Favourite Cities to Visit

Hey guys I'm making a trip to Seattle next week, which got me thinking about what my favourite cities to visit in the States are. So, I'd like to know what your favourite American cities to visit are and why. I'll go first: Los Angeles: Great diversity of towns (Chinatown, Koreatown, Little Saigon), fantastic eatage, gorgeous women. Chicago: Great shopping, great restaurants, great sightseeing spots, amazing music scene.>

What don't you like about your city?

So, what do you people dislike about your city and what would you like changed?>

Accessibility and growth of cities

Innumerable factors play a part in the growth (and decline) of our cities. Among the growth factors, how important is the issue of ACCESSIBLITY? By accessiblity, here is what I am suggesting: is the popularity of downtown (and surrounding areas) in major cities affected by how accesible these areas are to suburbia and the hinterland? That is, if getting downtown from suburbia and being able to comfortably park and drive in it is relatively easy, does that discourage city growth because a person can have (in his/her own mind) the best of both worlds: a suburban home with easy and comfortable access to the city? If conversely, entering the city is difficult and impossible once there due to parking and traffic, does that encourage in-city growth to give people the opportunity (the only opportunity) to enjoy what the city has to offer? There are some cities (certainly New York, Chicago, and San Francisco come to mind) that are just too difficult to truly enjoy unless you actually live in town since coming in from the suburbs can be an incredible hassle.>

Puerto Rico

Has anyone hered anything lately about peurto rico becoming a state.>

Is there something fatal in antiNIMBYism?

I'd be the first say there is something very self-serving in much of what NIMBY's have to say: I've arrived, I'm at home, I like my current high rise setting. But don't bring on more. But isn't it also important for us to to listen to what they say, even if discarding the reasons they are saying it? The Skyscraper forum is a place that definitely has a strong tilt towards embracing massive development, increased density, round-the-clock activity, mass and height to the skylines, and generally a strong "pro-growth" attitude, one that says don't criticise a developers plans; you do so only in your selfish best interest. But if we continue to tear down, rebuild, crowd together, we will reach a point where we will kill the goose that laid the golden egg. OUR CITIES WILL LITERALLY DESTROY THEMSELVES WITH TOO MUCH OF A GOOD THING. And who's going to be there to put on the brakes at some future time if overdevelopment becomes too much? It is a tricky balance between what to develop and what to leave untouched, but without those two perspectives always on our minds, we will harm our cities far more than help them. The balance needs to be maintained.>

US cities in a less-US future

Every single US city has grew and prospered and achieved its character under US rule.....whether from 1776 on the east coast to the 1840's on the west. So for whatever international flavor the likes of Boston (English), New Orleans (French/Spanish), San Francisco (Spanish) have had, it is just a drop in the bucket of what they achieved as American cities. And while US cities from Boston to San Diego, from Seattle to Miami, differ in many ways, they all have that definite "US STAMP" on them: they are all part of the story of this nation that moved westward from Atlantic to Pacific, their developments during these eras paralleled each other in innumerable ways, and it makes it possible here on this subforum to examine them (as different as they) as a unit. US culture has been strong and pervassive and has inhabited evey corner of this nation in ways unusual to most nations on earth. Yet the truly "US era" of our history is coming to a close. We, as in other nations in the world, are more and more influenced by what happens globally than nationally. The trend will obvious continue and get stronger each year. As it will in Europe, Asia, Latin America, and cities throughout the globe. Even today we can see the effects of a Latin American influence on Miami, how LA's relationship with Mexico, Central America, and the Pacific Rim have given it a unique character. San Diego on the Mexican border is vastly different than Buffalo near the Canadian border. Honolulu sits as the crossroads of the Pacific for all nations. Seattle shares more with Vancouver than it does with most US cities. Chicago looks more to global futures markets than those in the US to sustain its position in this field. I'd be curious to examine here the following: HOW DO YOU THINK THE NATURE OF THE AMERICAN CITY WILL CHANGE AS IT BECOMES MORE GLOBAL AND LESS AMERICAN? Which ways, if any, do you think our cities will restructure, handle business and culture, and all other aspects of life when the boundraries between nations mean less and less and our cities stop swimming in that smaller (and incredibly interconnected) pool?>

Defunt department stores in your city!!

Here in Detroit we quite a lot some one these stores are bankrupt nationwide not just in Michigan Jacobson's- It was a upscale retailer which was around 100 years old Crowley's- Mid range Detroit dept. store Montgomery Ward- Well it was a 130 year old so that's long enough Hudson's- renamed by Marshall Field's, but still not HUDSON'S Woolworths- Whatever happened to them, I think there are some in Australia and the UK Well the replacements of these stores are: Jacobson's- 2 store were bought by Von Maur, 1 by Art Van, 1 by CVS, 1 by a private owner and 1 in Birmingham slated for office space! Crowley's- filled with Value City stores Montgomery Wards- Many of them are still vacant, SAD!! Hudson's- All stores except the Detroit downtown store we changed to Marshall Field's Woolworths- God knows it's an old company!!>

"Quiet" Small Cities With Their Own Skyline

Here are photos of some of my favorite smaller cities, I found on the web, that seems "quiet" (you never hear anything about them) that I think have nice skylines and downtowns for its size... City of Tyler (Texas) Pop. 87,687 City of Evansville (Indiana) Pop. 110,708 City of Spartanburg (South Carolina) Pop. 39,673 City of Saganaw (Michigan) Pop. 59,235 City of Peoria (Illinois) Pop. 112,936 City of Rochester (Minnesota) Pop. 92,507 City of Cedar Rapids (Iowa) Pop. 122,542 City of Canton (Ohio) Pop. 79,255 City of Covington (Kentucky) Pop. 42,687 City of Lake Charles (Louisiana) Pop. 70,735 *Population Source: US Census Bureau>

NAFTA Superhighway....There's Got to be a Better Alternative

First, I find it appalling that the major media outlets hardly if ever cover this story. When is the last time the Today Show, Good Morning America, CBS Evening News, No Spin Zone, etc had a segment on the NAFTA Superhighway or anything else related to North American integration. Lou Dobbs gives some effort on it, but thats about it. Secondly, the politicians in Congress and the White House and bureucrats seem to ignore it or downplay the whole thing. These NAFTA Superhighway(s) in their current proposed formations/routes are somewhat excessive and extreme and unnecessary I think. Even if cross border trade and population growth expands, which it will, I don't agree that it necessitates building a brand spanking new 400 yard wide (4 football fields wide) NAFTA Superhighway/toll road (proposed TTC-Texas Transit Corridor-I-35) from Laredo, Texas to Kansas City to Duluth, Minnesota. This TTC-35 would parallel the already existing Interstate 35. In addition, TTC-69 (I-69) would begin in Southeast Texas to Indianapolis to Michigan to Toronto. The Texas Transit Corridor (TTC) is a statewide version of the NAFTA Superhighway projects in that it involves building 4,000 more miles of road in Texas alone! .......definitely wasteful overkill. I thought we had pretty much completed our highway system in United States. I'm not against connecting North American cities and beyond with efficient transportation access, although I understand that there are many quandaries and issues that arise from this concept. My concern is that many of these routes are unecessary and overdone. For instance, the proposed I-69 route (S.E. Texas to Toronto), has sections of it that are truly over the top. For example, the proposed southwesternly link from Indianapolis to Memphis, TN entails bulldozing through agricultural and rural areas of Indiana, Kentucky, and Tennesse with a brand new interstate. Whereas a just as efficent route using I-70 from Indianapolis west towards St. Louis, and then south on I-57 which merges into I-55 south will just as easily get you to Memphis Tennesse. Thus, I-69 could overlap I-70, I-57, and I-55 on these routes. Similarly, from Memphis, TN, I-69 could follow I-40 west to Little Rock, AR, then follow I-30 west towards Texarkana,TX, then go south on a proposed I-49 to Shreveport, LA then I-69 could be constructed towads the southwest to Houston and Mexico. Thus, again I-69 could overlap I-40, I-30, and proposed I-49, on mostly already existing interstates. Expanding lanes would be more efficent, cost saving, and more environmentally sensible, than rampaging through the countryside. I understand that links have to be built, but the more they correlate with existing highways, the better. Thats just the beginning, other links are being proposed as wellnew (i.e unnecessary highways). Across the United States. If we are going to facilitate new trade and population growth, why are we not just expanding existing highways/interstates and increasing high speed passenger and freight rail, instead of wasting money, destroying farmland, forests/wetlands for new asphalt. The only thing a many of these NAFTA Superhighway(s) (TTC-35) for instance would facilitate is more sprawl. All this talk about ethanol, which I''m leery of anyway, involves subjecting millions of acres of cropland to producing corn. Now we want to run a 400 yard (4 football field wide) interstate through the breadbasket of this country? Proponents of the NAFTA Superhighway(s) would say that it is necessary to build it because we can get around cities that are already choked with traffic. So instead of adding lanes (3 or 4 each side of say I-35 that goes through San Antonio and Austin, Texas), it is necessary to spend 10s of billions of dollars on a brand new interstate?? I would actually advocate for building intersate tunnels underneath existing interstates when they reach major metropolitan areas. It sounds far-fetch, but in California for instance they are discussing plans to build a Pasadena interstate tunnel underneath a historic part of the city. Thus, if that same ingenuity and desire and conscientiousness for concentrated development (smart growth, sustainable development) would emerge in Texas, there would be great benefits to behold. Texas would save 100,000s of acres of land, still promote economic growth, and still be able to charge a toll if necessary to help pay for such an enormous infrastructure project. Proponents of the NAFTA Superhighway(s) would say we need to build a Customs facility in Kansas City along the I-35 NAFTA Superhighway, and we want to introduce new security measures and technology. I find this reasoning a joke. Number one, the border crossings already exist to check trucks before they enter and leave the U.S. Again, what is the problem with expanding the lanes and employees at the border crossing. Plus, new security measures and technology can be alpha and beta tested at existing border entrys. Secondly, its obvious that an open border paradigm is going to happen before 2050, so the need for a Customs Facility with improved security technology in the middle of the country is a lame lame lame excuse and reason to build a NAFTA Superhighway(s) in th current proposed form. Proponents of the NAFTA Superhighway would say we are going to build passenger/freight rail lines, broadband cable, and oil and gas pipelines as well. Why would you build passenger lines that are not connected to cities? There could be an argument for taking freight rail around cities, but even then it shouldn't necessarily have to be 100s of miles away from the nearest metro. Broadband cable should connect cities. Oil and gas, not fond of either, could arguably bypass cities but in some instances could be connected to cities. I think we should be bringing as much capacity as possible to or near our cities, whether its road or rail. Proponents of the NAFTA Superhighway would say we need to help Mexico expand its highway infrastructure. I agree with that, Mexico probably does need to expand its road and rail infrastructure to major cities and American cities as well. However, why not just link Mexican highways with already existing American interstates and highways? Human population is growing in the U.S., Mexico, and Canada, and that must be faciliated, but smart growth and sustainable techniques should take precedent in all 3 countries. Building a massive superhighway project in the all these countries will only facilitate more sprawl, which only means more cars on more crowded highways and more pollution in the air for global warming to feed on. We've already been down that "road", and are currently still reeling from the effects of highway induced sprawl. Its seems like this whole NAFTA Superhighway(s) situation in its current would only induce an expansive backward looking Highway Industrial Complex, with certain corporations........the usual suspects......... benefitting the most. If we are going to spend billions of dollars on transportation here, in Mexico and Canada then put that money to local urban rail and highspeed passenger and freight rail. If we absolutely have to expand highway capacity then do it on existing highways and facilitate interstate tunnel development near large cities>

IT SEEMS HIGHRISES HAVE BECOME REALLY POPULAR LATELY IN THE STATES...

why do you think that is? same thing is happenning here in Canada, but reading through all the various state threads here condo projects are happenning from coast to coast for years the house with the picket fence was the ideal and sprawl happenned, than in the 90's we started to see inner cities coming back to life, and in this decade highrises seem to be the latest thing - especially putting them in downtown cores along with that comes or is coming the development of LRT's etc. in numerous cities do you think its because people in north america are starting to realize sprawl is bad why not build up? time is more precious for people so they would rather live closer to the action and work and give up the commute? do you think its the large amount of baby boomers who are realizing they don't need the big house in the burbs as the nest has emptied and want to go to a condo lifestyle which frees up time from yard work and such and they can enjoy their life more? thoughts - ideas...>

top 25-Largest TV Markets

How the top markets stack up Here are the nation's top markets in terms of television households from Nielsen Media Research. 1. New York 2. Los Angeles 3. Chicago 4. Philadelphia 5. San Francisco 6. Dallas-Fort Worth 7. Boston 8. Washington 9. Atlanta 10. Houston 11. Detroit 12. Tampa, Fla. 13. Phoenix 14. Seattle 15. Minneapolis 16. Miami 17. Cleveland 18. Denver 19. Orlando, Fla. 20. Sacramento, Calif. 21. St. Louis 22. Pittsburgh 23. Portland, Ore. 24. Baltimore 25. Indianapolis I always find this list interesting, because to me, a city's influence is directly related to TV market size. When sports teams are looking for a new market, they tend to look at this list first.>

Could it be bay vs. SF....with SF the loser?

If all the pieces fall in place, the epicenter of the world of San Francisco Bay sports is titling southward. The older cities to the north would lose the 49ers (from SF to Santa Clara) and the A's (from Oakland to Freemont). The lure is clearly more open land, but flater land as well: South Bay with the areas's largest city (San Jose), one of its two most prominent univrsities (Stanford) and the miracle that is SIlicon Valley is very much in assent. These areas would be hot without either MLB or NFL. Other cities, shift teams from city to suburb (Dallas-Irving, Buffalo-Orchard Park, New York-Meadowlands...twice!), but there may be a difference: The Bay Area is more of an accumulation of adjacent regions (SF, Peninsula, South Way, East Bay, Marin, WIne Co, etc.) that a unified metropolitan area. That big bay in the middle splits it apart and its mountainous and hilly terrain help separate. Besides, what other metro area contains an incredible three (SF, Oak, SJ) major cities???? So, that leaves me to wonder if San Francisco, for all its inernational and domestic power and image, is in the oddly ironic position to be weakened by the very metropolitan area it calls home? Simply put, the Bills can play in Orchard Park and still be Buffalo because the Buffalo metro area is more unified than the Bay Area. The San Francisco 49er, playing in Santa Clara, could as easily be the South Bay or Santa Clara 49ers. Much of SF's business hub was effected by the .com growth in Silicon Valley. In addition, the city has long since lost its port to Oakland. Lack of affordable housing has made SF family unfriendly. In other places, this may just be looked at as internal changes in one, relatively solidified metropolitan area. But not in the Bay Area, where each subregion is its own sphere. And each are competitve. Could San Francisco be hurt by this type of Bay Area structure and could it be even more hurt by reacihing a point where it will cease to be the center of the bay, and a quaint afterthought. I hope it never happens, but....>

St. Louis...Most Dangerous City in America

Here is the official list of the most dangerous cities in America. I found it NOT surprising that my city, New Orleans, did not make the list. We do have a murder issue with inner city drug dealers, but, the rest of the stats, at least for here, are good. 1. St. Louis 2. Detroit 3. Flint, Mich. 4. Compton, Calif. 5. Camden, N.J. 6. Birmingham, Ala. 7. Cleveland 8. Oakland, Calif. 9. Youngstown, Ohio 10. Gary, Ind. 11. Richmond, Calif. 12. Baltimore 13. Memphis, Tenn. 14. Trenton, N.J. 15. Richmond, Va. 16. Kansas City, Mo. 17. Atlanta 18. Cincinnati 19. Washington 20. North Charleston, S.C. 21. Reading, Pa. 22. Newark, N.J. 23. Little Rock, Ark. 24. San Bernardino, Calif. 25. Orlando, Fla. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15475741/>

Are Chicago and San Francisco an odd couple?

Are Chicago and San Francisco an odd couple? Now that's a question that some may consider insane, to even begin to compare flat Chicago with hilly San Francisco, two cities that differ greatly in ways other than topography, climate, and location. So let me clarify the point I'm making: New York's core in Manhattan is a world unto its own, so large and complex that functions like no other city. For however much centralization Manhattan provides for NYC and for metro NY, the island itself is not centralized and spreads its pleasures over a wide landscape. Unlike other US cities, it is served by two huge core areas in downtown and midtown. New York's urbanism has no parallel in the US in its size and scope.(that doesn't necessarily make it better than other US cities, just different). But once you leave New York, there really are (IMHO) only two cities that have electric downtown district that offer the full range of central city experiences (again IMHO, Boston has some of the above, but to a lesser extent, perhaps due to the very proximity of NYC). The result? Chicago and San Francisco tend to gather those special restaurants, the entertainment, the culture, the street life, the downtown building booms inviting to residential growth to their downtown cores (admittedly Chicago does it with more sizeand San Francisco with more density...but they both do it). Let's use shopping as an exmple: which other city than SF and Chgo has Bloomingdale's, Saks, Nordstrom, and Neimans in its downtown core? None. From conventions to tourism to the business community (Montgomery St. is the wall st. of the west, LaSalle the wall st. of the center) to the ways each keeps its consciously of the value of its streetscape, these two seemingly different cities share a delightfully lot in common. Gavin Newsome, SF's mayor, views the Windy City as a model of what he'd like to have in San Francisco; San Francisco remains a place where so many Chicagoans left their hearts. Again, it is strictly my opinion, but I think these two are unique in the US in the way that they generate downtown buzz and excitement in traditional core like no other US cities. Others may disagree.>

Las Vegas nears buildout

LAS VEGAS — Flying into this desert metropolis is as deceiving as a mirage. From 10,000 feet you see empty land in all directions and swear the pace of suburban sprawl could go on unchecked. You'd swear no end's in sight to subdivisions stretching for miles beyond the Strip, enclaves of single-family houses that draw thousands of Californians and other migrants a year. Look again. The valley that Las Vegas and 1.8 million residents call home is nearly built out. Mountains, national parks, military bases, an Indian community and a critter called the desert tortoise have Sin City hemmed in. At the current building pace in the USA's fastest-growing major metro area, available acreage will be gone in less than a decade, developers and real estate analysts say. Yet growth pressure and housing demand won't abate. Greater Las Vegas will add 1 million residents in the next 10 years, state estimates say, and hit 3 million by 2020. "You hear anywhere from a seven to 10 years supply at our growth rates and the valley's full," says developer Kenneth Smith of Glen, Smith and Glen. At least $20 billion in new projects are planned on the Strip, including 40,000 more hotel rooms, says the Nevada Development Authority. A scarcity of land — or just as important, says Hal Rothman, a University of Nevada-Las Vegas history professor, the perception that it's scarce — is driving prices skyward. "The result was a rush," he says. "The situation is making a new valley around us, one that will be more crowded and expensive." Developers who 15 years ago paid less than $40,000 an acre are paying more than $300,000 today. In an auction of public land that went on the market last year, a developer paid $639 million for 2,655 acres. The Las Vegas stereotype of cheap housing, cheap labor and a limitless supply of cheap desert land is dying. The metro area has tripled in size since 1986, pushing close to public lands and critical tortoise habitat. A 1998 federal law that grew out of a legal settlement to protect habitat drew a boundary and set limits on future growth. The law authorized the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to sell land it owns inside the boundary when Clark County or its cities wanted to grow. About 75,000 acres were supposed to last 30 years, but two-thirds has been snapped up. The rest is being consumed at 6,000 to 7,000 acres a year, estimates the CEO of Focus One Property, John Ritter (no relation to the reporter). His company paid $557 million for 1,940 acres in 2004 and $510 million for 1,710 last year. Vast cookie-cutter subdivisions, as symbolic of Las Vegas' extended boom as its megacasinos, will be consigned to far-flung areas beyond the metro core, requiring hefty commutes to the Strip and other job centers, developers say. In the valley, "the big house on the big lot is more the exception than the rule now," Ritter says. Building farther out Las Vegas builders will go north outside the valley along Interstate 15 toward Mesquite, and south, toward Kingman, Ariz., and the site of a proposed new airport, says Somer Hollingsworth, president of the Nevada Development Authority. "This is a whole new ballgame ... thinking like a big city," he says. Developers are leapfrogging over BLM land with plans for big projects, such as 42,000-acre Coyote Springs 50 miles north of here. That's "drive until you qualify" territory for home buyers seeking affordable mortgages. But costs of building roads, sewers and utilities "are incredible," says Steve Bottfeld, senior analyst of Marketing Solutions, a local research firm. "Don't look for it to happen in 10 years." Las Vegas' real estate market has softened, but not as much as in the rest of the country. Demand remains high. "Everybody thinks the sky is falling because their home isn't selling in 24 hours for more than the asking price like the last few years," developer Smith says. "That market was white-hot and unhealthy." Developers don't expect land prices to fall. They're packing houses in traditional subdivisions so close together neighbors can practically shake hands out their windows. Economics are moving developers toward a slow embrace of trends familiar elsewhere. Mixing housing, retail High-rises, shorter "mid-rises" and town houses aren't confined to the Strip and downtown Las Vegas. Projects that planners in other cities call "smart growth" and "new urbanism" are on drawing boards across Clark County. That means more units to an acre and a variety of housing types and architectural styles, tiny yards or no yards but generous public spaces, narrow one-way streets that slow traffic, neighborhood designs that promote walking and old-fashioned alleys with garages in back instead of showcased out front. "This isn't something that's trickling down, it's flowing down, top to bottom, fast," Bottfeld says. "It's the Manhattanization of Las Vegas." Focus One has three new urbanism projects in design. "It's like Southern California, New York, San Francisco and any other place with a very constrained supply of land and a lot of demand," Ritter says. "Mixed use" is now in vogue — projects that blend housing, retail and entertainment and cut down on driving. Sullivan Square will be built on that model: 1,300 units in 20-story high-rises on 16.5 acres off the Interstate 215 beltway, 6 miles from the Strip. "It's very Old World, very European," says Marc Medrano, a casino designer who bought a 17th-floor unit because he got tired of maintaining a big yard at his house on a golf course. "It's like a self-contained walking community," he says. "You could go to the gym, go to the bank, go to the butcher, get your lashes tinted, whatever." Consumers don't resist because most Las Vegans are from someplace else, Smith says. "They've seen it, they know it, they're comfortable with it," he says. "We hear people say, 'I never thought it would happen here. I've been waiting for it.' " Since Clark County passed zoning changes that promote higher density, more than 80 projects have been approved in the past two years. "This is the time to be visionary, to do things that urban areas seem to do historically, which is become more dense," says Clark County Commissioner Rory Reid. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...12-vegas_x.htm I glad that the amount of land that they have to develop on is mostly used up because it will mean higher density and more skyscrapers of course>

Which dying city is making the best turnaround?

Right now, many cities in the northeast and rust belt are on a rapid (or not so rapid) turnaround from decades of decline and decay. In your opinions or experiences, which ones are doing the best? Judge in areas of rate of population loss, crime rates, public school systems, job creation, demographics, preservation, vacant and abandoned buildings, and overall desirability.>

Favorite City

SF>

skyline vs. mountains

Perception issue here; is the eye tricked: a major skyline in front of you looks as large or even larger than a mountain range looming ahead (far taller than the skyline) becase the degree of details, the refinementm and definiton and of detail the skyline posses. agree? disagree?>

What's unique about your metro area?

Instead of asking "what is your city's/metro area's stereotype?", let's ask something a little more interesting: What's unique about your metro area? What can't you find anywhere else? What makes your metro stand out?>

Which City will get a 1000ft bldg. 1st?

dallas miami tampa charlotte denver boston las vegas pittsburgh minneapolis cleveland seattle san francisco philadelphia detroit indianapolis>

To jaywalk or not, that is the question....

After my recent stay in Philly, I have started to think about jaywalking and how it, or lack thereof, affects the feeling of a city.... So, with a nod to the question-master himself (edsg25), my question is, what is the state of jaywalking in your city? And how do you feel about it?>

Is Fresno a lesser- known city than any other large city in California/U.S.A.?

Fresno is still a "developing" major city in California, and also not that well known. Fresno is famous for its bad perspectives and ratings, also Fresno is the largest city in the U.S. (i think) that does not have a Interstate.ill post new pictures of downtown soon.. What do u think about Fresno? Fresno's Tallest Building Fresno's 2nd tallest building Downtown Fresno>

Old Photos USA

We have probably all seen old photos of New York City but what about the rest of the country? San Francisco 1945 Philadelphia 1935>

Hope you don't mind a HUGE St. Louis thread (in case you missed them last year)

A TON of pics of my city, St. Louis... >