« The Move: Slow Posting | Main | A Country Club Moment: Rich People Behaving Oddly »

Comments

sean mcdaniel

maybe we need to define what determines a city. for instance,if erie is a city, why not alexandria? is johnstown a city? harrisburg? altoona? washington, pa?

Sam M

Yeah, that's the hard part. St Marys, PA, which I mentioned a while ago, is officially a city. But I am not sure that people interested in "urban" living would consider it as such.

And then you get really confused. Because by a lot of measures, Oakland looks a lot like a city. But it is only part of one.

So what are the standards? Size? Density? Walkability? I'm not so sure. I think John Morris mentioned it before, but I think it comes down to the definition for porn: You know it when you see it. But I think that is becaoming less and less clear as places like Reston develop--and traditional cities un-develop.

Hmmm...

sean mcdaniel

whatever the definition...i'd call alexandria a city now and 40 years ago. a small city, sure. it's like looking at the pitt panthers and the steelers...one's a decent college football team and the other's a super bowl champ. but they're both football teams. which is why i don't think you can ever ever ever use nyc, sf, dc, boston as measuring sticks for pittsburgh. it's gotta be places like charlotte, cincinnati, indianapolis, asheville, austin, even portland. holding pittsburgh up to the really big cities isn't fair or even logical.

John Morris

San Francisco is by no measure a "really big city." I haven't done the research on population, but i think you are sort of drawing arbitrary lines because you want to.

I think looking at concepts like age and basic design/ geography are a lot more usefull than size. In that respect San francisco and Boston are interesting.

The open season "sprawl type cities" of the southwest seem to be the places with the least in common with Pittsburgh. Looking at cities with definate geographic limitations are interesting.

John Morris

San Francisco is by no measure a "really big city." I haven't done the research on population, but i think you are sort of drawing arbitrary lines because you want to.

I think looking at concepts like age and basic design/ geography are a lot more usefull than size. In that respect San francisco and Boston are interesting.

The open season "sprawl type cities" of the southwest seem to be the places with the least in common with Pittsburgh. Looking at cities with definate geographic limitations are interesting.

sean mcdaniel

to borrow one of your phrases JM, i never said that SF was a really big city. I was saying that it's in a different class of city than pittsburgh.

The comments to this entry are closed.