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.
Btw, do you have numbers on how many New Yorkers live above a walk score of 80 and 70?
I stopped doing it after I realized that there were almost 3 million above 90. It just stops being relevant to any other discussion/comparison. Because we don't have walkscores for cities in other countries.
i stopped doing it after i realized that there were almost 3 million above 90. it just stops being relevant to any other discussion/comparison. Because we don't have walkscores for cities in other countries.
Miami's city limits total 35.6 sq miles. That, more than anything, explains its relatively high ranking. Smaller size, largely centered around its CBD, fewer unwalkable neighborhoods dragging the averages down. I dont believe its inclusion discredits walkscore, but I do feel that it makes more sense to compare cities at a 50/75/100/200 sq mile radius rather than just comparing them using official city limits.
7 cities (New York City, Chicago, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Boston and DC) have denser cores than other American cities by a decent margins and are (usually) considered the most urban cities in the country, at least on this forum.
Three of these cities (New York City, Philadelphia and Boston) are old east coast port cities. They were among the largest cities early in the nation's history and all have a core that existed pre-transit. They tend to have some narrower streets and a look that feels a bit more closed in and tighter than larger cities found elsewhere. New York City was by far the largest of the 3 after 1850, though before that it was close to Philadelphia if you accounted for Philadelphia's smaller physical limits. By 1900, parts of Manhattans reached extreme densities, for example, the Lower East Side (including today's East Village) had densities between 300-400k / sq mile, higher than anywhere else in the world at the time.
Cities outside of the Northeast appear to be built at a lower structural density, with more single family homes. But Chicago became very big before the onset of the automobile, so it became just as structurally dense as Boston and Philadelphia, though with a more "midwestern" form. The difference in style is very distinct not sure what the best way to put it is. All 4 of those cities were the only ones to build subway systems in the early 1900s. Other cities relied on just on streetcars, and even those 4 cities had extensive streetcar systems (Chicago had a higher streetcar ridership than subway ridership).
Unlike New York City, in Chicago many of the working-class jobs were distributed over a large area in the South Side, rather than in small chunks along the water and Lower Manhattan for NYC. Partially explains the density contrast, and why the good areas "North Side" of Chicago are structurally denser than the South Side. The spreading out for industrial jobs might explains why many rust belt cities are a bit more spread out (not too sure on that).
Baltimore is as old as Boston and often shows up as having as high or nearly as high population as Boston during the 19th century. Boston's population is a bit undercounted, as even then a large portion of residents living in "urban" areas were outside of the city limits (Brookline, Cambridge, Somerville, numerous other smaller cities and a few places that Boston didn't annex until fairly late). Baltimore's city limits were larger. Still the population difference isn't that huge, though the fact Boston built a subway system and Baltimore didn't suggests a size difference. I wonder why one became more urban than the other? Baltimore's urban decay made the difference larger and its metro is quite a bit smaller than of Boston's today so maybe there was less of an incentive to densify the core.
San Francisco isn't in the Northeast (obviously), nor did it become as big as Chicago but it normally tops a lot of urbanity lists. Back in 1900, San Francisco was about the same size as Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Buffalo and much smaller than St. Louis. Is San Francisco much more urban the other cities because San Francisco (both city and metro) prospered and grew post-war while the others experienced severe industrial decline and population flight? Or did San Francisco have a different form to begin with? At least Cleveland and Buffalo don't look like they have very urban bones to begin with, with single family homes very close to downtown. Posters claim St. Louis is structurally dense but I didn't feel it on streetview. San Francisco was rebuilt after the 1906 earthquake, it might have felt older and more like an east coast city if it weren't for the earthquake. I don't think St. Louis or any the Rust Belt cities mentioned have sections as urban as Nob or Telegraph Hill. Before and after footage:
Not too sure about Washington DC, the growth of the federal government helped it along of course. Was smaller than the other 5 cities, not reaching close to San Francisco or Boston's size until mid-20th century. Old core is smaller and less dense than the other 5, but it has rowhouses like the other east coast cities (Manhattan has "Federal style" houses scattered, sometimes in rather random looking spots).
But most cities that were Washington DC and San Francisco's size from 1870-1930 were midwestern and rust belt cities. Some of these were spread out enough that they appeared to be designed for cars before cars came along. San Francisco seems like the oddest one of the bunch.
Enough has been said about Los Angeles that I don't feel like mentioning it again.
There's definitely a lot of ways this could be interpreted. Population? Density? "vibe"? I personally think density is a necessary requirement of having an urban environment. I would probably say having a good skyline, a solid nightlife, and good public transportation also are requirements.
I guess when I think urban; I think New York, San Francisco, Boston, Philadelphia, and Chicago.
Baltimore is as old as Boston and often shows up as having as high or nearly as high population as Boston during the 19th century. Boston's population is a bit undercounted, as even then a large portion of residents living in "urban" areas were outside of the city limits (Brookline, Cambridge, Somerville, numerous other smaller cities and a few places that Boston didn't annex until fairly late). Baltimore's city limits were larger. Still the population difference isn't that huge, though the fact Boston built a subway system and Baltimore didn't suggests a size difference. I wonder why one became more urban than the other? Baltimore's urban decay made the difference larger and its metro is quite a bit smaller than of Boston's today so maybe there was less of an incentive to densify the core.
Did an estimate for the Boston metro in 1900. Added Cambridge + Arlington + Medford + Malden + Brookline + Lynn +Everett + all of Suffolk County (which contains all of Boston and a few adjacent towns). Got 938,241. In 1900, Boston and St. Louis had roughly the same city proper population. But metro-wide Boston was about 50% bigger. St. Louis looks like it had barely any urban population outside of the city proper. I assume Philadelphia had some, but not to the extent of Boston. And Chicago?
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.
