Most urban cities (planner, New Orleans, Cleveland, park)
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.
To most people on this forum, "urban" is defined by population density, cultural offerings, diversity, shopping amenities, nightlife, world class city status, whether or not the city is regional hub etc.
For many others, "urban" is a euphemism for anything pertaining to the vibrant but often insular culture of younger Black people born and raised in a big city. This use of the word "urban" is a popular buzz-word in the entertainment and fashion industry. By this account, cities like Baltimore and Detroit are epitome of urban. Ironically, Baltimore's urban culture is not popular or influential across the country. Most people in the Bay Area, or anywhere else, have never heard Baltimore Club music or probably have never drank a half-and-half or ate lake trout or had a chicken box unless they have been to B-More. I know people from DC who are oblivious to this world of culture that exists in Baltimore. Baltimore's urban culture, by this definition, is not nearly as influential as the much more ubiquitous urban cultural contributions of cities like NYC and L.A.
Not trying to derail this thread, but Baltimore club music is very popular in philly and northern NJ. I've heard my brother's friend (the black girl that played in 21 jump street) on the radio in philly singing a song about Baltimore neighborhoods.
I'm not talking about the coast line. I'm talking about the depth of the city. That is what I meant by linear. Chicago has very impressive high-rises but, they are spread too thin hugging the coast line which does nothing for street level. Rule number one, urbanity is measured at street level. If Chicago's high rises along the coast were condensed into a large square or rectangle for instance, the effect would be far greater from an urbanism perspective. Chicago "had" the potential to be just like Manhattan if the buildings had been built with greater depth from the coast line forming a larger surface area and grouping together in the shape of a square or rectangle. Instead, they are built along the coast for miles in a thin line which greatly reduces the urban perspective.
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...
Last edited by spaceboyzero; 05-09-2012 at 06:00 AM..
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, 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 east-coast dense yet, but don't feel immense to me...
Completely agree. Chicago is hands down the second most urban city in the US. It is def closer to SF, Bos, Phi than it is to NYC but it still is considerably more urban than the former in my opinion.
I'm not talking about the coast line. I'm talking about the depth of the city. That is what I meant by linear. Chicago has very impressive high-rises but, they are spread too thin hugging the coast line which does nothing for street level. Rule number one, urbanity is measured at street level. If Chicago's high rises along the coast were condensed into a large square or rectangle for instance, the effect would be far greater from an urbanism perspective. Chicago "had" the potential to be just like Manhattan if the buildings had been built with greater depth from the coast line forming a larger surface area and grouping together in the shape of a square or rectangle. Instead, they are built along the coast for miles in a thin line which greatly reduces the urban perspective.
It doesn't sound like you've spent much quality time in Chicago. Even if you lopped off the "thin line" of highrises stretching along the lake and left only the "highrise core" in and around downtown, it would still take you the better part of three hours to walk around its perimeter. That may not be impressive by Tokyo or Hong Kong or New York standards, but there's nowhere else in America other than NYC that compares.
What's more, I think you overestimate how much highrises contribute to street life. The variety and ratio of retail space to population is actually quite low. IMO corridors like Lincoln Avenue, Clark Street, Milwaukee Avenue, 26th St., etc., are much more compelling at the street level than the highrise areas, even where there's a lot of residential highrises. There isn't a highrise in sight in Washington DC but surely there's plenty of street-level urbanity.
St. Louis is definitely more urban than Cleveland, so you city freaks need to get here and see for yourself. Atlanta and Houston don't even come close in terms of physical urbanity.
NY
SF
LA
Chicago
In that order have the top 4 spots locked
Philly
Boston
DC
Next group in that order
Seattle
Miami
Detroit
Houston
Dallas
Atlanta
Round out the major cities in that order.
I'm not sure why people like to put places like Houston, Dallas and Atlanta in that 3rd tier of urban places in America. The striking majority of these cities are suburban and no one can really argue with that save for a few "urban" neighborhoods.
I think places such as NOLA and Baltimore deserve the spot right below Seattle and Miami.
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.
Even then, single family homes make up less than 25% of Chicago's housing stock. The reason it's a part of the built areas on the northwest and southeast sides of the city is because the city is almost 240 square miles.
There are still decent streets of highrises many miles north of downtown and river north.
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.
Baltimore Density
