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.
I agree that DT DT is pretty well integrated into the surrounding residential streets. It's more or less on par with Bos/SF/Philly in that regard and quite a bit better than Chicago
I would also say that it is a little hard to argue that there is a "big 5" that runs from NYC down to Bos. Although, I think Boston is more urban than DC on a number of measures (density, contiguous core vibrancy, architecture/built environment). It is a bit of a stretch to say the Bos is more like NYC than DC.
A more reasonable scheme might be:
tier 1: NYC tier 2: Chicago- huge and urban, but not as big or urban as NYC. tier 3: Bos, SF, Philly- more tightly built and cohesive than Chicago, but nowhere near the same size. tier 3a: DC- roughly similar scale to their 3. But, not as dense, contiguously vibrant, or architecturally urban. tier 4: Seattle, maybe Baltimore- two polar opposites (in pretty much everyway) that end up in a roughly similar places (for the time being). Below the big traditional urban cities in density,transit, etc, but above pretty much everywhere else. Seattle is racing ahead by the day, it's very possible Seattle may graduate to full 3a: territory. But for now, it's probably closer to Baltimore than Boston or even DC. tier 5: Portland, Pittsburgh, New Orleans - these are more honorable mentions. They all have great character and a few urban neighborhoods, but aren't really truly dense and urban like the others. Maybe a couple other cities could be included: SD, Denver, etc. tier 6: everywhere else- most cities are improving their downtowns and creating a walkable "yuppie" neighborhood or two. But for the most part, the action in most US cities remains in the suburbs and the car is king. Perhaps this could be split out between cities that are doing a particular good job and those that aren't. unrankable: LA and Miami- lots of density. But just too polycentric and qualitatively different from the other urban cities. The good news is they have the density, so they should be able to transition their cities in to more urban places easier than the other sunbelt towns.
As for Seattle, much of the build up is outside the urban core. It remains to be seen if this will gel as a coherent urbanism.
Last edited by Tim Randal Walker; 06-15-2015 at 12:25 PM..
People on here give LA a pass. Parts of LA is very rural with coyotes running around. Pound for pound Baltimore is more urban and structurally dense than LA.
People on here give LA a pass. Parts of LA is very rural with coyotes running around. Pound for pound Baltimore is more urban and structurally dense than LA.
Parts of Washington, DC are rural with deer and foxes running around. This woman got kicked in the face by a deer while waiting on a bus.
LA is also 500 square miles. If LA had the city proper limits of Baltimore or SF, it would pound for pound be more structurally dense than Baltimore and as residentially dense as SF.
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.
