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 think what you mean to say about Chicago is the grid extending out from the urban core of the city expanding out, is of the most contiguous. No one will argue against Chicago's urban core or the grid layout of the cores expansiveness. The debate I'm assuming that's being discussed is just within the urban cores themselves and not really the suburban areas.
What constitutes as the urban core? The city's core itself, or how the urban core extends out to it's suburbs and remains urban? Is Downers Grove a part of Chicago's core being discussed? Because that clearly is the suburbs:
That’s why everyone is spinning wheels in this debate. The OP didn’t give any clear guidelines so people are all using different criteria to rank cities with no frame of reference.
Is this asking which cores are the largest? If size isn’t a factor, then a city with a single very urban dense neighborhood could have the most urban core.
If size matters, then we would need to get measurements for each of these cities urban cores. What kind of structures are included in the urban core? Can a single family detached home be apart of the urban core? Can neighborhoods with only row-houses be considered the urban core? Are we just taking about actual multi-story buildings?
A way to simplify that could be to specify a size...4-20 square miles, or a 1-4-mile radius.
Agreed! Somebody needs to get everyone on the same page. Reading this thread has been ridiculous which is to be expected when everyone is using different ranking criteria.
Let's say six square miles, roughly in order:
--New York
--Chicago
--Mexico City
--Toronto
--San Francisco
--Montreal
--Philadelphia
As a caveat I've never been to Mexico City and can't really claim Montreal.
Also-rans:
--Boston
--Vancouver
--Seattle
--DC
I ranked Boston below Philly because it has a lot of green space, which is good but makes it less intense. DC has the big less-intense government/mall area. If the geographical area expanded (say 10-20 square miles) LA would be a good also-ran; make it 50 and LA would be in the upper seven.
Let's say six square miles, roughly in order:
--New York
--Chicago
--Mexico City
--Toronto
--San Francisco
--Montreal
--Philadelphia
As a caveat I've never been to Mexico City and can't really claim Montreal.
Also-rans:
--Boston
--Vancouver
--Seattle
--DC
I ranked Boston below Philly because it has a lot of green space, which is good but makes it less intense. If the geographical area expanded (say 10-20 square miles) LA would be a good also-ran.
It should be a combination of factors then (how long a relative degree of urbanism expands out, combined with how dense that urbanism gets-a weighted scale). Otherwise, Guanajuato or San Miguel de Allende, along with Havana, definitely warrant inclusion at or towards the top, even with a dearth of high rises.
NYC
Mexico City
Santo Domingo
Chicago
Toronto
Montreal
San Francisco
^That's my first crack at it, though I think some that might actually boot others off the list are Guadalajara, Monterrey, Havana, and Port-au-Prince.
I would add in Philadelphia just above or just below SF. Idk enough about Guadalajara or Monterrey to comment, but I was definitely curious how they would fit in on here. I have't been there so I wouldn't want to comment.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,560,868 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays25
Let's say six square miles, roughly in order:
--New York
--Chicago
--Mexico City
--Toronto
--San Francisco
--Montreal
--Philadelphia
As a caveat I've never been to Mexico City and can't really claim Montreal.
Also-rans:
--Boston
--Vancouver
--Seattle
--DC
I ranked Boston below Philly because it has a lot of green space, which is good but makes it less intense. DC has the big less-intense government/mall area. If the geographical area expanded (say 10-20 square miles) LA would be a good also-ran; make it 50 and LA would be in the upper seven.
Government buildings and all DC still has a much larger extensive urban core overall than Seattle and Vancouver. The downtown size is much larger than most cities being discussed here.
It has a large office count, but not a very big residential density...particularly vs. Vancouver. DC's residential density would be in the northern limits of the six square miles. And it lacks peak density of any kind.
It has a large office count, but not a very big residential density...particularly vs. Vancouver. DC's residential density would be in the northern limits of the six square miles. And it lacks peak density of any kind.
That used to be true a decade ago, but that is completed false now in 2020. NOMA, Union Market, Mt. Vernon Triangle, Logan Circle, Navy Yard, SW Wharf, Dupont Circle, and Mid City have very high population densities. Many have census tracts between 80k-100k people per sq. mile in 2020. DC has added over 100,000 people since 2010 mainly in the neighborhoods I just listed.
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.
