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.
Most based on largest urban population and buildings as in which has more urban volume. Keep in mind that residential highrises are also part of the urban landscape.
1. NYC
2. CHICAGO
smaller cities
3. Philadelphia
4. SF
5. Boston
First of all when it comes to urban cities New York stands alone as the number #1 city. You make it seem like Chicago is the stand alone number 2 urban city and that there is a huge gap between Chicago and the rest of the cities(similarly to how New York City stands above cities). That is simply not the case.
If anything Chicago is on par with cities like Philadelphia and Boston. You make it seem like Chicago is in its own league like New York City is. By the way I liked all the pics except for the last one. Seems like a direct cheap shot at Philly to boast some sort of inferiority complex with Chicago maybe.
Actually with the way this site has been since 2010 and beyond it looks like some of the Philly posters have the inferiority complex. Your posters appear to have an interjection for every thread which is why Philly is the central figure of the forum. The Chicago posters have lost their egos and now get on the floor and let everyone kick them around, people saying that country haven Baltimore is more urban than Chicago is proof of that. I commend the Chicagoans for fighting back these stupid remarks.
These are just my observations as a third party.
I love Philly a lot and it's no less than 4th most urban city. It's just behind NYC, SF, and Chicago.
First of all when it comes to urban cities New York stands alone as the number #1 city. You make it seem like Chicago is the stand alone number 2 urban city and that there is a huge gap between Chicago and the rest of the cities(similarly to how New York City stands above cities). That is simply not the case.
If anything Chicago is on par with cities like Philadelphia and Boston. You make it seem like Chicago is in its own league like New York City is. By the way I liked all the pics except for the last one. Seems like a direct cheap shot at Philly to boast some sort of inferiority complex with Chicago maybe.
Agreed, there is no way Chicago is head-and-shoulders above those other smaller cities (and another, more controversially urban city ).
Detroit. Although has many single family and multi unit homes, they are tightly packed nicely along the street grid. I would put it in 3rd tier. NYC is in a league of it's own. 2nd tier would be the other northeast cities, Chicago and SF.
Michigan having alot of trees gives Detroit a less urban effect from aerial view but if you look down into the streets you can see the homes and duplexes packed together on a street grid.
Sorry MDAllstar, I have to respectfully disagree. I've been to all of those cities, and Chicago is above Boston/Philly/Baltimore.... MAYBE the argument can be made to put it below SF, but it's a slap in the face to Chicago to not consider it in the top 3 for urbanity.
YES, there are a large swaths of the city that are single family homes, but what people don't give Chicago enough credit for is just the sheer size of the city. Look at the picture that Ubranologist posted above of the city's north side. While the entire thing isn't dominated by high-rises inward, you can tell from the brownish coloring that it is dense low rises and development. What people can't tell from the picture is that the north side alone is larger than ENTIRE CITIES like Boston, Philly and Baltimore. (Also see Urbanologist's picture). AGAIN, yes, you may be able to point to areas of Boston and say, "nothing in Chicago is as urban or dense as these 3 square blocks in Boston," but I was able to walk almost the entire width of Boston (from the TD Garden to the Back Bay), but try to walk Clark Street in Chicago from the South Loop/China Town to Roger's Park, and that is more than 10 straight miles of unbroken urbanity and storefronts.
Not too mention, that yes again, the high-rises hug the coast once you get north and south, but the community areas of the Loop, South Loop, Near North Side and West Look create enough of a "rectangle effect" that it shouldn't even be a contest when compared to other cities:
But again, this is no slight to those other cities I mentioned, because they are all amazing urban experiences in their own right. But I guess it all depends on your view or urbanity. In Chicago, there are new neighborhoods I discover all the time, and places I go downtown where I feel like I'm in a immense metropolis... I personally never get that feeling in smaller cities, while they are east-coast dense, yes, they just don't feel immense to me...
I think you need to put "urbanity in context". To be urban has nothing to do with size in relation to city propers. If we were judging urbanity of MSA area, then it would be completely different. When it comes to urbanity in the city proper sense of the word, we must measure the percentage of urban build across an entire city per capita. Chicago actually falls farther if you measure it for it's entire land area because it lacks greatly in the neighborhoods that sprawl away from the loop and coast. This is why row house cities or apartment walled cities have a greater density than the Midwestern single family home design. The streets are narrower and the houses lack gaps. The number one rule in urbanity is street interaction of buildings. Creating an uninterrupted street wall is the greatest way to establish ultimate urbanity. Doing this with residential construction is the ultimate way to build livable urbanity. Obviously over the years, planners have learned how to incorporate parks for urban escapes, but the street wall build is maximum urbanity. Visit Paris to see this done to residential perfection.
There is really no comparison if we are just judging the loop etc., but when we take the entire city into account and most people in Chicago don't live in the loop, their existence and daily life is not that urban. The other factor is ease of transit use. Chicago sprawls much like L.A. with extremly densely built single family homes. The other cities on the list have a much denser and more vibrant lifestyle for a larger percentage of the city which is the true measure for urbanity. If I used your measurement for urbanity, Washington DC would have to be ranked there as well because the urban core of buildings is larger than every city except NYC in land area but that is not an accurate measure of the entire city.
San Fran and Boston have the highest percentage of land in their cities built in densely compact blocks. Chicago's core loses it's luster because of its shape in relation to the whole city. Most people living in Chicago don't have the overwelming experience of the loop when they leave their home to walk up the street you are refrering too. European cities are built to be residentially dense and compact. If Chicago had those characteristics in the neighborhoods across the city and covered less land with the same amount of housing, Chicago would have higher transit ridership, retail would have greater density. The city would not have room for strip stores with their own parking lots.
If we compare cities just based on their size instead of their build environment and dominated city wide built form, we will never be able to make accurate comparisons.
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.
).
