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.
NYC definitely #1. I would make the argument that Philly competes for a solid #2 with Chicago. Chicago is very tall and urban, but Philly has the very narrow streets. Along those same lines, I would throw in Baltimore as well.
NYC definitely #1. I would make the argument that Philly competes for a solid #2 with Chicago. Chicago is very tall and urban, but Philly has the very narrow streets. Along those same lines, I would throw in Baltimore as well.
If I had to make a list, it would be:
NYC
Chicago/Philly
Philly/Chicago
SF
Boston
DC
Baltimore
LA
Seattle
New Orleans
Miami
Dallas
San Diego
I would reorder:
NYC
SF (completely built out to curb, 2nd highest weighted average density by a significant margin, packs similar amount of hotel rooms as much larger Chicago, packs a huge retail/commercial punch, and 83 million sf of office space in its smaller limits, too, not really all that far behind Chicago/DC and well above Philly and still above Boston)
Philly (completely built out to curb, but has more vacant lots than SF and lower weighted avg density, less office/commercial/hotels)
Chicago (taller DT buildings does not necessarily make for a more densely built environment on average...once out of the Loop/River North, spacing between buildings is significantly higher than in SF/Philly and Chicago achieves its densities by having more tall buildings scattered about)
Boston (debated throwing this in front of Chicago, maybe even ahead of Philly frankly)
LA (I think higher than DC...so much more expansive, higher densities, definitely more built out over larger area)
DC
Baltimore (debated putting this in front of LA/DC because like Philly, also very much built out to curb...admittedly I just don't know this city)
Seattle
Miami (kind of in Chicago category...lots of tall/large resi buildings boosts its density, but it's surprisingly not all that built out for how large the city and its stature are)
With the exception of NYC, cities with larger city limits are at a disadvantage here. Its not apple to apples. The only way to really compare would be to take a similar sized area for each city. On CD we always say city limits are arbitrary, so why should that not apply here?
Last edited by Mr Ambitious; 10-09-2015 at 07:47 AM..
SF (completely built out to curb, 2nd highest weighted average density by a significant margin, packs similar amount of hotel rooms as much larger Chicago, packs a huge retail/commercial punch, and 83 million sf of office space in its smaller limits, too, not really all that far behind Chicago/DC and well above Philly and still above Boston)
Philly (completely built out to curb, but has more vacant lots than SF and lower weighted avg density, less office/commercial/hotels)
Chicago (taller DT buildings does not necessarily make for a more densely built environment on average...once out of the Loop/River North, spacing between buildings is significantly higher than in SF/Philly and Chicago achieves its densities by having more tall buildings scattered about)
Boston (debated throwing this in front of Chicago, maybe even ahead of Philly frankly)
LA (I think higher than DC...so much more expansive, higher densities, definitely more built out over larger area)
DC
Baltimore (debated putting this in front of LA/DC because like Philly, also very much built out to curb...admittedly I just don't know this city)
Seattle
Miami (kind of in Chicago category...lots of tall/large resi buildings boosts its density, but it's surprisingly not all that built out for how large the city and its stature are)
Yeah, I pretty agree with this list. I might flip Chicago and Philly and maybe DC and LA. But, this is pretty much the top 10.
Densest built environment is a little hard to compare for a couple reasons: 1) Do you include office space/non-residential uses? DC is very urban by built environment, given its large amount of office space/hotels/etc. But, these vibrancy isn't captured in population density numbers. By, pop density, DC is less urban than Boston. But, when it comes to physical area DC almost certainty has a larger "vibrant urban core" on M-F than Boston or even Philly.
2) Do you value consistent tight density or net density? Row house cities like Philly and Baltimore have tightly built, consistent density. Most neighborhoods are super-urban in form. But, not necessary vibrant. Cities like Chicago, DC and increasingly Seattle, aren't built as tight or consistently urban. Lots of wide setbacks, little front yards, etc. But, the cities have lots of inter-mixed apartment buildings in these leafy neighborhoods (Lincoln Park, Adams-Morgan, Capitol Hill) which often make them as dense, or denser than Baltimore/Philly-style row house neighborhoods.
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.