Recommended bike for tall person in urban area

"Pat" snipes anonymously:

:
: It's all been said before. It's harmless enough to believe such bike
: magazine science, except that it produces some really dumb frames. If
you
: want to believe that one frame can "out accelerate" another, fine, just
: don't try to present it as a fact without something to back it up. It's
: also less than helpful for a newbie looking for advice. Hey, most
Americans
: believe in creationism too (according to this AM's paper). That doesn't
: make it science.
:

All I did was post personal experience. I named the bikes, even. Personal
experience--not anything else. I'm not the one pretending to be an
expert,
here. That would be you.
Pat in TX

You said (in comparing a Bianchi Veloce to a Schwinn touring bike):

the frame geometry is more relaxed on the touring bike and i can feel it
in the stable ride, resistance to turning, no ability to accelerate, and
climbing difficulty

OK, you didn't give the model Schwinn, only to say it was an '84. I don't
have the geometry, so let's compare it to a Trek 520, everybody's idea of a
"tank" touring bike (both in largest size, to "magnify" the differences):

HT: tank = 72.5, rocket = 73.5
ST: tank = 72.0, rocket = 72.5
WB: tank = 1062, rocket = 1013
ETT: tank = 590, rocket = 595
CS: tank = 450, rocket = 408

The only difference in geometry is the Bianchi has absurdly short
chainstays. There's your "huge" performance difference. It's a complete
crock. Marketing BS that sells really dumb frames.

Oh, BTW, I have one of those "plow horse" ~'84 Schwinn touring bikes,
mine's a "Grand Le Tour". It's one of several bikes I ride, there's no
noticeable difference in climbing, acceleration, or "resistance to
turning". Chopping 2" off the chainstays doesn't transform a bike, except
into something less practical.