U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: State your choice answer
American cities fall to the bottom of the list when stacked with the European ones on urbanity 13 52.00%
American cities hold their own, in fact I believe some of them top the overall list in terms of urbanity 6 24.00%
American cities are consistently middle of the pack compared to the European cities in terms of urbanity 6 24.00%
Voters: 25. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Old 05-10-2013, 07:03 AM
 
Location: Tokyo, Japan
6,617 posts, read 8,275,490 times
Reputation: 7561

Advertisements

American cities
Boston
Philadelphia
San Francisco
Washington DC

World cities
Málaga
Lyon
Nice
Copenhagen
Valencia
Stockholm

I'm not asking for which ones feel the largest, frankly that has nothing to do with "most urban" or not. I'm simply asking any of you with relative experience in any of these cities to order them in a list of which ones are most urban to least and how the American cities stack up to the ones from elsewhere.

You're free to include things such as walkability, density, transit, vibrancy (pedestrian activity), large walkable and urban core area with bustling activity, so on in your analysis. I didn't want to put this in the urban planning forum since it's too broad for there and I'm not asking for only statistics but also for some personal experience from those of you that have been to any of these cities (you don't have to have experience in all, just a couple of American cities and a couple of overseas cities).

Next question, as a collective group. Do you think the American cities can hold their own or do you think they fall to the bottom of the list in comparison to some of these other European cities?
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-10-2013, 07:12 AM
 
Location: Scotland
7,972 posts, read 10,061,675 times
Reputation: 4092
Boston and Philly have millions, and you pick medium sized European cities?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2013, 07:16 AM
 
Location: Tokyo, Japan
6,617 posts, read 8,275,490 times
Reputation: 7561
Quote:
Originally Posted by paull805 View Post
Boston and Philly have millions, and you pick medium sized European cities?
No I picked small to medium. European cities ranging from like 1 million to 3 million because that's what our American "large cities" are striving to compete with. Places like Barcelona, Madrid, Moscow, Randstad, London, Paris, you serious man? Those cities easily bloe the American ones out of the water on just about everything in terms of "urban". Size has nothing to do with it Paul.

Truth is, American cities punch well below their weight in an urban sense. Have you seen Valencia and Washington DC?

Washington DC technically has 6 million people in it's metropolis compared to like what, 2.5 million for Valencia but which one do you think feels more urban? The answer is Valencia. It's FAR more active and it has a larger area that can be considered "urban" compared to the horror show that is single family homes just miles out of downtown Washington.

Seriously, if you're suggesting a comparison between Washington to somewhere like Randstad or something, somewhere that has 7 million people then you're honestly underrating your own continents cities.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2013, 07:40 AM
 
Location: Scotland
7,972 posts, read 10,061,675 times
Reputation: 4092
All the American cities you picked are much larger the the European cities you picked.

Hamburg, Bucharest, Vienna, Warsaw etc would be better picks.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2013, 11:19 AM
 
Location: 59°N
5,186 posts, read 5,839,360 times
Reputation: 3966
Quote:
Originally Posted by paull805 View Post
All the American cities you picked are much larger the the European cities you picked.
Are you sure?

Boston - city:
625,087 people
232.14 km˛

San Francisco - city:
815,358 people
600.6 km˛

Stockholm - city:
871,952 people
188 km˛
---
1,372,565 in the urban area (381.63 km˛)

Copenhagen - city:

559,440 people
77.20 km˛
---
1,230,728 people in the urban area (615.7 km˛)
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2013, 11:28 AM
 
Location: Mishawaka, Indiana
6,510 posts, read 9,002,795 times
Reputation: 4994
Quote:
Originally Posted by Code Lyoko View Post
No I picked small to medium. European cities ranging from like 1 million to 3 million because that's what our American "large cities" are striving to compete with. Places like Barcelona, Madrid, Moscow, Randstad, London, Paris, you serious man? Those cities easily bloe the American ones out of the water on just about everything in terms of "urban". Size has nothing to do with it Paul.

Truth is, American cities punch well below their weight in an urban sense. Have you seen Valencia and Washington DC?

Washington DC technically has 6 million people in it's metropolis compared to like what, 2.5 million for Valencia but which one do you think feels more urban? The answer is Valencia. It's FAR more active and it has a larger area that can be considered "urban" compared to the horror show that is single family homes just miles out of downtown Washington.

Seriously, if you're suggesting a comparison between Washington to somewhere like Randstad or something, somewhere that has 7 million people then you're honestly underrating your own continents cities.
So if you already have a formulated opinion which you believe to be factual on which continent has more urbanized cities, why are you asking other people for input? It doesn't appear that anyone is going to change your mind anyway.

I don't see what the infatuation with urbanity is. Why people would want to live packed in tight apartments and row houses tucked away like sardines is beyond me. American cities are obviously less dense, even our older east coast cities, with the exception of a few, obviously New York City, Boston, Baltimore, and a few others, but their metro areas are surprisignly more spread out than their European counterparts. We are a completely different culture over here, a country that was once, and for the most part, is still full of open unzoned land. Most Americans like their space, their land, their property. Ownership of not just a home, but of a house, unique to your making with property lines that span acres is a mark of success to most of us.

I know New York City was not on the list, but it would win hands down over almost any other city. Boston, Philadelphia, and Baltimore would hold their own against most foreign cities. San Francisco might win out againt a few, and it's probably the most dense and urban of any west coast city, but it's on a different level from most European cities.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2013, 11:31 AM
 
Location: Scotland
7,972 posts, read 10,061,675 times
Reputation: 4092
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmptrwlt View Post
Are you sure?

Boston - city:
625,087 people
232.14 km˛

San Francisco - city:
815,358 people
600.6 km˛

Stockholm - city:
871,952 people
188 km˛
---
1,372,565 in the urban area (381.63 km˛)

Copenhagen - city:

559,440 people
77.20 km˛
---
1,230,728 people in the urban area (615.7 km˛)
Boston etc view population boundaries differently. They are a lot larger than the cities the OP picked.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2013, 11:50 AM
 
Location: 59°N
5,186 posts, read 5,839,360 times
Reputation: 3966
Quote:
Originally Posted by paull805 View Post
Boston etc view population boundaries differently. They are a lot larger than the cities the OP picked.
Hmm.

Boston:
City area: 232.14 km˛ - 625,087 people

versus

Stockholm:
City area: 188 km˛ - 871,952 people

I have visited San Francisco. I did not feel like a big city. I could not care less about the metro area.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2013, 12:27 PM
 
Location: Scotland
7,972 posts, read 10,061,675 times
Reputation: 4092
Hmmm try it for the rest of them and I might be impressed.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2013, 01:58 PM
 
Location: Finland
24,268 posts, read 18,689,594 times
Reputation: 11103
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmptrwlt View Post
Hmm.

Boston:
City area: 232.14 km˛ - 625,087 people
46% of this area is water -> uninhabitable. The land area of Boston is 125 km2.

The metro area of Stockholm is 6,519 km2 with 2.1 million inhabitants.
The Boston urban area 4,852 km2 with 4.1 million.
Quick reply to this message
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 update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top