CITIES: separating "size" from "urban" (metro, largest, Baltimore)

[edsg25]

people often equate the size of a city (metro area, too) and its urban quality. that's a shame. they are vastly different. it is possible to have a very large city with little urban quality; conversely a small city can be incredibly urban.

and while i am reluctant to introduce a third variable, even density doesn't always relate to urbanity. that is less obvious here in the US, but if you were to go to any of a seemingly endless number of new cities in the rising parts of the world (i.e. China, India), you'd find huge populations and incredible density in places with little urban character.

BUT URBAN IS MY FOCUS HERE. So regardless of population and/or density.....


without considering either population or density,WHICH AMERICAN CITIES DO YOU SEE AS BEING THE MOST "URBAN" (BASED ON YOUR DEFINITION OF THAT TERM) IN CHARACTER....AND WHAT GIVES EACH ITS SPECIAL URBAN QUALITY?

in other words.....put the statistics away and describe how these cities actually tick to give them that magical urban quality.

[kidphilly]

To me there are potentially three types of urbanity in the US

An urbanity of cities with foundations set prior to the significant integration of the car. These cities have tight and densly developed infrastructure. By size these these would based on feel to me be NYC (by far the largest on basically all accounts (sand developed sprawl for lack of a better word of which LA may be the king of expanse but to me not in this character) followed by Boston/Philly/SF take your pick on order for these three.

The next set is older core driven cities; Chicago, LA, DC, Detroit, Seattle (potentially Denver)

Lastly is a more modern incarnation; really though LA on the whole is the model of this type but would include places like Houston, Miami, DFW, Atlanta etc.

All are hard to compare as they have different aspects

As far as urban expanse meaning concentration of development from my experience there is likely this ordering

NYC (by far seperated from all others)
LA/Chicago - while slightly different both feel immense in slightly different urban forms
Boston/Philly/SF - still extremely urban in the core without as much continuity in expanse
DC - A little step below the above three in overall urbanity but close
After it gets tricky but the next set would likely include some newer developed cities with expanse and less concentrated urbanity though this is where places like a Seattle or Baltimore deliver in a more core form urbanity but feel vastly smaller on the expanse

Aspects that to me go into this is the diversity in the core; concentration of amenitities (to me the arts aspects play in with on this aspect as well as regional societies), street level feel, core concentration of activities and wealth, transportation modes (PT/Walking/Cabs vs auto centric) and concentration of development.

In the end there is likely no perfect barometer though

[cittic10]

Sowflorda
Chi-town
San fran

And that's about it. It's the cities that are bound on one or more sides by water or undevelopable land.
Although to me, NYC feels like it's in the woods. It's obviously urban but the second you cross over the bridge, it's hills and trees and quaint little mainstreets towns.

[313Weather]

In your context, you're speaking of developed areas.

I do define an urban area as an area that's walkable (you're in walking distane to all sorts of commercial activity, a car is not necessary to fulfill your daily needs) with high population densities. I define a place that isn't very walkable and doesn't have a very high density, but is developed, as suburban.

LA would be considered suburban to me, although it is heavily developed.

Even Detroit would be considered suburban to me, although it's also heavily developed.

Urban cities would be Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston, NYC, San Francisco, etc.

[west336]

Originally Posted by kidphilly

To me there are potentially three types of urbanity in the US

An urbanity of cities with foundations set prior to the significant integration of the car. These cities have tight and densly developed infrastructure. By size these these would based on feel to me be NYC (by far the largest on basically all accounts (sand developed sprawl for lack of a better word of which LA may be the king of expanse but to me not in this character) followed by Boston/Philly/SF take your pick on order for these three.

The next set is older core driven cities; Chicago, LA, DC, Detroit, Seattle (potentially Denver)

Lastly is a more modern incarnation; really though LA on the whole is the model of this type but would include places like Houston, Miami, DFW, Atlanta etc.

All are hard to compare as they have different aspects

As far as urban expanse meaning concentration of development from my experience there is likely this ordering

NYC (by far seperated from all others)
LA/Chicago - while slightly different both feel immense in slightly different urban forms
Boston/Philly/SF - still extremely urban in the core without as much continuity in expanse
DC - A little step below the above three in overall urbanity but close
After it gets tricky but the next set would likely include some newer developed cities with expanse and less concentrated urbanity though this is where places like a Seattle or Baltimore deliver in a more core form urbanity but feel vastly smaller on the expanse

Aspects that to me go into this is the diversity in the core; concentration of amenitities (to me the arts aspects play in with on this aspect as well as regional societies), street level feel, core concentration of activities and wealth, transportation modes (PT/Walking/Cabs vs auto centric) and concentration of development.

In the end there is likely no perfect barometer though

I don't know if this list was supposed to be all-encompassing, but you can easily throw in Minneapolis-St. Paul, San Diego, St. Louis and Cleveland (in that order) in that mix if you consider Denver and/or Seattle to be in that mix. Denver's density is actually most impressive in its periphery than its core, but both are fairly moderate....Denver has a good built environment from top to bottom!

[SBCA]

The overwhelming factor that determines whether a place is urban is population density. High population density (probably 10,000 people per square mile) makes it possible to support a large variety of amenities in a smaller geographic area which fosters different types of transportation, varying demographics of residents, and a fairly continuous built environment. Such density can take many forms, such as rowhouses in much of the northeast, high rises in large city cores, and even small older single-family homes in much of the midwest and west.

Population size is often a good indicator of whether the city will be 'urban', but as well on this forum all know, there are plenty of exceptions (Houston, Jacksonville).

In suburban parts of the country, the term 'urban' unfortunately has come to be associated with decay, poverty, crime, post-industrial environments, and a concrete jungle. But there is no necessary connection between urban areas and these processes. It just so happened that the same societal and demographic shifts that produced the potential for high urban population density also set the stage for employment restructuring in the period of industrial decline.

[kidphilly]

Originally Posted by west336

I don't know if this list was supposed to be all-encompassing, but you can easily throw in Minneapolis-St. Paul, San Diego, St. Louis and Cleveland (in that order) in that mix if you consider Denver and/or Seattle to be in that mix. Denver's density is actually most impressive in its periphery than its core, but both are fairly moderate....Denver has a good built environment from top to bottom!

Wasnt meant as all inclusive more descriptive examples of the larger of the various forms etc.

I actually dont know MSP or Denver very well relative to many others; limited personal experience

St Louis and Cleveland or even a Cinci may be somthing between the first and second group; not sure how best to place all nor a perfect definition

[kidphilly]

Originally Posted by SBCA

The overwhelming factor that determines whether a place is urban is population density. High population density (probably 10,000 people per square mile) makes it possible to support a large variety of amenities in a smaller geographic area which fosters different types of transportation, varying demographics of residents, and a fairly continuous built environment. Such density can take many forms, such as rowhouses in much of the northeast, high rises in large city cores, and even small older single-family homes in much of the midwest and west.

Population size is often a good indicator of whether the city will be 'urban', but as well on this forum all know, there are plenty of exceptions (Houston, Jacksonville).

In suburban parts of the country, the term 'urban' unfortunately has come to be associated with decay, poverty, crime, post-industrial environments, and a concrete jungle. But there is no necessary connection between urban areas and these processes. It just so happened that the same societal and demographic shifts that produced the potential for high urban population density also set the stage for employment restructuring in the period of industrial decline.

Would only add continuity of developed density also plays in; there are areas more isolted that achieve these densities on a smaller footprint and without cohesion/continuity urbanity can be diminished

[chiatldal]

Originally Posted by kidphilly

To me there are potentially three types of urbanity in the US

An urbanity of cities with foundations set prior to the significant integration of the car. These cities have tight and densly developed infrastructure. By size these these would based on feel to me be NYC (by far the largest on basically all accounts (sand developed sprawl for lack of a better word of which LA may be the king of expanse but to me not in this character) followed by Boston/Philly/SF take your pick on order for these three.

The next set is older core driven cities; Chicago, LA, DC, Detroit, Seattle (potentially Denver)

Lastly is a more modern incarnation; really though LA on the whole is the model of this type but would include places like Houston, Miami, DFW, Atlanta etc.

All are hard to compare as they have different aspects

As far as urban expanse meaning concentration of development from my experience there is likely this ordering

NYC (by far seperated from all others)
LA/Chicago - while slightly different both feel immense in slightly different urban forms
Boston/Philly/SF - still extremely urban in the core without as much continuity in expanse
DC - A little step below the above three in overall urbanity but close
After it gets tricky but the next set would likely include some newer developed cities with expanse and less concentrated urbanity though this is where places like a Seattle or Baltimore deliver in a more core form urbanity but feel vastly smaller on the expanse

Aspects that to me go into this is the diversity in the core; concentration of amenitities (to me the arts aspects play in with on this aspect as well as regional societies), street level feel, core concentration of activities and wealth, transportation modes (PT/Walking/Cabs vs auto centric) and concentration of development.

In the end there is likely no perfect barometer though

Since were talking about history the way cities are develop, their cores, We all know that in the 60s began large urban renewal projects taking on by cities in America, also many cities core started to decline.

50s
Seattle city, WA......... 467,591 pop 70.8 sq mi 6,604 /sq mi
Denver city, CO.......... 415,786 pop 66.8 sq mi 6,224 /sq mi
Atlanta city, GA......... 331,314 pop 36.9 sq mi 8,979 /sq mi

40s
Seattle city, WA......... 368,302 pop 68.5 sq mi 5,377 /sq mi
Denver city, CO.......... 415,786 pop 66.8 sq mi 6,224 /sq mi
Atlanta city, GA......... 302,288 pop 34.7 sq mi 8,711 /sq mi

I brought this up because you put Seattle and Denver up with Chicago, LA, DC, Detroit and made a separate tier for Atlanta, Houston Dallas, and Miami. When Atlanta is just as old and was denser than both of them by historical layout. After the 70s Atlanta the city core started to decline and didn't start to increase until the 90s mean while the suburbs just grew. While Seattle pass Atlanta in density during time Atlanta was in decline, Denver wasn't even denser than Atlanta until the census took 100,000 off from Atlanta in 2010.

Remember your the one taking about historical layout how do Seattle and Denver get in the same sentence as Chicago, DC, and Detroit. At the same time above Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, and Miami. When they just pass them, post 70's? Atlanta, Houston, and Dallas are older than LA technically and they did not model after LA, and LA has nothing to do with their historical layout. LA boom like a bet out hell in the early 20 century, Sun belt growth is post 70s growth. Urban renewal made those cities less dense not they start off that way or planned.

[kidphilly]

Originally Posted by chiatldal

Since were talking about history the way cities are develop, their cores, We all know that in the 60s began large urban renewal projects taking on by cities in America, also many cities core started to decline.

50s
Seattle city, WA......... 467,591 pop 70.8 sq mi 6,604 /sq mi
Denver city, CO.......... 415,786 pop 66.8 sq mi 6,224 /sq mi
Atlanta city, GA......... 331,314 pop 36.9 sq mi 8,979 /sq mi

40s
Seattle city, WA......... 368,302 pop 68.5 sq mi 5,377 /sq mi
Denver city, CO.......... 415,786 pop 66.8 sq mi 6,224 /sq mi
Atlanta city, GA......... 302,288 pop 34.7 sq mi 8,711 /sq mi

I brought this up because you put Seattle and Denver up with Chicago, LA, DC, Detroit and made a separate tier for Atlanta, Houston Dallas, and Miami. When Atlanta is just as old and was denser than both of them by historical layout. After the 70s Atlanta the city core started to decline and didn't start to increase until the 90s mean while the suburbs just grew. While Seattle pass Atlanta in density during time Atlanta was in decline, Denver wasn't even denser than Atlanta until the census took 100,000 off from Atlanta in 2010.

Remember your the one taking about historical layout how do Seattle and Denver get in the same sentence as Chicago, DC, and Detroit. At the same time above Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, and Miami. When they just pass them, post 70's? Atlanta, Houston, and Dallas are older than LA technically and they did not model after LA, and LA has nothing to do with their historical layout. LA boom like a bet out hell in the early 20 century, Sun belt growth is post 70s growth. Urban renewal made those cities less dense not they start off that way or planned.

I debated on Atlanta but on the whole the urbanity is more similar to the modern incarnation with aspects old in the core; Atlanta is a wildcard of sorts, a small old core with a less dense wide sprawled expanse. doesnt fit well into any category and as is developing today is more consistent with a newer model save a few nabes.

Denver in some ways seems to share more IMHO; albeit limited in experience with Denver and as I said there is no perfect portrayal