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 say Chicago edges the others out as 2nd "most urban", just because it has comparable density to them AND it's the biggest metro of the bunch, with the largest city proper population (pushing 3 million), a huge CBD that's 2nd in the nation, and the most extensive rail network of the bunch. Boston, SF and Philly are all more or less in the same place in my eyes, right below Chicago.
I say Chicago edges the others out as 2nd "most urban", just because it has comparable density to them AND it's the biggest metro of the bunch, with the largest city proper population (pushing 3 million), a huge CBD that's 2nd in the nation, and the most extensive rail network of the bunch. Boston, SF and Philly are all more or less in the same place in my eyes, right below Chicago.
I think this is mostly true...
SF/BOS/PHI all while great examples of urban cities all have a argument to say the next (to me behind Chicago) but mostly are all pretty close and all in my top 5 of cities...
I cant take this poll seriously without DC in the options.
DC is not in the same league as the others (I tend to think Chicago is in another league from Boston too), DC just doesn't have the density levels as the other cities. I believe the most dense neighborhoods in DC are the neighborhoods around U-Street, and they are def a step below the top Chicago neighborhoods for urbanity.
They pretty much all feel urban to me, so all four are nearly equal and its a very hard poll.
But, in my opinion I would say Chicago. I feel like I am in a huge city in Chicago, almost everywhere (give and take a few suburban like enclaves).
San Francisco is dense, feels very urban, but I feel like I am in a giant small city, similar to Rome, Jerusalem, and Athens. I don't feel like I'm in a massive city that has millions of people. Same goes to Boston. It feels like a massive small town. Don't get me wrong, that's not bad at all. In fact, I think these feelings are what make San Francisco and Boston unique.
In Chicago, I feel like I'm in a massive giant complex of millions of people. It's urban outside and inside the downtown area.
Philly would be closest to winning also based on what I'm describing, but I'm picking Chicago because it's technically bigger and denser.
Honestly, I can't really see a case for Philly or Boston (the North End only goes so far) either.
The North End is the densest part of the city, but it's not as if outside of that neighborhood there is a severe drop-off in urbanity. You could argue that Charlestown, Beacon Hill, Back Bay, Southie, the South End, Kenmore Square/Fenway/Symphony (click on each neighborhood for a street view) area are just as urban as most areas of Chicago, San Francisco, or Philadelphia...I'm pretty sure all of those neighborhoods are bordering or above 30,000 ppsm.
I calculated the core 12.5 sq miles for each plus NYC - here is the density - granted for some cities there are areas with higher densities further from the core
NYC - 40,281 ppsm
Philly - 19,376 ppsm
Boston - 16,973 ppsm
SF - 16,839 ppsm
Chicago - 12,743 ppsm
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.
