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.
Think the question is what makes a city feel "urban". I'd say there are three key factors: household density, a decent size city, and lots of office space.
I'm assuming you're referring to residential density when you say "household density." If so, that's the only criterion here I'd agree with. "Urban" refers to how walkable a city is first and foremost so an extensive urban fabric (structural density) is the most primary component when determining urbanity. Also a good mix of uses goes into how urban a place feels, but that doesn't mean that it should have "lots" (and that's not even quantifiable) of office space.
Discounting smaller cities like Charleston and Savannah as urban based on municipal size or an arbitrary office space threshold is extremely misguided. They are textbook examples of urban places for their sizes.
Think you have to distinguish between large metro and urban.
DFW and LA are massive metros, but unlike Chicago, NY, and Boston, over 80% of their office space is outside downtown. Meanwhile, in Seattle, about 40% of the regional office space is downtown, similar to NY, DC, SF etc.
If we're talking "urban" rather than "large", then I'd say downtown should have a large share of the region's high paying office jobs.
I can see that argument, but I can also see one where that percentage doesn't matter so much when the sheer size difference is so large which goes for both DFW and LA with it really being a massive difference when it comes to LA.
If you're thinking about it in terms of absolute area where you can walk about and live/work in an urban setting then LA definitely beats out Seattle, though I think it's unlikely DFW does. I think by this metric, LA is pretty close to approaching the top 5 (outside of NYC) and is in about the same tier as those at this point.
In many cases, there's an inverse correlation between the amount of office space and how urban a place is.
Has to be the silliest thing I've heard here. By that argument Midtown Manhattan is not urban at all.
Urban in terms of top 5 implies a mix of uses, not just residential. Otherwise parts of Virginia Beach could be considered more urban than the Loop in Chicago.
It seems like every two weeks this Los Angeles versus Seattle urbanity topic is always revisited.
Why?
What is there to discuss?
The city proper of Los Angeles is only about 330 developable miles and in those 330 developable square miles there are nearly 4 million people (300,000 larger than the entire Seattle MSA; which has a significantly larger developed land area than Los Angeles proper).
So the human population density of Los Angeles proper is significantly higher than Seattle, at every level. At 1 square mile, 2 square miles, 10 square miles, 50 square miles, 100 square miles, 250 square miles, 500 square miles, and 1,000 square miles.
The structural density, for those that been to both, isn't even close. In fact, the structural density difference between Los Angeles and Seattle is probably even wider than the actual human population density. Los Angeles' corridors stemming from the Central Los Angeles core (Downtown Los Angeles) and going in every direction, but most specifically the western direction, is a higher density corridor of population, structural build, amenities, and transit network than anything in Greater Seattle.
The public transportation in Seattle is extending but is still limited in length and scope, Los Angeles has a significantly more comprehensive inner city rail system, a vast commuter rail system, and its bus system absolutely destroys Seattle in every way from service time, to destinations, to efficiency, to fleet size, to ridership, to number of stations, to everything.
Oh, not that it needs to be mentioned but the concentration and sheer availability and accessibility of amenities is significantly higher in Los Angeles than it is in Seattle.
For what it is worth, I've spent a pretty good amount of time in BOTH cities in the last 1 year. I've been to both cities TWICE, each, in the last 18 months from December 2014 to March 2016 and I don't think Downtown Seattle has more pedestrian activity nor vibrancy as Los Angeles. Downtown Seattle isn't bad but Fifth Avenue (a high concentration of retail) can be spotty with activity and pedestrian life, the structural density going from Downtown Seattle to surrounding environs/neighborhoods can also be more spotty in relation to Los Angeles going from Downtown Los Angeles to each side of the city through the core.
So Los Angeles has; more extensive and comprehensive public transit in all types (BRT, LRT, HRT, CRT). It has a higher concentration and density of amenities. It has more built up pre-war areas in the central city. It has a higher structural density. It has a higher population density. Finally, it is built up more vertically, that's how it is able to sustain having more people in 330 square miles of developable land inside city limits than the entire Seattle MSA has people.
Seattle's Downtown probably does have more office space than Downtown Los Angeles, but in reality the sheer concentration of office space in Central Los Angeles (the Downtown core moving outward to other nodes in the core of the city proper) is much higher than it is in Seattle. Downtown Los Angeles' residential population and concentration of amenities is higher than Downtown Seattle.
I love Seattle, one of my favorite cities, but I don't understand why people love to pit it against Los Angeles on the topic of urbanity.
It seems like every two weeks this Los Angeles versus Seattle urbanity topic is always revisited.
Why?
What is there to discuss?
The city proper of Los Angeles is only about 330 developable miles and in those 330 developable square miles there are nearly 4 million people (300,000 larger than the entire Seattle MSA; which has a significantly larger developed land area than Los Angeles proper).
So the human population density of Los Angeles proper is significantly higher than Seattle, at every level. At 1 square mile, 2 square miles, 10 square miles, 50 square miles, 100 square miles, 250 square miles, 500 square miles, and 1,000 square miles.
The structural density, for those that been to both, isn't even close. In fact, the structural density difference between Los Angeles and Seattle is probably even wider than the actual human population density. Los Angeles' corridors stemming from the Central Los Angeles core (Downtown Los Angeles) and going in every direction, but most specifically the western direction, is a higher density corridor of population, structural build, amenities, and transit network than anything in Greater Seattle.
The public transportation in Seattle is extending but is still limited in length and scope, Los Angeles has a significantly more comprehensive inner city rail system, a vast commuter rail system, and its bus system absolutely destroys Seattle in every way from service time, to destinations, to efficiency, to fleet size, to ridership, to number of stations, to everything.
Oh, not that it needs to be mentioned but the concentration and sheer availability and accessibility of amenities is significantly higher in Los Angeles than it is in Seattle.
For what it is worth, I've spent a pretty good amount of time in BOTH cities in the last 1 year. I've been to both cities TWICE, each, in the last 18 months from December 2014 to March 2016 and I don't think Downtown Seattle has more pedestrian activity nor vibrancy as Los Angeles. Downtown Seattle isn't bad but Fifth Avenue (a high concentration of retail) can be spotty with activity and pedestrian life, the structural density going from Downtown Seattle to surrounding environs/neighborhoods can also be more spotty in relation to Los Angeles going from Downtown Los Angeles to each side of the city through the core.
So Los Angeles has; more extensive and comprehensive public transit in all types (BRT, LRT, HRT, CRT). It has a higher concentration and density of amenities. It has more built up pre-war areas in the central city. It has a higher structural density. It has a higher population density. Finally, it is built up more vertically, that's how it is able to sustain having more people in 330 square miles of developable land inside city limits than the entire Seattle MSA has people.
Seattle's Downtown probably does have more office space than Downtown Los Angeles, but in reality the sheer concentration of office space in Central Los Angeles (the Downtown core moving outward to other nodes in the core of the city proper) is much higher than it is in Seattle. Downtown Los Angeles' residential population and concentration of amenities is higher than Downtown Seattle.
I love Seattle, one of my favorite cities, but I don't understand why people love to pit it against Los Angeles on the topic of urbanity.
Great post. Spot on.
I think the main reason is the fact that LA is massive and Seattle relatively small when you consider land area. Those arbitrary city limits always skew the actual facts as they are seen "on the ground". That's why it is always a better idea to sample equal sizes from both cities, but like you mention, it wouldn't matter if Seattle were the size of LA and if LA were the size of Seattle, LA will still come out on top in population density, structural density, transit options and amenities.
Navy Yard right across from SW is very urban, especially because it mixes residential, retail, and commercial.
I didn't know the Bronx was what made NYC top 5.
Meh at navy yard.
its ballston 2.0
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.
