Philadelphia vs Chicago - Which is more urban? (living, state, largest)

[Potion of Boredom]

I'm pretty sure it's Chicago. It's dense and there is a nice urban feel at street level with the buildings.

[steeps]

I still don't get why MORE URBAN<< Has to be housing up to the sidewalk? No front lawns? I certainly don't think URBAN means. The narrower the streets and closeness of housing like Row homes as a main style makes it win hands down for URBANESS? Or if their Downtown only 3 sides. Open on 1 or too much parkland in the downtown? Make it also less URBAN? To me, these are positives to URBAN living standards. Chicago being less urban for a large bungalow stock VS Rows of connected homes. Doesn't work for me. NO USE THEN DEBATING. ALL OLDER EASTERN, EXPECIALLY NORTHEASTERN US CITIES WIN THEN.... MERELY CAUSE OF MORE NARROW STREETS AND ROW HOMES? I think by Chicago winning the thread. Most rate by attributes, not closeness of neighborhood housing.

[nephi215]

Originally Posted by trollsack

I'm pretty sure it's Chicago. It's dense and there is a nice urban feel at street level with the buildings.

Philadelphia feels more urban than Chicago at street level due to Philadelphia having much narrower streets (which in result makes Philadelphia more walkable), a consistent streetwall (due to all of the apartment buildings and Rowhomes being attached to each other which flows seamlessly), and due to Philadelphia having a pre automobile design (in result there is a lot of super narrow residential streets that are pedestrian only, or there are plenty of very narrow streets in which having a car is a inconvenience do to the limited parking one lane streets). All of these factors combined make Philadelphia have a more intensely dense urban environment than Chicago. That is why I think Philadelphia is more urban than Chicago. With that said, Chicago has a larger downtown with taller and more skyscrapers and a larger "downtown lite" (which I would consider the narrow band of mid rises that line up along the lake on the north side of Chicago which spans from north ave all the way up to Evanston). Because of those factors, I can understand why someone may find Chicago more urban though I would disagree with them as I said before.

[qworldorder]

Originally Posted by nephi215

Philadelphia feels more urban than Chicago at street level due to Philadelphia having much narrower streets (which in result makes Philadelphia more walkable), a consistent streetwall (due to all of the apartment buildings and Rowhomes being attached to each other which flows seamlessly), and due to Philadelphia having a pre automobile design (in result there is a lot of super narrow residential streets that are pedestrian only, or there are plenty of very narrow streets in which having a car is a inconvenience do to the limited parking one lane streets). All of these factors combined make Philadelphia have a more intensely dense urban environment than Chicago. That is why I think Philadelphia is more urban than Chicago. With that said, Chicago has a larger downtown with taller and more skyscrapers and a larger "downtown lite" (which I would consider the narrow band of mid rises that line up along the lake on the north side of Chicago which spans from north ave all the way up to Evanston). Because of those factors, I can understand why someone may find Chicago more urban though I would disagree with them as I said before.

Great post--totally agree

[steeps]

Again if the test for URBANITY levels is, who has the narrowest streets. Closest housing stock, making cities with Large Row home stocks a must? No front lawns in neighborhoods, cause it lessens what is URBAN? Then NO CITY OUTSIDE THE EAST COAST AND NORTH OF DC, can possibly win? No new threads need compare East Coast cities to the rest asking. Which is more urban ?

[gwillyfromphilly]

Originally Posted by steeps

Again if the test for URBANITY levels is, who has the narrowest streets. Closest housing stock, making cities with Large Row home stocks a must? No front lawns in neighborhoods, cause it lessens what is URBAN? Then NO CITY OUTSIDE THE EAST COAST AND NORTH OF DC, can possibly win? No new threads need compare East Coast cities to the rest asking. Which is more urban ?

It may not be the end all and be all of what makes a city urban but it's also not a coincidence that the most urban cities in the US will most likely come from the Northeast.

[anonelitist]

Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly

It may not be the end all and be all of what makes a city urban but it's also not a coincidence that the most urban cities in the US will most likely come from the Northeast.

I think Chicago and SF top all NE cities aside from NYC for urbanity. I think many would agree.

I also think Seattle gives plenty of NE cities a run for their money. I think if Denver keeps doing what it's doing, it will be up there as well.

I think it's overrated to define "urban" as conceived pre-automobile, rowhomes, and narrow streets. To me "urban" is much harder to define, but the definition above would leave parts of NYC out of the "urban" definition that some keep throwing out around here.

FWIW if we want to talk pre-automobile population, Chicago definitely tops Philly!!

Sampling of largest US cities by Year:

1900:

1) NYC - 3,437,202
2) Chicago - 1,698,575
3) Philly - 1,293,697
4) St. Louis - 575,238 (I think we can all agree STL is no longer a top 10 "urban" city in America and yet was 4th largest as recently as 1900!!)
5) Boston - 560,892
6) Baltimore - 508,957
7) Cleveland - 381,768 (same as STL, no way Cleveland is top 10 "urban" city in America these days)
8) Buffalo - 352,387 (same thing)
9) San Francisco - 342,782
10) Cincinnati - 325,902
11) Pittsburgh - 321,616
12) New Orleans - 287,104
13) Detroit - 285,704
14) Milwaukee - 285,315
15) DC - 278,718


1920:

1) NYC - 5,620,048
2) Chicago - 2,701,705
3) Philadelphia - 1,823,779
4) Detroit - 993,078
5) Cleveland - 796,841
6) St. Louis - 772,897
7) Boston - 748,060
8) Baltimore - 733,826
9) Pittsburgh - 588,343
10) LA - 576,673
11) Buffalo - 506,775
12) San Francisco - 506,676
13) Milwaukee- 457,147
14) DC - 437,571
15) Newark - 414,524

Population of the 20 Largest U.S. Cities, 1900&ndash;2012 | Infoplease.com


I think if anything this list proves age doesn't matter.

In terms of width of streets, NYC is by far the most urban environment in the states, and it doesn't have Philly or Boston's narrow streets.

And in terms of urbanity, for me more important than "built to curb" is built for people. And that implies density, and excellent transit. Chicago may have more bungalows and more trees, but it has far more people living at really high densities in neighborhoods that aren't down in the "comeback" phase or that aren't bombed out, where people are walking to work, bars/restaurants, shopping, etc. That's what "urban" is all about to me - not the most superficial aspects of architecture.

Furthermore, transit use is proportionally higher in Chicago than in Philly, density is higher (not only higher, but the avg density is higher over a much larger area, even with the bungalows!). And it's not because of the high-rises, necessarily. I know that because SF, without Chicago level high rises, has much higher peak densities. So the high-rises aren't overly skewing Chicagoland density towards a half mile off the lake. Many neighborhoods going miles in and on El lines are very dense and walkable, and LIVABLE.

Chicago.

[NOLA101]

Originally Posted by anonelitist

I think Chicago and SF top all NE cities aside from NYC for urbanity. I think many would agree.

For overall urbanity, possibly, but by a very slight margin. Boston, Philly, and DC are in the same general range.

At street level, though, definitely no. Philly is almost certainly #2 in North America.

And your comparison of Seattle and Denver with NE corridor cities shows you are a pretty awful judge of relative urbanity. The gap between a Philly and a Denver is massive compared to a gap between a Philly and a Chicago/SF. You might as well compare NYC to Denver while you're at it.

[NOLA101]

Originally Posted by steeps

Again if the test for URBANITY levels is, who has the narrowest streets. Closest housing stock, making cities with Large Row home stocks a must? No front lawns in neighborhoods, cause it lessens what is URBAN? Then NO CITY OUTSIDE THE EAST COAST AND NORTH OF DC, can possibly win? No new threads need compare East Coast cities to the rest asking. Which is more urban ?

Yes, that's exactly the point.

The Northeast Corridor is, by far, the most urban part of the U.S. at street level. Even outside NYC, at street level, there is no other part of the U.S. where the urban form is similar. Even random small cities like Wilmington, New Haven, and Providence, have street-level urbanity almost unknown outside of the Northeast Corridor.

[homeinatx]

Depends on your definition of urbanity. Philadelphia and Chicago are both great cities, but you can walk twenty miles within the two miles west of the Lakefront in Chicago from South Shore to Evanston, and not be the only pedestrian on the street with fairly vibrant street activity around you, stores, bars, restaurants etc. You can't do that in Philadelphia. While parts of Philadelphia may have better urban bones than Chicago, Chicago is generally more urban over a much, much bigger territory. You really have to go quite far west in Chicago to find bungalows. Philadelphia gets burned out or suburban much quicker than Chicago, and there are no residential neighborhoods in Philadelphia, including Center City, with the density of Chicago's north side from the Gold Coast to Rogers Park. Philadelphia is a the smaller city and almost invariably feels like it. While raw numbers never tell the whole story, Lakeview in Chicago has a population density of over thirty thousand people per square mile, City Center in Philadelphia barely cracks 11 000.