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.
I've found that a lot of old, small towns seem to be more 'urban' in form than many larger, newer cities and towns:
Jackson, WY
Aztec, NM
Durango, CO
Moab, UT
It just goes to show how important the built environment is to evoke a feeling of urbanity. Build it right on the street, keep the corners solid, build it right through a few blocks on both sides, keep the street width in proportion to the building heights and even a village of 2-3 story buildings has the potential to feel dense and vibrant.
^^Most of these mountain towns are built in a narrow valley and have nowhere to expand. 2 miles out and you're sometimes in a national forest. Everything has to be trucked in from Denver, Salt Lake City, maybe Albuquerque to the cities mentioned and that happens maybe twice a week. This is not the "urban" living so many on this board desire.
San Diego - Now, I'm not saying San Diego is really urban, but I feel people often view it as similar to Phoenix or other super-sprawly sunbelt cities
My experience is the opposite. Because it was one of the first US cities with modern light rail and because its downtown did develop a lot in the 90's and 00's, it's often pointed to as an example of modern, urban cities. It's not bad, but to me it's overrated.
It really isn't any denser than Sunbelt cities. It's a bit more cohesive, with the dense neighborhoods all right near downtown and built in a more pedestrian friendly way.
But the NW and SW quadrants are downtown and the adjacent denser neighborhoods. These areas combined are far denser, more cohesive and walkable, and more urban-feeling than Sunbelt cities.
You've got a large chunk of area that looks like this:
No sunbelt city, even the huge ones like Houston or Dallas, have anything close to that level or size of consistently walkable, urban-feeling swaths (I'm talking about NW and SW combined, which flow into each other seamlessly)
What cities have you found are typically under-estimated in terms of urbanity? Places that people here on city data and generally tend to not give enough credit to, in terms of how urban they are.
I've got two to start:
San Diego - Now, I'm not saying San Diego is really urban, but I feel people often view it as similar to Phoenix or other super-sprawly sunbelt cities, and I think it is substantially more urban that that. Downtown, Little Italy, Hillcrest, North Park, South Park are all pretty urban and make up a large chunk of the city. Even the beach communities like Pacific Beach of Ocean Beach have walkable, urban cores. There are a lot more street-facing, pedestrian friendly retail and commercial districts than you'd expect. Don't get me wrong, it's in many ways a sprawled-out city, but it has more urban areas and urban elements that people usually give it credit for.
Baltimore - everyone knows Baltimore is urban (to be clear, "urban" in the city-data sense), but I still think it's under-estimated. It is an incredibly urban city with massive rowhouse neighborhoods and a lot of in tact dense infrastructure. Sure, there are issues with rampant poverty, disinvested neighborhoods, and sections that are unsafe or not vibrant, but overall I'd argue Baltimore is one of the most urban cities in the country, easily. It is very walkable and has a ton of great urban amenities.
Los Angeles and Hampton Roads. Northern Virginia, as people outside of the tri-state region aren't familiar with it. Northern Virginia, or NoVa, though technically a suburb of DC, is quite urban and is actually built taller than DC due to height restrictions.
LA also has the density of some areas in the Northeast part of the country, without the tall buildings, as it is becoming more of a Mid-rise city in places, High-rise in some other neighborhoods, like Hollywood, and Downtown. Atlanta is also known as a suburban place, though it is developing in neighborhoods outside of the downtown periphery like LA.
It really isn't any denser than Sunbelt cities. It's a bit more cohesive, with the dense neighborhoods all right near downtown and built in a more pedestrian friendly way.
Re: Portland, I should also add that even SE and NE, while having plenty of single family homes, also have significant, urban-feeling, walkable stretches:
Much of the SE commercial area looks like this (these are all several miles from downtown):
The more I think about it, the more I strongly disagree with your comparison of Portland and Sunbelt Cities. Not only in terms of downtown and the inner neighborhoods (i.e. NW and SW) but also in terms of outer neighborhoods (SE and NE). It depends on how you define "urban" of course, but Portland overall has far more favorable urban-design elements and planning than sunbelt cities. It is a city where walking, biking, or taking transit are easy, with small blocks, narrow streets, lots of street-facing, accessible retail, phenomenal local food and drink scene, big sidewalks - many of the things that Sunbelt cities lack.
^^Most of these mountain towns are built in a narrow valley and have nowhere to expand. 2 miles out and you're sometimes in a national forest. Everything has to be trucked in from Denver, Salt Lake City, maybe Albuquerque to the cities mentioned and that happens maybe twice a week. This is not the "urban" living so many on this board desire.
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.