (Oct 23, 2004)

Dang. Time to get the dictionary...

*goonsta,*
Yes - so? New York has a downtown core/centre size equal to those of larger European and Asian cities. But still, why are you asking me this? I was answering globill's ridiculous post about European's "being forced out of their homes because they live to small", or something like that. 
My ponit is - Europeans don't live an "urban life" because they "have to" - they choose to do this. It is the European lifestyle. No one has said that there aren't Americans who does this as well. New York, Chicago, Boston, San Francisco are cities where this phenomenon is present. Though, in the US, this "lifestyle" isn't as common (throughout most cities) as it is in Europe, where it's going on in virtually every city - whatever the size.



> Another thing, if anyone here is visiting a financial district in downtown and its dead....well.....duh.....its a financial district. Its your fault for not learning about it. I also have no pity for people who wander into dead areas adjacent from downtown in cities where there is activity.


In Europe, the financial districts are not dead, simply because they're integrated with the rest of the city centre and the fact that there are no pronounced 'financial districts' in European cities (with a few exceptions of course - La Défense is one, Cnary Wharp is another - both are built in modern times after "the American model").


*DrJoe,*
You obviously know a lot about my visit in Toronto. How come?



> the east side of the city


Yes.



> the distillery district


Yes.



> Kensington Market


Guess what? Yes.

But please - "go on forever". I very well may have missed other parts since I didn't spend more than about a week in Toronto.
I'm not saying Toronto is small. I'm not saying Toronto is boring. I'm not saying Toronto is dead. I'm not saying Toronto is whatever.
What I'm saying is; Toronto's inner city is, naturally, very different from a European city's equivalent. This can be surprising for a European, me for example, who is there visiting.


*globill,*
Do they really have a choice? Why wouldn't they have a choice? 
It's as simple as selling their outrageously expensive appartment in the downtown and buy a much larger house in some cosy suburb. Many families do. 
Most don't - why, you ask? The very thought of it is boring. Now we're back at "urban lifestyle" again.

I very much agree that Europeans tend to sneer at the American society and lifestyle.
I don't. I'm pointing out that people on different continents live different kind of lives (obviously), and have different lifestyles. This phenomenon, my friend, is the reason why *North American cities are deceptive in the way that they feel smaller than they actually are* (ie. what the population figures show). There are exceptions as always, but this is the general thing in North America. No more, no less.


----------



## Blackbelt Jones (Apr 22, 2004)

Perhaps many misconceptions on the "deceptiveness" of large North American cities would up and vanish if the visitor was prepared to expand his or her definition of the word "city." After all, if you try to fit a peg on a round hole, you will be disappointed every time. And you can hardly blame the peg for that...

Of course, the traditional large NA city is largely product of planned growth; with few exceptions, it is the utilitarian antithesis the graceful organic and multi-layered growth found in Europe (in fact, many traces of that "organic" growth were ultimately plowed under in NA in favor of simple New World ergonomics); among the obvious differences (wide streets, spaced housing), planned growth resulted in the clustering of large civic and commercial works in one location (i.e. “downtown”), heavy industry in another (i.e. in proximity to natural resources and heavy transit… in some cities, this is actually a substitute for “downtown”), and the day-to-day elements of life in yet a third (i.e. the taverns, restaurants, cafes, grocery stores, apartments, condos, houses that comprise the neighborhood). 

As you can see, they just flat out build them differently in NA.

But because North American city designs _are_ so different, it leads to common misunderstandings, _many of which_ I read on this thread. Perhaps it’s due to the organic (and elegant) way in which European cities developed over the past 1000 years, or maybe a shade of close-mindedness (or high-mindedness), but I think one could make an _honest_ argument that Europeans don't conceptualize the idea of “City” the way North Americans do***; as such, they are less prepared to grasp the basics of what make a North American city live and breath.

I certainly don't fault any visitor for having this misimpression… but I _do_ wish they would try a bit harder to overcome it. In many European cities, you don't have to stray far to find the “action.” In NA, the action is not necessarily always where you would assume it is... downtown. So "yes," you have to do more work to find it; when you do, it is immensely rewarding, and it will quickly eviscerate any mis-placed feelings about how "large" a city feels (compared to its _actual_ size, that is). If I dropped any doubter in the (Chicago) neighborhood of Pilsen, and had them travel to the neighborhood of Andersonville by way of surface streets, they would never again question the breadth and size of Chicago.... and they would barley have scratched the surface of the (true) city.

But how many visitors actually do that?

Though I am sure some would argue this point, as a former resident of the UK and a current resident of the US (and for however that qualifies me), I feel that North American neighborhoods are the most fascinating and vibrant social workshops in the Western World. Just as there is no real NA equivalent to the thick blanket of winding pedestrian streets and carefully manicured cityscapes that you find in say Amsterdam, Paris, or Vienna (where time and good taste have allowed them to cultivate a nearly seamless urban experience), there is no real European equivalent to the stunning tapestry of 100 unique and individual neighborhoods that are interwoven to form a single, unified city. And once that uniquely North American tapestry is discovered, and I mean _truly _ discovered, it will ultimately enrich your definition of "city," and _forever_ change your perception of size "deception."



_***It was fun to read Goonsta's (correct) proclamation that North American financial centers are dead at night (I am guessing that many North Americans had a chuckle at his post... and if I had a Euro for every European that complained how dead a North American's "Downtown" is at night, I could buy them an Airbus to fly home to their familar confines). Goonsta's point is my point: if you think of Chicago (and fill in the major NA city of your choice) as the Loop and the Mag Mile, you are TOTALLY missing the HEART and SOUL of Chicago. Of course, if you miss the heart and soul of the city, you are probably not in a position to have a very educated opinion about said city (other than the cleanliness of downtown, that is)._


----------



## staff (Oct 23, 2004)

^^
Good post.

However, to be able to really know the heart and soul of a city, you basically have to be a resident of the city in question. *This goes for all cities - not just Chicago*. For most people, who are residing in one city and visits other cities during their travels/work, the opinion if a city "feels big or not" is generally based on the first impressions and what comes out of the "tourist routes". I've often heard Chicagoans state that "a visitor never experience the 'real' Chicago", but this is goes for all cities. A tourist in Copenhagen does not nearly experience the heart and soul of Copenhagen either. 
In my opinion - you don't have to know the heart and soul of particular city just to have an opinion if the city feels big or not (or "equivalent to it's actual population").

I don't know why it's always the Chicagoans that get upset when people are stating that "American cities in general feels smaller than they are".

Having an educated opinion about a city and having an opinion about if a city feels big or not, is not the same thing in my book. And this thread is about deceptive cities.

----------

There is an interesting discussion directly related to this one in the "Does Europe have any fast growing cities?"-thread in the same subforum. It may be interesting to read it from an American's point of view.

This forum has shapened up since the City vs. City subforum disapeared...


----------



## globill (Dec 4, 2005)

Excellent post Blackbelt. I once hosted a friend from London in Chicago and after her first day touring the loop et al, she complained that Chicago was lacking "nooks and crannies". Well over the course of the week, after she explored Hyde Park, Wicker Park, Old Town, Uptown, Rogers Park, etc., etc. she changed her mind.

It's really sad how few tourists to Chicago, both domestic and international come away thinking of Chicago as a bunch of tall buildings next to a lake. They miss the best part.


----------



## svs (Dec 5, 2005)

Its interesting, but for this American, it is the European cities that seem small. (I have spent about two years of my life overall traveling in Europe and am reasonable comfortable in most of the European capitals.) Some of the reason is the compactness of the center cities. You can walk to most of the major attractions in most major European cities from a single location and I have indeed walked across Paris from La Villette to my apt. near the Eiffel tower during an unscheduled metro strike and found PAris not much bigger geographically than my little suburb of Santa Monica. Also there are plenty of dead spots and empty areas in Europe. It depends on the time of day. The streets of Madrid and Barcelona seemed totally empty to me when I visited until I figured out that Spaniard ate and partied much later than I was used to. I suspect Europeans when they visit America use American cities like they would their home base and are surprised that American cities are arranged differently and have different time frames. not necessarily better of worse just different. It would be impossible to see the various attractions of my home base Los Angeles without motorized transportation and though there is a better bus system than most people believe, navigation is not easy and there are distances between active neighborhoods. Downtown is pretty lively during the day but dead at night. The opposite is probably true of the Sunset strip. Clubs, concert halls, and theaters abound but they are scattered all over the metro area from Ventura County to Laguna Beach. The reason is that LA basically grew up after trains and automobiles were common so it was easy for the city to sprawl with wide blvds. Also the city was formed as multiple towns merged together leaving not clear center. It can take several hours to drive across the metropolitan area. Santa Monica to Disneyland is 45 minutes in perfect traffic at top speed in perfect weather by auto. When we are in Europe we never consider the suburbs because generally there is nothing we would want to do there. In my mind this shrinks European cities down to tiny places, packed with interesting things to see, but tiny none the less. Also with a few exceptions, such as London, we just don't see as much construction in Europe as we do in the constantly changing American and Asian cities. We realize there is a lot of growth going on at the edge of the European metros, but we don't see it because we are concentrating on the relatively stable and museum like city centers.


----------



## globill (Dec 4, 2005)

svs,

from my experience in Europe I agree,

and regarding LA, on my recent trip there, I was determined to hoof it from Santa Monica all the way to Hollywood. Took me the better part of a day but I was glad I took the time. LA is as underrated by eastern Americans as America is by Europeans. On my walk I encountered a thousand surprises, from an Orthodox Jewish hood on Fairfax, to that crazy stretch along Melrose, to Amoeba Records, (the BEST music store on Earth!) to a football game at Hollywood High, tried an In-&-Out burger (yum) for lunch, and ended up at an Uzbek restaurant on Sunset. LA is challenging even for the most intrepid of urban hikers.

At least I knew better than to attempt a Santa Monica to downtown jaunt....leave that to the triathletes.


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

Staff said:


> I don't know why it's always the Chicagoans that get upset when people are stating that "American cities in general feels smaller than they are".


Perhaps it's because you singled it out as "feeling smaller than it really is" without ever even visiting city!


----------



## staff (Oct 23, 2004)

^^
Chicago came into the discussion long before that...

Anyway, this thread isn't getting anywhere. It ended up being about Chicago like many other threads of this kind...


----------



## skyscraper_1 (May 30, 2004)

globill said:


> And, it's a fact that American homes are nearly twice as large as your average European homes..


Its also a fact that the average American home built today are only going to last fifty years, while most European homes are centuries old and could last another few centuries easy.


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

^Staff, you're right. It was Quickdraw that got all this crap about Chicago started.

I generally agree that North American cities would seem deceptive (they're just different mind sets) to a European like yourself, but think Chicago would be an exception.

You just made such bold claims without ever visiting the city; Though I think they might have been out of spite towards Globill--it just bothered me.


----------



## Blackbelt Jones (Apr 22, 2004)

staff said:


> ^^
> Good post.


Tak! 



staff said:


> However, to be able to really know the heart and soul of a city, you basically have to be a resident of the city in question. This goes for all cities - not just Chicago[/B]. For most people, who are residing in one city and visits other cities during their travels/work, the opinion if a city "feels big or not" is generally based on the first impressions and what comes out of the "tourist routes".


If one avoids tourist traps, one is likely to have a far better... and truer... impression of the city. After all, it is hardly the fault of Paris if someone confines their entire visit the Champs-Elysee, the Arc de Triomphe, and the Eiffel tower and then walks away thinking Paris is nothing more than a museum for chain smokers. That is not to say I eschew major tourist attractions, but it has been my personal experience that there is ultimately always something more interesting to see and do... for instance, seeing how other cultures function day-to-day. While this model may not be for everyone, it always leaves me with the feeling of having seen something truly unique. 



staff said:


> I've often heard Chicagoans state that "a visitor never experience the 'real' Chicago", but this is goes for all cities. A tourist in Copenhagen does not nearly experience the heart and soul of Copenhagen either. In my opinion - you don't have to know the heart and soul of particular city just to have an opinion if the city feels big or not (or "equivalent to it's actual population")


And yet, if you ask some hip looking folks where the best place to catch some good local music or grab a tasty beer... or even where a good grocery store is... they usually point you in the right direction. Once the direction is "found," I am sure to have a far different impression of a place than those who would simply refer to a Fodor’s guide.

And I KNOW I would have a great time in Copenhagen, even without ever seeing a fraction of the "must-see" tourist destinations… and I would _certainly_ feel like I have lived in the city's skin. But if I largely confine my visit to Amalienborg Palace, the Frihedsmuseet, and the Stroget (and the bars and restaurants therein)… let’s be honest, do you REALLY think I would have even a _fair_ impression of your city? I think not… but you _would_ (rightly) think me rather dull. 



staff said:


> I don't know why it's always the Chicagoans that get upset when people are stating that "American cities in general feels smaller than they are"....


You must realize that you are posting on a skyscraper board, and one with an obvious urban bent.  This attracts Chicagoans like moths to a flame, because Chicagoans are far more wonkish on even the most abstract urban concepts than your average person. Chicagoans love Chicago like no other place I have seen... and the record, I am NOT remotely a native of Chicago. What I have observed in my 18 months of living here is a level of civic pride that borders on paranoia. But it is also what makes this town so special.

What irritates Chicagoans (or Torontians, or Seattleites, etc) about such misconceptions directly relates to my two posts above... I mean, if you walk away from one of those places feeling that is somehow "small," than it simply _isn't_ the fault of the City.


----------



## Blackbelt Jones (Apr 22, 2004)

skyscraper_1 said:


> Its also a fact that the average American home built today are only going to last fifty years, while most European homes are centuries old and could last another few centuries easy.


Yes, nothing quite says "Old World Craftsmanship" like premanufactured Ikea homes. ;-)


----------



## Metropolitan (Sep 21, 2004)

Blackbelt Jones said:


> If one avoids tourist traps, one is likely to have a far better... and truer... impression of the city. After all, it is hardly the fault of Paris if you confine your entire visit the Champs-Elysee, the Arc de Triomphe, and the Eiffel tower and walk away thinking Paris is nothing more than a museum for chain smokers.


I would agree with you... but the problem is that the Champs-Elysées are located in the heart of a huge shopping area (not the cheapest one though). Hence you could have the feeling to be in a museum, but that vision is perverted by a crowd of indigenous people which is mixing up in another crowd of tourists in such a way that you cannot figure out which group represents the majority. The only thing you're sure about is that the place is overcrowded.


----------



## jmancuso (Jan 9, 2003)

guys, knock off the bickering. 

anyhoo, pittsburgh is (to me) the US's most deceptive city. everyone has this preconcieved notion that it is a rotting shithole when in fact it is really a spectacular city.


----------



## Diboto (Oct 20, 2004)

909 said:


> It's a fact that there are more countries with a lower unemployment rate than the US and still have more vibrant public places.
> 
> Just look at this list from Forbes, from 2002. A lot of countries which has more employment and life in public places at the same time. And it's a well know fact that the US hasn't got the highest productivity.
> 
> ...


Outdated information. Why don´t people get more accurate data? In Colombia, current unemployment is high, but no more than 10% to 11%. And about the US productivity, as far as other more reliable statistics, they are No. 1 or No.2 when it comes to productivity right after Singapore. 

:sleepy:


----------



## staff (Oct 23, 2004)

Blackbelt Jones said:


> If one avoids tourist traps, one is likely to have a far better... and truer... impression of the city. After all, it is hardly the fault of Paris if someone confines their entire visit the Champs-Elysee, the Arc de Triomphe, and the Eiffel tower and then walks away thinking Paris is nothing more than a museum for chain smokers. That is not to say I eschew major tourist attractions, but it has been my personal experience that there is ultimately always something more interesting to see and do... for instance, seeing how other cultures function day-to-day. While this model may not be for everyone, it always leaves me with the feeling of having seen something truly unique.


You're absolutely right - I didn't make myself very clear with that part of my post actually. I was referring to the part of a city "you and me" (or any other urban enthuiast, as most of us are on these boards) would see and experience on a, say, one week visit - not exclusively the hardcore tourist sights like Champs Elysées, the Big Ben or Alcatraz (but I think I would include such sights if I hadn't been to the cities before). I personally like to go "off the beaten track" when visiting new places, but I still think it's hard to experience the real heart and soul of a city in such a short time. You pretty much have to be a permanent resident/student or whatever, to do that. I think. 



> And yet, if you ask some hip looking folks where the best place to catch some good local music or grab a tasty beer... or even where a good grocery store is... they usually point you in the right direction. Once the direction is "found," I am sure to have a far different impression of a place than those who would simply refer to a Fodor’s guide.


Absolutely. However, I still think you may be able to get an impression or opinion about if the city feels smaller/larger than "it actually is". I'm not saying this is the case for Chicago, since I haven't actually been there - but it's still the general feeling when visiting North American cities (that they feel smaller than the pop. figures show, that is). And it's not that fact I'm interested in - it's *why* (except for the fact that the US is more suburbanized than other parts of the world). The other thread I was referring too in an earlier post gives a couple of answers to that - very interesting. 



> And I KNOW I would have a great time in Copenhagen, even without ever seeing a fraction of the "must-see" tourist destinations… and I would _certainly_ feel like I have lived in the city's skin. But if I largely confine my visit to Amalienborg Palace, the Frihedsmuseet, and the Stroget (and the bars and restaurants therein)… let’s be honest, do you REALLY think I would have even a _fair_ impression of your city? I think not… but you _would_ (rightly) think me rather dull.


I'm sure you would (just as I'm sure I would have a great time in Chicago, Los Angeles or Philadelphia)! If you only visited those places, together with other essential attractions for the hardcore tourist such as Lille Havfrue, Castellet, Christiania, Lousiana and so on, you wouldn't experience the 'real' CPH for sure. However, I don't think you would see the heart and soul of the city if you did other things as well, if only visiting for a short time. I live in Malmö (the twin city across the Öresund), and work in Copenhagen - and I still feel that I'm not totally "in the know" about the city, even though I'm here every day.

My point is - it's not really a question of getting a fair impression of the city, it's about how large or small the city feels when you're there visiting (because that's what this thread is all about, right?). 




> You must realize that you are posting on a skyscraper board, and one with an obvious urban bent.  This attracts Chicagoans like moths to a flame, because Chicagoans are far more wonkish on even the most abstract urban concepts than your average person. Chicagoans love Chicago like no other place I have seen... and the record, I am NOT remotely a native of Chicago. What I have observed in my 18 months of living here is a level of civic pride that borders on paranoia. But it is also what makes this town so special.


By now, I'm very aware of the fact that the classic "skyscraper cities" gets a lot of attention on this forum, which after all is a forum about skyscrapers. Chicago, Toronto, Dubai etc. have enormous amounts of local forumers because of this, and naturally the forums are characterized by this.

Chicago seems to be a lot like Malmö (where I live) - local patriotism, a victim of centralization etc. I can also understand that the Chicagoans have an urge to "make people know they're there", since the city doesn't get nearly as much international attention as NYC and LA, even though it's approx. on the same level as those cities, especially the latter one. The average European would probably put Chicago on the same level as Denver, Detroit, Seattle and such, simply because of the lack of knowledge.



> What irritates Chicagoans (or Torontians, or Seattleites, etc) about such misconceptions directly relates to my two posts above... I mean, if you walk away from one of those places feeling that is somehow "small," than it simply _isn't_ the fault of the City.


I think that goes for inhabitants of most of the world's cities. If a tourist in Malmö would say that "oh, this city is so clean and seem to have no crime at all", I would laugh and tell him to make another visit before he makes ridiculous statements like that. 

As for the Toronto example (I will be flamed by DrJoe, again), the city itself didn't feel smaller than "it should be", but I was surprised of the downtown's size, and the lack of vibrancy in parts of it. Simply because it's structured differently compared to the cities I'm used to (European cities, that is).


----------



## 909 (Oct 22, 2003)

Diboto said:


> Outdated information. Why don´t people get more accurate data? In Colombia, current unemployment is high, but no more than 10% to 11%. And about the US productivity, as far as other more reliable statistics, they are No. 1 or No.2 when it comes to productivity right after Singapore.
> 
> :sleepy:


It doens't matter is this information is outdated or not. I wrote: _Just look at this list from Forbes, from 2002. A lot of countries which has more employment and life in public places at the same time._ It was so explain there wasn't a direct relation between how people work and life, combined with the amount of people on the streets.

Columbia's Unemployment rate was 13.6% in 2004 according to the World Factbook. And perhaps i am wrong about productivity, so can you prove that with facts and figures?


----------



## Stratosphere 2020 (Sep 15, 2002)

909 said:


> It doens't matter is this information is outdated or not. I wrote: _Just look at this list from Forbes, from 2002. A lot of countries which has more employment and life in public places at the same time._ It was so explain there wasn't a direct relation between how people work and life, combined with the amount of people on the streets.
> 
> Columbia's Unemployment rate was 13.6% in 2004 according to the World Factbook. And perhaps i am wrong about productivity, so can you prove that with facts and figures?



The World Fact Book and the CIA facts and figures provide lots of inaccurate figures. I think many of the figures are just copy paste from the previous years. I checked out my home country Aruba and more than half of the figures are wrong, far wrong.


----------



## 909 (Oct 22, 2003)

The problem is, is there a good source where all facts and figures are falsifiable? No, so there is always room for discussion and there will always be different facts and figures on different times. Everything depends on the way how, where when, why and by who something is being investigated. There isn't a single way of getting statistics.

Anyway, this discussion wasn't about facts and figures, but about cities. So let's talk about cities again.


----------



## skyscraper_1 (May 30, 2004)

Blackbelt Jones said:


> Yes, nothing quite says "Old World Craftsmanship" like premanufactured Ikea homes. ;-)


I said MOST! haha


----------



## svs (Dec 5, 2005)

globill said:


> svs,
> 
> from my experience in Europe I agree,
> 
> ...


Very Impressive!!!!


----------



## VanSeaPor (Mar 12, 2005)

Seattle is fantasticly spread out, thanks to Puget Sound and other natural obstructions I believe. The result is a 3.8 million metro area in an area of 3,300 square miles (or something close to that), close to the size of the bay area with 1/2 the population. Oh well, lots of big nice houses on big nice lots can't be a bad thing. And most Seattle houses are next to water and/or mountains/hills. That car that can run on water (Aquada I think it's called) would do well in this city


----------



## Nouvellecosse (Jun 4, 2005)

One thing I've always wondered about is what it would be like to live in a major city with few skyscrapers in the centre, such as Paris or Barcelona. I think to a lot of N. Americans, the whole concept of downtown and big cities is defined by that deep, dark, canyon effect that the skyscrapers create. To be in the midst of all those tall buildings just makes you feel like you're somewhere so important, and that you're really insignificant by comparison. I think it would be hard for a city to seem big and important without that. Even if there were a lot of tall builings in the centre, if they were to spaced apart, it wouldn't have the same effect.

But of course, people growing up in different cultural environments wouldn't think of it that way I suppose.


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

What about DC^^


----------



## bayviews (Mar 3, 2006)

First times I visited Vancouver, Canada, when it was much smaller than now, it already seemed like a much bigger city. Particularly the West End which was already filled with high-rise residential towers. Even then, Vancouver also had a rather cosmopolitan flavor. Transit system was very good. Even when it was modest in size, Vancouver seems to have been thinking of how to become a major city. And so Vancouver has realize its aspitations. Many Canadian cities seem larger than their bigger US counterparts. By contrast, there are many American cities that even when they ranked rather large, seemed to have the mindset of small towns. And in many cases they have gotten their wish & become much smaller.


----------



## Tuscani01 (Nov 24, 2005)

pottebaum said:


> I still don't know where Staff comes across saying with so much assurance that Chicago "seems smaller" than it really is. His opinion is valued, because he seems like a pretty intelligent guy, but I don't think he's even been there! Perhaps he doesn't understand the layout and function of North American cities?


I dont know where everyone is coming from saying that he is wrong for stating his opinion. Not everyone thinks the same way, and he in no way should be forced to say he thinks it seems bigger. If he thought it seemed smaller then that is his opinion. No one should be critisizing him based on his opinion.

I personally would NOT rank NY's skyline in a top 3... even though most people would call me crazy, its my opinion... i dont care. I dont like the skyline. There are many more out in the world which impress me more than NY. I havnt been there in person, but im still entitled to my opinion. The people of this forum really make me sick sometimes. Everyone needs to take a chill pill.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

Toronto feels bigger than it is at times, with all those high-rises scattered throughout the city.


----------



## Nouvellecosse (Jun 4, 2005)

virtual said:


> What about DC^^


In the pictures, it does seem to convey a sense of importance. However, it isn't as much a sense of big city importance, as in being important because it's really big, busy, bustling, and the centre of attention, but rather a quieter,more institutional type of importance, like a prestigious university, which isn't surprising considering DC isn't a natural capital like London or Paris. Of course, this is all in the realm of theory for me since I've never been there.


----------



## Spooky873 (Mar 2, 2005)

Massive Attack said:


> in dallas you get the sensation of being in a very big city, sprawled, with similar houses everywhere, similar streets, no people walking, indoor malls, no life, a bunch of skyscrapers in a 10 x 10 square place, is just dull and lifeless, except for new york, san franscisco, boston and a few places more



yea, id say boston philly nyc chicago and sf are the most vibrant. car dependant cities SUCK!!


----------



## Peshu (Jan 12, 2005)

Time of day or not.European cities,especially Madrid and other southern cities from that continent blow North American cities away when it comes to streetlife and especially nightlife.


----------



## Martuh (Nov 12, 2005)

San Fransisco felt like 4 million, huge for only 700,000.

Btw Amsterdam feels way larger then just 800,000.


----------



## Amd1588 (Jan 31, 2004)

I always thought Atlanta felt more like a city of maybe 12 million, but for some reason the census only can come up with 400,000.........Strange.


----------



## Diboto (Oct 20, 2004)

Amd1588 said:


> I always thought Atlanta felt more like a city of maybe 12 million, but for some reason the census only can come up with 400,000.........Strange.


LOL, there´s quite a difference between those two figures!!!!


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Martuh said:


> San Fransisco felt like 4 million, huge for only 700,000.


But SF does get alot of local and foreign tourists adding up to the no. of people in the city.


----------



## Spooky873 (Mar 2, 2005)

on a global scale, out of the alpha/gamma etc. cities, which ones are alike? Even though NYC and HK have tons of buildings, which one feels bigger?


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Spooky873 said:


> on a global scale, out of the alpha/gamma etc. cities, which ones are alike? Even though NYC and HK have tons of buildings, which one feels bigger?


Between HK and NY, I find the vibe very similar.


----------



## tuckerman (Aug 8, 2005)

SuomiPoika said:


> Er...everyone i know that has been to america have been shocked by the lack of streetlife and nightlife. It´s a common fact that european cities are made for people and american cities for cars (with a few exceptions). One of my friends went to Atlanta and he didn´t know what to do since downtown was totally empty. And Atlanta is still a much bigger city that Helsinki but its nightlife doesn´t even come close to the one of Helsinki. Tourists don´t want to drive to some shabby suburb to party.
> I´m sure NYC and San Francisco don´t have this problem but most american cities do.
> American cities have small city centres (with no life in the evenings and at night) and huge suburbs which give them huge popualations. I have heard loads of complains about the lack of life and activity in american cities but never have i heard anything bad about europeans cities in this matter.



The feeling of a city's size is an interesting but totally subjective idea. When I lived in Europe (Antwerp, Edinburgh) I was used to very crowded sidewalks - in Edinburgh, despite a very wide pavement (sidewalk) on Princes Street, it was often shoulder to shoulder and had a pavement population that would be similar to Midtown NYC. Yet the metro area of Edinburgh was barely (if) 3/4 million. And the night life was very concentrated along one or two streets that would be bustling on a weeked night. Moving to Atlanta some ten years ago we discovered the American way of life. Street life seemed quite absent except on rare occasions when there was a festival or something special taking place. It took some time to understand the complexity of how nightlife takes place in a car-based culture. Nonetheless, it would be a big mistake to assume that there is little nightlife going on. In fact, quite the opposite is the case, it is just not readily visable and certainly not easily accessible by walking. 

The problem with impressions of cities based on short visits is that they are almost always superficial. The fact is that if you have an agglomeration of 5 million people who are in general pretty well off and a significantly high percentage are really wealthy, you will have a diverse cultural life, including restaurants, nightlife, shopping, etc. You just have to put aside your assumptions and take time to discover the way it is.


----------



## Mr Bricks (May 6, 2005)

Anyway, european cities are known for pedestrian streets, streetlife, nightlife, festivals and other events, clubs, restaurants, cafes, parties etc.....while american cities are known for sterile downtown streetlife, not as good nightlife, skyscrapers, big suburbs, huge highways...It´s not hard to choose from those two options, is it?


----------



## tuckerman (Aug 8, 2005)

SuomiPoika said:


> Anyway, european cities are known for pedestrian streets, streetlife, nightlife, festivals and other events, clubs, restaurants, cafes, parties etc.....while american cities are known for sterile downtown streetlife, not as good nightlife, skyscrapers, big suburbs, huge highways...It´s not hard to choose from those two options, is it?



Having made the choice, I can't personallly say which is a better choice. From my point of view Atlanta is a much more diverse and exciting place than the European Cities I've lived in. However, one is never in the same place at the same age - a city that is exciting and interesting to a 25 year old may not be so interesting and exciting to a 50 year old. To me most big cities are interesting once you take the time to understand them.


----------



## tuckerman (Aug 8, 2005)

tuckerman said:


> Having made the choice, I can't personallly say which is a better choice. From my point of view Atlanta is a much more diverse and exciting place than the European Cities I've lived in. However, one is never in the same place at the same age - a city that is exciting and interesting to a 25 year old may not be so interesting and exciting to a 50 year old. To me most big cities are interesting once you take the time to understand them.



Post script - Incidentally my spouse, who is from Berlin, whose relatives are still all in Germany, loves Berlin and Atlanta equally - for many different reasons


----------



## Mr Bricks (May 6, 2005)

I think you always love your homecity or the city you spend the most time in.


----------



## edubejar (Mar 16, 2003)

I've yet to go to Asia but as an American that has visited Western Europe several times and lived there, too, I agree that a TYPICAL, young, American city of, say, 1 million inh. feels smaller than a TYPICAL, older, European city with similar number of inhabitants. Density is certainly the reason. Not only are European cities usually much more dense, but their urban centers are bigger, too. Some European cities even consist predominantly of urban-looking suburubs, with suburban city-centers. Most American downtowns and their immediate, more urbanized surrounding areas, are smaller. Take my city...Austin, TX...even though we have a much more lively downtown with great downtown nightlife compared to other young American cities, our urban-core is much smaller than say Lille, France or Sevilla, Spain, which are metropolitan areas of similar population size.

On the otherhand, the developed area of, say, Austin, is much bigger than Lille's or Seville's...especially Seville's, which is much denser and compact (Lille has a more British/Belgian layout which calls for less density and more green space, which is common in Norther Europe). So by car, Austin does feel bigger...no doubt. So I guess it depends if you're on car or by foot. 

But personally, denser to me feels bigger, more than sprawl. There is something about the feel of buildings after buidlings after buildings, multi-story housing, crowds in plazas, squares, avenues and train/subway stations that makes me feel I'm in a big city.


----------



## elkram (Apr 1, 2006)

I agree -- large bodies of water and mountains aside, right, the easier it is to see the horizon through the city, the smaller the place seems to me.

Cheers,
Chris


----------



## edubejar (Mar 16, 2003)

cont' ^Just to give you an example, my took my best friend to London, Paris and Brussels which ROUGHLY have 11m, 9.5m and 1.5m inhabitants, respectfully. As an Austinite (a person from Austin, Texas), he felt all 3 European cities were big, including Brussels! I'm a cartographer and he's a hairdresser...I'm very conscious of distances and he has no concept of distances...really! When we wanted to go in the middle of the night to a different nightclub I insisted we walk because the métro doesn't reopen until 5:30am and I didn't want to wait for the hourly bus. I made ourselves walk approx 2.5 miles (I just measured it on GoogleEarth) and he felt like we had walked about 3x that. I still hear him tell me I made him walk about 7 miles. And he says Paris is HUGE. He couldn't be any more wrong. Paris-metro is very big, but Paris-proper is very small for a city of its importance. Then when we took the RER to our suburban IBIS hotel (never again!) because of a cheaper cost. The suburban train ride was around 9 miles (7 straight miles) yet he felt we had covered a distance of about 20 miles, which is typical here. This is just an example of how an American can have the impression that a European city is bigger due to density, and Paris is very urban and dense.


----------



## Mr Bricks (May 6, 2005)

Paris is huge, a megacity...


----------



## tuckerman (Aug 8, 2005)

edubejar said:


> ,
> But personally, denser to me feels bigger, more than sprawl. There is something about the feel of buildings after buidlings after buildings, multi-story housing, crowds in plazas, squares, avenues and train/subway stations that makes me feel I'm in a big city.



This is a good point. I think we are conflating density with physical size, but also intensity and diversity of land use enter into the picture. Many traditional cities have combined all functions ( e.g. shopping(markets), eating, entertainment, religious activities, political functions, business and residential housing into the same areas resulting in heavy activity that is immediately apparant to the visitor. Historically this was usually the case with cities - market place, city hall, cathedral, all centered - all roads led to this "place". Older American cities have this pattern in many cases. However most "20th century cities", particularly late 20th century cities, have these "functions" isolated. Thus we have the "arts center", the "business district", the shopping mall, the entertainment area, etc. Modern motorised transportation (beginning with the railroads, and now the auto) made it possible to separate these functions geographically. 

More recently, so-called "smart growth" efforts have tried to recreate the multipurpose center. However, IMO, they just become another "special place" that residents of large metro areas go to in order to experience the earlier idea of place.


----------



## salvius (Aug 4, 2004)

Interesting, I've always looked at the problem a bit differently.

European densities are generally higher, of course, but it is not just that they are higher, they are also far more uniform.

I do take the example of Toronto, because it is the example that I know well. Its density is generally comparable to European cities (although cerainly not, say, Paris!) but is so all over the place.

People in Europe generally don't live in tall condos:



















On the other hand, having this downtown would also likely be highly uncommon:










It's not that densities don't vary on the old continent, but they don't vary quite so much.


----------



## ggmm (Jan 8, 2006)

For me:

Los Angeles felt like 5-6 million (metro) for US standards, too massive in size but not great density except downtown.

New York defenitely feels like a 20 million metropolitan area, the scale of urbanity is simply amazing.

San Francisco felt huge, like a second New York but in a smaller scale. Being in the city without seeing any houses just apartment buildings makes it feel like a 7 million city/metro.

San Diego feels slightly smaller than its real population, about 2.5 million.

Paris is just huge. More than 10 million seem just fair..

Rome definitely smaller than it is, 2 million at the most!

London FOR ME seemed smaller than those 17 million figures you see around here. I was actualy pretty surprised to see tree tops (american style) so near the city's core, from the top of London Eye. That type of thing doesn't happen in a city-centre roof of cities like Paris, Madrid, Buenos Aires, Tokyo or Sao Paulo. I felt some 8 million people for the whole metropolitan/urban area.

Dublin's population seemed a bit larger than its actual 1 million figure.

Mexico City, despite its vastnes as seen from an airplane before landing in the city, there's large areas in central locations that are mostly low-rise.. I will give it 15 million at the most. Even the streets are not as crowded as other cities that don't have even the fifth part of Mexicos City's population. (Actual Mexico City population around 20 million).


----------



## treboy (Apr 14, 2006)

fierce_latino said:


> San Diego feels a LOT smaller than it actually is. you would never know you're in the 7th largest US City.


As for SD, it belongs to a wide stretch of LA metro i think, therefore it is difficult to recognize whether or not SD itself is single independant city. :wink2:


----------



## ReddAlert (Nov 4, 2004)

SuomiPoika said:


> Anyway, european cities are known for pedestrian streets, streetlife, nightlife, festivals and other events, clubs, restaurants, cafes, parties etc.....while american cities are known for sterile downtown streetlife, not as good nightlife, skyscrapers, big suburbs, huge highways...It´s not hard to choose from those two options, is it?


why do you have to post this shit?

NYC, Chicago, Boston, San Francisco, Seattle, Miami, Philly, Honolulu, L.A., etc. Must I list more American cities that are not sterile and one big suburb?


----------



## swerveut (Jan 23, 2005)

KARACHI in Pakistan might look like a somewhat deceptive city in pictures. In reality, it is one of the world's biggest cities. However, if you look at its pictures, it doesnt seem to be that huge. 

Check out the pictures in the link in my signature


----------



## mongozx (Sep 30, 2005)

treboy said:


> As for SD, it belongs to a wide stretch of LA metro i think, therefore it is difficult to recognize whether or not SD itself is single independant city. :wink2:


Obviously you haven't been to San Diego and you know nothing about it. The contrasts between the 2 cities aren't very hard to find.


----------



## houston_texan (Mar 13, 2006)

i have no idea....maybe Kansas City.


----------



## Mr Bricks (May 6, 2005)

ReddAlert said:


> why do you have to post this shit?
> 
> NYC, Chicago, Boston, San Francisco, Seattle, Miami, Philly, Honolulu, L.A., etc. Must I list more American cities that are not sterile and one big suburb?


Yeah, those cities are big and vibrant (especially NYC and San Fran) but the thing is european cities with pop. of 500 000 people are far more vibrant than US cities with 3 million people. It´s not my fault american cities aren´t as vibrant as american ones, just face the facts.

I didn´t wrote this to hurt anyone


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

^or perhaps (just perhaps!) the definition of vibrancy varies from person to person (and place to place)...

And sorry, but I really don't think you have any room to decide what's factual and what's not, SuomiPoika.


----------



## GrigorisSokratis (Apr 6, 2005)

Athens is a 5 million people city (4.5 millions in the city itself 500sq kms and 5 millions with the metro area named Attiki 4,000 sq kms). And it looks like a 5 million city also due to its vibrancy, the unbeatable night life. Also it's located at one of the most beautiful naural locations for a city since its surrounded by magnificent mountains, forests and lakes rich in flora and fauna (35 kms from city center you can find deers and wolves) to one side while at the other side it has a great coastline. The city is also located at a climatic transition zone (mediterranean-Alpine), making this place one of the most naturally gifted on earth. Also we don't have to forget its 4,000 years of history, so for history fans of different eras keep on mind that the historic sites here span from prehistoric and ancient to medieval, modern and contemporary.


----------



## bayviews (Mar 3, 2006)

Hmm, learn something new everyday. 
Today I learned that Pakistan was an Arab country. 
LOL!


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

bayviews said:


> Hmm, learn something new everyday.
> Today I learned that Pakistan was an Arab country.
> LOL!


Um, I didn't know that


----------



## Mr Bricks (May 6, 2005)

pottebaum said:


> ^or perhaps (just perhaps!) the definition of vibrancy varies from person to person (and place to place)...
> 
> And sorry, but I really don't think you have any room to decide what's factual and what's not, SuomiPoika.


Of course the definition of vibrancy varies from person to person and if you like big and noisy highways better than pedestrian steets it´s your opinion. I just don´t agree with that.


----------



## tuckerman (Aug 8, 2005)

Of course if you want the ultimate pedestrian experience you should live in Venice - you can listen to the click clack of high heels on walkways late into the night. now if they could just muzzle those vaporettos.


----------



## carlisle (Nov 10, 2005)

bayviews said:


> Hmm, learn something new everyday.
> Today I learned that Pakistan was an Arab country.
> LOL!


Well, technically, it's not Arab, it's Muslim.


----------



## bayviews (Mar 3, 2006)

Well yea, 

that's what I've always thought!!!!

I guess though lots of Americans think that all Muslims are Arabs. Actually most Muslims are not Arabs. And the countries with the biggest Muslm populations, like Indonesia, India, Pakistan, & Bengladesh, none of them are Arab countries.


----------



## Spooky873 (Mar 2, 2005)

im italian, my brothers converted to muslim. whatever thats worth. just to prove that arab doesnt always equal muslim and vice versa. their reasoning? because it makes more sense/simpler than christianity.


----------



## Juan Kerr (Apr 23, 2006)

AMS guy said:


> ^^ @ wickedestcity
> I agree with you. I think it's now a new trend in the US cities, to bring more life into downtown. A girlfriend of mine was recently in Dallas and Houston, and she said they were making tramways there, opening cafes in the city core to attract more people.
> I think that American cities go in a good direction.
> 
> Wondering how Miami downtown looks nowadays. I was there in 2000 and it surprised me how empty it was after 6 p.m. Even more deserted than LA.


It's *still* empty, unless you count the bums, crack addicts and drunks that hang out in the nether regions of Downtown Miami. However, they're working on it, slowly.


----------



## Nouvellecosse (Jun 4, 2005)

I stumbled across this interesting post on the "Wired New York" forum, and although I admit it's pretty subjective, I actually agree with much of what she says.


ablarc said:


> *HOW BIG IS A CITY?*
> 
> 
> When I was a kid with an hour to kill, I’d sometimes memorize city population figures. Those figures are all obsolete now, and they weren’t so much use then either because --as many have remarked-- it’s misleading to compare sizes of cities by just one of the readily-available measures of a city’s relative size. Actually, it can even be misleading to look at two. Though they’re both flawed, the two figures often employed to compare city size scientifically are city-limit population and metropolitan population.
> ...


 http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14147


----------



## Irwell (May 22, 2006)

That sounds like a decent enough methodology, but it doesn't use internationally recognised definitions of an "urban area".


----------



## jarbury (Aug 20, 2007)

^^ It also seems to ignore any cities outside Europe and North America, except for Hong Kong. Interesting idea though.

One place that I found really deceptive was Prince George, in British Columbia. Wandering around that place, it felt like a little country bumkin town of 15,000, but in fact 70,000 people live there!


----------



## Irwell (May 22, 2006)

London urban 8.3 * 2 = 16.6 city 7.5 = 7.5 metro 12.6 / 2 = 6.3, Average 30.4 / 3 = 10.1
Birmingham urban 2.5 * 2 = 5 city 1.0 = 1 metro 3.2 / 2 = 1.6, Average 7.6 / 3 = 2.5
Manchester urban 2.5 * 2 = 5 city 0.4 = 0.4 metro 4.2 / 2 = 2.1, Average 7.5 / 3 = 2.5
Leeds urban 2.1 * 2 = 4.2 city 0.7 = 0.7 metro 1.6 / 2 = 0.8, Average 5.7 / 3 = 1.9
Liverpool urban 1.3 * 2 = 2.6 city 0.4 = 0.4 metro 4.2 / 2 = 2.1, Average 5.1 / 3 = 1.7
Glasgow urban 1.5 * 2 = 3 city 0.6 = 0.6 metro 1.6 / 2 = 0.8, Average 4.4 / 3 = 1.5

Based on his methodology the ranking seems pretty consistent with expectations, apart from the glaring anomaly of Glasgow. I think this arises because of the strange way city limits are defined over here.

Obviously these can't be compared with the figures in his table as he's used urban populations I have no clue as to the source of.


----------



## ggmm (Jan 8, 2006)

London: You'll never think you are in Europe's largest city, as some say (Paris feels much more dense). 
San Francisco: (Downtown) Definitely feels like U.S.'s third most populated city, after New York City and Chicago. Making Downtown Los Angeles look like a mid-size (5-6 million city).
Mexico City: Its size (almost like Phoenix's area) and continous low and mid-density urban sprawl, and scattered skyscrapers doesn't really makes you feel like the most populated city in the continent. 

...in my opinion.


----------



## AltinD (Jul 15, 2004)

hkskyline said:


> Not true for most Asian cities, especially Tokyo. Even flat cities such as Shanghai don't follow a grid either. In fact, any city that has a longer history than 500 years should not have either, with a big exception being Beijing.


Wanch was talking about American cities


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

hkskyline said:


> Large Japanese cities (Osaka, Tokyo) don't have such an immense skyscraper presence, hence they don't feel very big. The density is more humane in scale - lots of mid and lowrises across the landscape. At first, it feels very serene, but once you approach a major intersection and see how pedestrian traffic overflows when the light turns green, you'll quickly realize you're in a big city after all.
> 
> That being said, Japanese cities have a lot of quiet areas that offer quite a contrast to their enormous size - that applies even for Tokyo, home to some 30 million people around the bay.



actually Tokyo has the largest average gross floor spaces of any city- its just the building requirements in the earthquake zone requires they aren't too tall - 800 ft is a general limit. This means towers 400ft high cram in space for something that is 600ft etc, the 800ft Mori building has almost enough space as the Sears Tower. In other words Tokyo has the biggest buildings in the world, if it werent for the earthquakes - epecially with Tokyo land premiums- it would have the tallest too.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

ggmm said:


> London: You'll never think you are in Europe's largest city, as some say (Paris feels much more dense).
> San Francisco: (Downtown) Definitely feels like U.S.'s third most populated city, after New York City and Chicago. Making Downtown Los Angeles look like a mid-size (5-6 million city).
> Mexico City: Its size (almost like Phoenix's area) and continous low and mid-density urban sprawl, and scattered skyscrapers doesn't really makes you feel like the most populated city in the continent.
> 
> ...in my opinion.


London feels very big city to me. The densities of people are residentially low, nowhere near Paris (which happens to be the densest major city in the West). However walking the streets is very different, the daytime population
density is vast, with areas up to 400,000 per sq. mile (falling to 4000 by night). Even at night its crowded too, with up to 500,000 passing through some entertainment districts in any given night, doubling at the weekends. These areas such as the West end/ Soho, and the East End hubs are more crowded at 4am than 4pm.

Crowds and streetlife aside, the buildings aren't as tall as the Paris average, and the medieval layout often hides the scale of the streets, but the buildings are dense and large, although only truly evident by air.

I get what you mean though, the density and scale of the city is not evident from ground level, even with large spaces such as the river views:











However, if London had more aerial viewpoints it would be atotally different matter I'm sure:


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

by street it feels smaller scale than it is (other than the constant crowds)










Its very rare you get any vistas like this that much more common a sight in the straight radial/gridded streets of Paris, NYC etc:










rather, they tend to curve:


----------



## philadweller (Oct 30, 2003)

"San Francisco: (Downtown) Definitely feels like U.S.'s third most populated city, after New York City and Chicago. Making Downtown Los Angeles look like a mid-size (5-6 million city)." 


I don't know about that. San Francisco's downtown feels big but I would not say it feels like the 3rd largest. Philadelphia's downtown feels the third largest because it is.

New Orleans feels bigger than it is and so does Miami.

I thought Paris felt larger than London as well.


----------

