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.
The densest/most urban arguments always go around in circles, because people have a pissing match about the overall ranking. No one really disagrees that after NYC comes LA, Chicago, DC SF, Boston, and Philly in some order. Let's knock them all out of the running and see what's left.
So, for the sake of argument, discounting cities in the top ten MSAs (which include the above, plus DFW, Miami, and Houston) what cities do you think are the most urban/have the densest built environment. Keep in mind this not only excludes the core cities in the top 10 MSAs, but also smaller "urban suburbs" - so don't go listing Cambridge and Hoboken.
After those, I would say Atlanta- is like DFW,Hou. It isn't particularly dense, but it does have a very "built up" activity center in Midtown and Downtown.
Seattle- Not as traditionally urban as Baltimore or Pittsburgh, but it has a booming downtown (easily the most active outside the top 6). The city has seen a boom in multifamily construction in its urban villages. Baltimore- Classic urban city. By far the most "old school urban" city outside the top 6. It is held down a bit by having a somewhat underwhelming downtown and quite a bit of urban abandonment. Pittsburgh- like Baltimore, but it doesn't hold its row house density as much as Baltimore. (Arguably, the 8th most traditionally urban city after Bos-Wash corridor and SF/Chi.
Definitely HONOLULU overall. It has far more high rises than any metro outside the Top 10, is on a tiny island so very land constrained, and is the 4th most densely populated metro by weighted density after NYC, LA, and SF Bay Area. But since few on this site have been to Honolulu it probably will not get the credit it deserves like usual.
Definitely HONOLULU overall. It has far more high rises than any metro outside the Top 10, is on a tiny island so very land constrained, and is the 4th most densely populated metro by weighted density after NYC, LA, and SF Bay Area. But since few on this site have been to Honolulu it probably will not get the credit it deserves like usual.
You're right. Honolulu is definitely up there. I always forget it exists lol. I guess it doesn't necessarily feel like the US to me because it's not a part of the main land.
Waikiki is definitely pretty build up, but is Honolulu more built up than Miami, Seattle, Baltimore, Pittsburgh? I don't think so.
You're right. Honolulu is definitely up there. I always forget it exists lol. I guess it doesn't necessarily feel like the US to me because it's not a part of the main land.
Waikiki is definitely pretty build up, but is Honolulu more built up than Miami, Seattle, Baltimore, Pittsburgh? I don't think so.
As a metro area it definitely is as its density extends well beyond the urban core. It may not have the "classic" urbanity of places like Baltimore and Pittsburgh but it's denser than all of those metro areas. There are census tracts that exceed 70K ppsqm in Honolulu including one's away from the urban core.
The densest/most urban arguments always go around in circles, because people have a pissing match about the overall ranking. No one really disagrees that after NYC comes LA, Chicago, DC SF, Boston, and Philly in some order. Let's knock them all out of the running and see what's left.
So, for the sake of argument, discounting cities in the top ten MSAs (which include the above, plus DFW, Miami, and Houston) what cities do you think are the most urban/have the densest built environment. Keep in mind this not only excludes the core cities in the top 10 MSAs, but also smaller "urban suburbs" - so don't go listing Cambridge and Hoboken.
NYC, LA, Chicago, DFW, Houston, Philly, DC, Miami, Atlanta, and Boston are the 10 largest MSAs in the U.S. San Francisco, being separate from San Jose, is the 11th largest.
After spending a week in the Miami area this summer, I would say Miami is DEFINITELY up there.
Miami one of the top 10 MSAs (or is it CSAs?) so it's disqualified from being in the running.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RightonWalnut
Baltimore and Pittsburgh are definitely up there. Maybe Seattle too? San Diego and Minneapolis too lately?
I love Pittsburgh, but I think Baltimore edges us out on density. Pittsburgh has a much more urban feeling downtown, and a lot less blight, but the sheer size of Baltimore (and how it is mostly rowhouses) means it wins.
Seattle is an interesting case, because the built form of the city originally wasn't really much better than the streetcar suburbia, but there has been so much infill over the years (Seattle is one of the few pro-upzoning cities in the country) that it's been rapidly climbing the list. Still, the overall feel of many portions of Seattle which are even mostly apartments is sort of "urban light," and single-family homes still dominate local zoning.
There's no way I'd say San Diego is even in the running. Minneapolis has more apartment buildings than any other city in the Midwest but Chicago, but its residential vernacular is detached single-family homes, meaning once you are out of the apartment areas it pretty quickly drops to semi-suburban feeling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858
Definitely HONOLULU overall. It has far more high rises than any metro outside the Top 10, is on a tiny island so very land constrained, and is the 4th most densely populated metro by weighted density after NYC, LA, and SF Bay Area. But since few on this site have been to Honolulu it probably will not get the credit it deserves like usual.
Honolulu is interesting. I'd put it in the same category as the much larger LA and Miami. There's a lot of residential density - even the single-family house areas tend to have virtually nonexistent yards. At the same time, it's not particularly mixed-use or walkable. This is the only portion of Honolulu I find particularly urban from a pedestrian standpoint, but I admit I'm not that well versed with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutiny77
NYC, LA, Chicago, DFW, Houston, Philly, DC, Miami, Atlanta, and Boston are the 10 largest MSAs in the U.S. San Francisco, being separate from San Jose, is the 11th largest.
Dang! Maybe I should have said CSA? Then Baltimore would have been excluded by default though.
There's no way I'd say San Diego is even in the running. Minneapolis has more apartment buildings than any other city in the Midwest but Chicago, but its residential vernacular is detached single-family homes, meaning once you are out of the apartment areas it pretty quickly drops to semi-suburban feeling.
Not sure why San Diego wouldn't be in the running, it ranks 9th in weighted density between Boston and Baltimore and ahead of DC and Miami. Minneapolis ranks 25th.
You can find pretty dense areas away from SD's core.
Quote:
Honolulu is interesting. I'd put it in the same category as the much larger LA and Miami. There's a lot of residential density - even the single-family house areas tend to have virtually nonexistent yards. At the same time, it's not particularly mixed-use or walkable. This is the only portion of Honolulu I find particularly urban from a pedestrian standpoint, but I admit I'm not that well versed with it.
It lacks that traditional urban form/look as I said but it's still pretty mixed use, a lot of the high rises have bottom floor retail.
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.
