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.
Philadelphia IMO is in the middle, and has the best walkability of the bunch (no big hills like Seattle/SF and a logical grid), a competitive skyline, but transit accessibility is so-so and its downtown has spots that don't feel particularly vibrant.
Philly has 'so-so' transit accessibility? Huh!? Compared to what, New York? Other than NYC, Philly is one of the top transit cities in the Western Hemisphere, with a number of grade-separated rail modes entering and circulating downtown (Center City) from close in neighrobhoods to suburbs 40 miles away. I totally disagree with this statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borntoolate85
I won't go into much detail for Tiers 3, but I'll have to go with Pittsburgh. Best transit and skyline out of the bunch, while having very good walkability (the bridges DO help out here!), decent amenities, while being surprisingly vibrant for a city its age, even if Austin wins in that category.
Pittsburgh transit is pretty good compared to most mid-sized cities, although the T LRT could be a bit more extensive to other parts of town. Downtown Pittsburgh is vibrant by day -- it's tight and has a number of big corporate HQs and other businesses. Activity dies out pretty quickly after 6p most nights unless one of the 3 pro teams has a game that night.
Philly has 'so-so' transit accessibility? Huh!? Compared to what, New York? Other than NYC, Philly is one of the top transit cities in the Western Hemisphere, with a number of grade-separated rail modes entering and circulating downtown (Center City) from close in neighrobhoods to suburbs 40 miles away. I totally disagree with this statement.
Everyone gets hung up over the fact that there are only two subway lines serving this city of 1.5 million (a third serves a string of suburbs in Camden County, N.J.).
That's less than one-third the number of lines laid out in (first) Commissioner of City Transit A. Merritt Taylor's 1913 rapid transit plan — and at that time, half of the first of the two lines was already in existence.
That half is part of the Market-Frankford Line, which carries more people than it was designed to. It runs along the main east-west axis of commerce in Center City. By contrast, the four-track (north of Walnut-Locust) Broad Street Line, which cuts across that axis, never has carried all the people it was designed to. Four of the other five branch lines were to have connected to it, and that's a big reason why it hasn't.
But the Regional Rail network is very dense. It could be run more like rapid transit, especially now that the Commuter Tunnel exists, but SEPTA is reluctant to do this, and so are the Railroad Division employees.
Quote:
Pittsburgh transit is pretty good compared to most mid-sized cities, although the T LRT could be a bit more extensive to other parts of town. Downtown Pittsburgh is vibrant by day -- it's tight and has a number of big corporate HQs and other businesses. Activity dies out pretty quickly after 6p most nights unless one of the 3 pro teams has a game that night.
That was once true of Philadelphia too.
The city launched a concerted effort to fix that starting around 1987, when Ed Rendell was mayor. It worked.
I can't help but think that its success contributed to his becoming the first Philadelphian to be elected Governor of Pennsylvania since 1910.
How are you defining "downtown?" For example, with NYC are you talking only the actual downtown or do you count Midtown as part of that? What about downtown Brooklyn? Can a city have multiple downtowns?
Yes
In Chicago, a great chunk of skyscrapers and main attractions are located in the Near North side, not just in the Loop. Half of what is considered to be Near West side and and Near South side community areas are also commonly referred to as extensions of the greater downtown.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheTimidBlueBars
Chicago is up there. It has great neighborhoods for urbanity geeks like us who like neighborhoods, but every time I see a list of attractions to visit in Chicago, they're all downtown except for maybe Wrigley Field. When I see lists for LA, NYC, SF, New Orleans, DC, etc. the attractions are a lot more spread out throughout the city and suburbs.
Chinatown, US Celular, United Center, and Museum of Science & Industry are all outside of what's generally considered downtown.
If we count Amusement Parks and super malls, then Six Flags GA in Gurnee and Woodfield Mall in Schaumburg; pre-Covid these two were drawing in 3 million and 27 million( half of what Chicago the city brings in), respectively.
Everyone gets hung up over the fact that there are only two subway lines serving this city of 1.5 million (a third serves a string of suburbs in Camden County, N.J.).
That's less than one-third the number of lines laid out in (first) Commissioner of City Transit A. Merritt Taylor's 1913 rapid transit plan — and at that time, half of the first of the two lines was already in existence.
That half is part of the Market-Frankford Line, which carries more people than it was designed to. It runs along the main east-west axis of commerce in Center City. By contrast, the four-track (north of Walnut-Locust) Broad Street Line, which cuts across that axis, never has carried all the people it was designed to. Four of the other five branch lines were to have connected to it, and that's a big reason why it hasn't.
But the Regional Rail network is very dense. It could be run more like rapid transit, especially now that the Commuter Tunnel exists, but SEPTA is reluctant to do this, and so are the Railroad Division employees.
Apparently (I don't know for certain) at some point, likely during the Depression, Philadelphia City officials decided against expanding the subway/elevated network due to cost concerns and were likely motivated by the Pennsylvania and Reading Railroads electrifying nearly all of their extensive commuter rail systems. As you know, many Regional Rail lines operate primarily, in some cases exclusively, inside Philly's city limits, though I haven't sat down and counted up RR stations, I've read that nearly half the stations and almost half of RR ridership lies inside Philadelphia which is unusual for a commuter system. Officials view it as backstop for the City Division subway-el network which works in some cases, and tends to fail in others...
It would be nice if the RR system was run more like a regional metro/rapid transit system esp given the system's unique (among American cities) connectivity due to the 1980s-built commuter rail tunnel. It's flat out weird to have lines, like the 2 Chestnut Hill lines which run entirely within Philly, to maintain a 1-hour frequency base. But, as you cited, too many powerful officials and/or groups are against it... I'm sure many suburban rail riders are happy with things exactly as they are. To some, a rapid transit-type network would attract too many city riffraff as the current systems high expense and infrequent service discourages short haul trips but suits the needs of suburban commuters. Philadelphia has many charms and positive aspects, but it also is a very classist, some say racist, city.
Choose ONE from tier 1, and TWO from tier’s 2 thru 4
To elaborate, one city may have a large MSA population but it’s downtown may not offer very much in correspondence to its actual metro area, while at the same token a smaller metro may offer much more in its core. Which metros do you feel have the strongest downtown in correlation to their metro populations?
In principal, the smaller the metro while offering equal to or greater amenities than competitor cities would be the best.
Criteria:
Skyline
Amenities
Access to Public Transportation
Walkability
Vibrancy
Tier 1:
Chicago
Los Angeles
New York
Tier 2:
Atlanta
Boston
Dallas
D.C.
Houston
Miami
Philadelphia
Phoenix
San Francisco
Seattle
Tier 3:
Austin
Charlotte
Cincinnati
Cleveland
Columbus OH
Denver
Minneapolis
Nashville
Sacramento
Salt Lake City
St.Peterburg
Tampa
Pittsburgh
Tier 4:
Asheville
Boise
Chattanooga
Columbia SC
Colorado Springs
Myrtle Beach
Daytona FL
Olympia WA
We need to discuss the omission of cities like Baltimore, Portland, and Detroit from this list. It makes no sense. Half of the cities listed doesn't even compare to downtown Baltimore. I'll talk about that later:
I guess my Tier 1 city would be NYC. LA shouldn't even be a Tier 1 city in this particular discussion. It's downtown, although growing and improving, isn't at the level of NYC, Chicago or even some of the other cities on the tier 2 list. Chicago is one of my favorite cities in the country (along with Philadelphia) but it even though it holds it weight for a metro of it's size and stature, it can't compare to NYC. NYC essentially has two downtowns (Lower and Midtown Manhattan). They both rank as the 1 and 3 largest business centers in the country. Then there's Downtown Brooklyn and even Long Island City Queens. I guess those wouldn't count but the sheer fact that there's multiple business districts so close to each other just makes it hard to vote against NYC.
The Tier 2 cities for me would be between SF, Philadelphia, and Boston. I can't pick between the three. They all have qualities that make it an even fight. SF may be a small city but it's the densest major city on the west coast. Its downtown is huge for a city of its size and it's urbanity far surpasses even LA who's metro area is over two times the size. Boston is very dense as well. With amenities that can keep up with nearly any city in the country. Offers a lot for a city of its size. It also anchors a huge region of the country. It's probably the closest east coast city comparable to SF. Philadelphia is amazing. It's center city gives off mini Manhattan vibes. It's also got the second most populated downtown in the US after NYC. There's a lot going on in Center City Philly. It would be hard to choose between these three. The others don't hold up. I think there are Tier 3 cities with downtowns that are more interesting than Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, and Phoenix. These cities are great but their central amenities and offerings isn't their main draw. D.C., Miami, and Seattle are wonderful cities (I live in the DC area btw). Miami may be better than the other Sunbelt cities but it's downtown isn't really that strong in terms of offerings. It may be walkable but it's not bikeable nor good with public transit. DC and Seattle are around the same level to me. Really good downtowns but the downtowns come off as a bit sterile. It's getting better compared to a decade ago but it's not at Boston or Philly level. There are a lot of other neighborhoods that I'd probably advise someone to come visit than Downtown DC. Seattle's downtown looks amazing in pictures and videos but it comes across as maybe an 9-5 office center with a some after hour things to do on the side. It doesn't feel like a neighborhood where "live, work, play" is the dominant mentality. But I could be wrong. And this is not say that DC and Seattle won't completely get there - I think they will. SF, BOS, and PHL feel like cities that keep it going well after the offices have closed. That plus their walkability, DT population density/urbanity, and public transit options put them above DC and Seattle for me.
Tier 3 feels like a a bunch a random cities grouped together. And two cities that definitely belong in this tier: Baltimore and Portland, OR, aren't even here. If you were going to include cities like Columbus, Cincinnati, or Sacramento, then Baltimore (the fifth largest east coast city) and Portland (the fifth largest west coast metro area) should have been included. Similarly, there's a lot of midwest cities in this tier but no Detroit? Which definitely could have gone up against any of these cities. It could have at least been an option. Tampa/St. Petersburg and SLC but no Detroit (2nd largest midwest metro), San Antonio (2nd largest Texas city), Indianapolis, KC, or St Louis? My Tier 3 cities would be Pittsburgh and Baltimore for tier 3 with Detroit, Minneapolis, and Denver rounding out the top 5 of this tier. Austin seems like a really cool city and it's DT is probably the best in Texas but that isn't saying much. We're judging downtowns not the cities themselves so Austin wouldn't win here. Charlotte and Nashville are similar to Austin and the other sunbelt cities I discussed earlier. Tampa/St Pete is underwhelming imo. Detroit, Minneapolis, and Denver for cities of there sizes doesn't really punch above their weight. They're not bad downtowns but I just feel like Pittsburgh and Baltimore have just as good of a downtown as they do, and they're smaller metros. Sacramento? I'd have rather seen Oakland or San Diego on here. The three OH cities (especially Cleveland) have decent downtowns but I feel like it's perfect for there size, not necessarily exceeding it. Same with SLC. The only other city I feel matches up or could even exceed the two I mentioned is New Orleans. That city also punches above its weight for sure but idk it the downtown itself it all that. Maybe it comes from the touristy neighborhoods instead? I'm not sure
Tier 4 Cities for me would be idk. Not familiar with any of them lol.
Choose ONE from tier 1, and TWO from tier’s 2 thru 4
To elaborate, one city may have a large MSA population but it’s downtown may not offer very much in correspondence to its actual metro area, while at the same token a smaller metro may offer much more in its core. Which metros do you feel have the strongest downtown in correlation to their metro populations?
Tier Omega:
NYC
Tier 1:
Chicago
Tier 2:
LA
Atlanta
Boston
Dallas D.C.
Houston
Miami
Philadelphia
Phoenix San Francisco
Seattle
My gut would would say DC & SF but you could make a genuine case for Philly or Boston. I’d have to *really* dwell on this one for a minute.
Tier 3:
Austin
Charlotte
Cincinnati
Cleveland
Columbus OH Denver
Minneapolis
Nashville
Sacramento
Salt Lake City
St.Peterburg
Tampa
Pittsburgh *Baltimore
How Baltimore & Portland weren’t included baffles me. That being said, Baltimore & Denver would probably take this. That being said MSP & Pittsburgh could also have genuine cases made for them.
Tier 4:
Asheville
Boise
Chattanooga
Columbia SC
Colorado Springs Myrtle Beach
Daytona FL
Olympia WA Charleston, SC
A new downtown connector subway will enable riders getting off Metrolink at Union Station to enjoy a single-seat ride to Bunker Hill. That route should open within the next year or two IIRC.
I have little concern for the status-anxious.
Exactly what I was looking for! Chicago's Union Station is across the river from the Sears Tower and The Loop. Can't figure out why L.A. doesn't provide easy access to the central business district if Chicago and Houston figured it out already.
You might want to be concerned about the "fabulous" people. Those actors-and-actresses are still fueling the "California Dream" migration and keeping L.A. relevant. Usually the uncontrollable annual wildfires (that happen around this time of year) deter people away, but those status-anxious people present a different California.
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.
