Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How come nobody considers Baltimore urban? Does decay or under investment in the form of retail etc. take away from urbanity? I would think it takes away from amenities but Baltimore is still one of the densest built cities in the nation at least when it comes to the built environment. It's an interesting subject because I never see anybody list it on these kind of lists. I have often wondered why.
Who says it's not urban? I think it's often overlooked because it doesn't offer the things some people want (coffeshops, yogurt shops, cupcake shops, Asian fusion restaurants and lotsa lotsa bars!!!).
This is the type of thread that if your city wasn't mentioned (e.g. baltimore, cleveland, detroit, seattle, etc), you should send pics and battle it out. We are all visual. Some of us actually haven't been to the next tier of urban places. Pictures would justify reasoning that they should be included in the discussion. I agree with the Top 7:
Because its small. Cant speak for anyone else but its more impressive when 'urban' cities hold their form for a vast area, having a huge population is just that much better.
But it's larger than DC, San Francisco and Boston.
But it's larger than DC, San Francisco and Boston.
Honestly the only reason I didn't put it in is because I have never been there. It's probably just about as urban as Boston and DC - maybe being so close to DC knocks it down a peg in my mind
Just saw Gwilly's list, I agree with the cities on there, but definitely not the order. Baltimore #4? Boston #3? Chicago #6?
ur·ban adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or designating a city or town
2. living in a city
3. characteristic of or accustomed to cities Urban | Define Urban at Dictionary.com
Given that, please tell me which cities are not urban.
Yes the population of the cities are similar but their construct is different. Baltimore has about 25 more miles of land area than the district does. Plus when you factor in the former areas of DC proper like Arlington and Alexandria it would put DC at 100 miles and a population of 1 million. These areas formerly were apart of the district but were taken back by Virginia at a time when DC was seeing its worst days. Their areas are different sizes Baltimore is about 3 million to DC's 6 million in similar land area although these days its hard to define which areas each city has an influence on.
Both DC and Baltimore are largely rowhouse cities (their denser neighborhoods anyway). Baltimore, as the larger city, has more of them. And if you add Arlington and Alexandria into the mix, DC technically becomes less urban, not more.
Just saw Gwilly's list, I agree with the cities on there, but definitely not the order. Baltimore #4? Boston #3? Chicago #6?
I know I was going to take some heat for putting Baltimore that high on the list but I think its right up there with Boston and Philly and I do feel that one can make a strong case that Baltimore can be more urban than Chicago.
I know I was going to take some heat for putting Baltimore that high on the list but I think its right up there with Boston and Philly and I do feel that one can make a strong case that Baltimore can be more urban than Chicago.
Have you ever been to Chicago?
Serious question. LOL because if you have then you wouldn't be arguing Baltimore above Chicago
I agree with munchitup those are the 5 most urban cities once you remove D.C. and LA. D.C. isn't there yet and LA feels very suburban imo
Last edited by BLAXTOR; 05-08-2012 at 04:36 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.