Most urban cities (metro, regional, major, compared)
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.
1) New York
2) Chi/Philly
3) San Fran
4) DC
5) Seattle
6) Atlanta
7) Baltimore/Detroit (maybe a slightly different definition of urban :/)
8) LA (go downtown, echo park, wilshire, westlake, westwood, century city, Hollywood...pick one).
9) And all the rest...here on Gilligan's Island
To me, "Urban" means structural density and not in how much land area a city sprawls out for, or even population. There are "urban" small towns in my opinion. SE Pennsylvania towns such as Reading, Lancaster, and York have a very urban feel as they were built with a early 19th century, tight, structurally dense style. They feel like a neighborhood that you would find in a larger East Coast city. Yet they don't have the population of a major city like Phoenix, Charlotte, or Las Vegas that share none of the structural density built in different times.
Most based on largest urban population and buildings as in which has more urban volume. Keep in mind that residential highrises are also part of the urban landscape.
Well, I usually never participate in these rankings. I would typically just chime in with new development. I'm going to give an industry take on this though.
#1- NYC with the most densely built structural environment in the nation. Also, NYC has the largest continuous build structural environment across the whole city. The density is unmatched in the US. First floor retail is integrated all across the city which acts to enliven the streets and keep the pedestrian flow of traffic steady by providing all the ammenties needed in each neighborhood which leads to the potential support of greater density. They work for each other. A subway system that allows for a concentration of residences and offices together with cultural destinations all built adjacent to each other creates the perfect balance.
#2. San Francisco- The built structural environment in San Francisco is also extremely dense and the city is enlivened with ammenties in every neighborhood. The building density is intense across the whole city which is pretty small but per capita. San Fran is definetly built the second densest. The streets are lined with dense houses. The only thing holding San Fran back is slow rapid transit. Bart only serves a small area of San Fran and Muni is inadequate for a world class city.
#3 Boston- Boston would be two but I believe it has a smaller densely built structural environment due to downtown Boston being surrounded by water. The urban neighborhoods are just as extensive as San Fran but not as intense on the whole in my opinion. The city does have a great mix of ammenties woven into the neighborhoods and Backbay is one of the greatest urban neighborhoods in the nation. The transit access in Boston is exceptional and the neighborhoods are already developed to serve each stop. The streets are very tight making the city even more walkable.
#4 Philadelphia- Philadelphia is a row house city. The row houses run for miles and are extremly densely built on a grid. Philadelphia would be above Boston but the Boston apartment buildings against Philadelphia row houses gives Boston the edge. The streets are also very narrow in Philadelphia adding to the urbanity. The subway needs to be expanded for Philly to move up the list. With the city covering such a wide area, some parts of the city have outdated transit that takes too long compared to the transit along the subway lines. Also, center city is probably the second most developed downtown in the country. One thing that diminishes the urbanity in the city is the lack of buffer zone from Center City. Center City is a massive area with high density and ammenties. The areas outside center city step down way too fast. If there was more of a gradual step down in density like in Manhattan coming off such a huge mass of density, it would make the city more urban. Instead, it gives the feeling of an abrupt change in density.
#5- Chicago- Very large built environment although the single family houses diminishes the built structural density. The L' and Metra are extensive systems that add to the build environment since they are mainly above ground. They create an eyesore for some, but add an urban charm for the city underneath. The long boulevards don't work for urbanity in Chicago's case because the buildings don't front the street. They also don't rise enough and aren't close enough to create a street wall. The loop is extremely urban but it's to linear to effect the urbanity of the city as a whole.
Last edited by MDAllstar; 05-08-2012 at 09:04 PM..
I won't wait for anyone else to give props. Great analysis my dude! That is the reason that I follow this forum. Not too argue. Not to disagree. But to occasionally get informed and educated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDAllstar
Well, I usually never participate in these rankings. I would typically just chime in with new development. I'm going to give an industry take on this though.
#1- NYC with the most densely built structural environment in the nation. Also, NYC has the largest continuous build structural environment across the whole city. The density is unmatched in the US. First floor retail is integrated all across the city which acts to enliven the streets and keep the pedestrian flow of traffic steady by providing all the ammenties needed in each neighborhood which leads to the potential support of greater density. They work for each other. A subway system that allows for a concentration of residences and offices together with cultural destinations all built adjacent to each other creates the perfect balance.
#2. San Francisco- The built structural environment in San Francisco is also extremely dense and the city is enlivened with ammenties in every neighborhood. The building density is intense across the whole city which is pretty small but per capita. San Fran is definetly built the second densest. The streets are lined with dense houses. The only thing holding San Fran back is slow rapid transit. Bart only serves a small area of San Fran and Muni is inadequate for a world class city.
#3 Boston- Boston would be two but I believe it has a smaller densely built structural environment due to downtown Boston being surrounded by water. The urban neighborhoods are just as extensive as San Fran but not as intense on the whole in my opinion. The city does have a great mix of ammenties woven into the neighborhoods and Backbay is one of the greatest urban neighborhoods in the nation. The transit access in Boston is exceptional and the neighborhoods are already developed to serve each stop. The streets are very tight making the city even more walkable.
#4 Philadelphia- Philadelphia is a row house city. The row houses run for miles and are extremly densely built on a grid. Philadelphia would be above Boston but the Boston apartment buildings against Philadelphia row houses gives Boston the edge. The streets are also very narrow in Philadelphia adding to the urbanity. The subway needs to be expanded for Philly to move up the list. With the city covering such a wide area, some parts of the city have outdated transit that takes too long compared to the transit along the subway lines. Also, center city is probably the second most developed downtown in the country. One thing that diminishes the urbanity in the city is the lack of buffer zone from Center City. Center City is a massive area with high density and ammenties. The areas outside center city step down way too fast. If there was more of a gradual step down in density like in Manhattan coming off such a huge mass of density, it would make the city more urban. Instead, it gives the feeling of an abrupt change in density.
#5- Chicago- Very large built environment although the single family houses diminishes the built structural density. The L' and Metra are extensive systems that add to the build environment since they are mainly above ground. They create an eyesore for some, but add an urban charm for the city underneath. The long boulevards don't work for urbanity in Chicago's case because the buildings don't front the street. They also don't rise enough and aren't close enough to create a street wall. The loop is extremely urban but it's to linear to effect the urbanity of the city as a whole.
They also don't rise enough and aren't close enough to create a street wall. The loop is extremely urban but it's to linear to effect the urbanity of the city as a whole.
Um, don't rise enough??
Chicago has more urban residential highrises than SF, Boston and Philly combined. It's not even a contest.
Last edited by urbanologist; 05-08-2012 at 10:11 PM..
Well, I usually never participate in these rankings. I would typically just chime in with new development. I'm going to give an industry take on this though.
#1- NYC with the most densely built structural environment in the nation. Also, NYC has the largest continuous build structural environment across the whole city. The density is unmatched in the US. First floor retail is integrated all across the city which acts to enliven the streets and keep the pedestrian flow of traffic steady by providing all the ammenties needed in each neighborhood which leads to the potential support of greater density. They work for each other. A subway system that allows for a concentration of residences and offices together with cultural destinations all built adjacent to each other creates the perfect balance.
#2. San Francisco- The built structural environment in San Francisco is also extremely dense and the city is enlivened with ammenties in every neighborhood. The building density is intense across the whole city which is pretty small but per capita. San Fran is definetly built the second densest. The streets are lined with dense houses. The only thing holding San Fran back is slow rapid transit. Bart only serves a small area of San Fran and Muni is inadequate for a world class city.
#3 Boston- Boston would be two but I believe it has a smaller densely built structural environment due to downtown Boston being surrounded by water. The urban neighborhoods are just as extensive as San Fran but not as intense on the whole in my opinion. The city does have a great mix of ammenties woven into the neighborhoods and Backbay is one of the greatest urban neighborhoods in the nation. The transit access in Boston is exceptional and the neighborhoods are already developed to serve each stop. The streets are very tight making the city even more walkable.
#4 Philadelphia- Philadelphia is a row house city. The row houses run for miles and are extremly densely built on a grid. Philadelphia would be above Boston but the Boston apartment buildings against Philadelphia row houses gives Boston the edge. The streets are also very narrow in Philadelphia adding to the urbanity. The subway needs to be expanded for Philly to move up the list. With the city covering such a wide area, some parts of the city have outdated transit that takes too long compared to the transit along the subway lines. Also, center city is probably the second most developed downtown in the country. One thing that diminishes the urbanity in the city is the lack of buffer zone from Center City. Center City is a massive area with high density and ammenties. The areas outside center city step down way too fast. If there was more of a gradual step down in density like in Manhattan coming off such a huge mass of density, it would make the city more urban. Instead, it gives the feeling of an abrupt change in density.
#5- Chicago- Very large built environment although the single family houses diminishes the built structural density. The L' and Metra are extensive systems that add to the build environment since they are mainly above ground. They create an eyesore for some, but add an urban charm for the city underneath. The long boulevards don't work for urbanity in Chicago's case because the buildings don't front the street. They also don't rise enough and aren't close enough to create a street wall. The loop is extremely urban but it's to linear to effect the urbanity of the city as a whole.
I have never been to Chicago, Boston or San Francisco..so I dont know if I would agree with the order. HOWEVER, based upon your THOROUGH explanation of each I can totally get why your ranked them as you did. Very good post. (Has hell frozen over?)
Um, don't rise enough??
Chicago has more urban residential highrises than SF, Boston and Philly combined. It's not even a contest.
I'm not talking about the coast line. I'm talking about the depth of the city. That is what I meant by linear. Chicago has very impressive high-rises but, they are spread too thin hugging the coast line which does nothing for street level. Rule number one, urbanity is measured at street level. If Chicago's high rises along the coast were condensed into a large square or rectangle for instance, the effect would be far greater from an urbanism perspective. Chicago "had" the potential to be just like Manhattan if the buildings had been built with greater depth from the coast line forming a larger surface area and grouping together in the shape of a square or rectangle. Instead, they are built along the coast for miles in a thin line which greatly reduces the urban perspective.
Actually, Baltimore land area is larger than D.C., and Boston; the population of all 3 cities are roughly the same, but Baltimore was built to accommodate about a million people.
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.
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.
