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.
There seems to be confusion in the thread whether we're doing about miles of contiguous good urban design or miles of contigous density. If its the former, then I'll throw my hat in the ring for my old home: Washington DC. Its a combination of factors: excellent top-down urban planning from DC's inception, a solid understanding of urban design on the part of DC's office of planning and DDOT, and the fact DC's height limit has forced development into every inch of available space, leaving no gaps. The end result is a city that with solid urban design and walkable streets almost from edge to edge (things get a little weird around SW and SE though.)
If we're just talking about straight up density, then I'll throw my hat in the ring for my new home: Los Angeles. Urban design can be weak outside of LA's walkable urban centers like Downtown, Koreatown, Hollywood, etc, but the density never lets up. LA doesn't have a core as dense and tall as Manhattan, but unlike NYC where the density falls off rapidly when you get to the outer boroughs, LA is literally 400 square miles of this:
That's the reason LA has an average density even higher than NYC. LA's unique defining characteristic is that its density stays almost uniform, edge to edge.
NYCs outer boroughs are all at least twice as dense and urban as LA with the exception of Staten Island, which is about the same density as LA. So that's false.
What? NYC beats LA for density but c'mon. It's a freaking dense city and only second in NYC as far as it's concerned. Development goes on for miles. I really think you guys are thinking of cities like Houston and Dallas that are large sprawls of burbs and large swaths of undeveloped land. That was LA of the past.
LA is not the same as state island that's just absurd.
What? NYC beats LA for density but c'mon. It's a freaking dense city and only second in NYC as far as it's concerned. Development goes on for miles. I really think you guys are thinking of cities like Houston and Dallas that are large sprawls of burbs and large swaths of undeveloped land. That was LA of the past.
LA is not the same as state island that's just absurd.
Well by average density they are probably both about in the 8 ppsm rancher. But Staten Island is a small borough without a core while LA is 400 square miles and has multiple cores and a nearly zero density mountain range right in the middle of city limits
1) NYC- obvious, really the only city that has 10 sq miles of continuous urbanity. 2) Chi - from the loop up to Lakeview, Chicago has a series of more or less contiguous vibrancy. Not perfect though, as the near northside still has a ton of parking lots and there is a bit of a gap between the DT Gold Coast area and residential Lincoln Park commercial areas. But, still the 2nd largest urban cluster in US, IMO. 3) SF- The cities NE quadrant is arguably more cohesive than Chicago. But, I would rank it a little lower given its smaller size. 4) Philly - although much larger than SF, I would rank it a little below in the vibrancy department. Philly has lots of rowhouse neighborhoods that are solidly urban, but not always vibrant. Center City and some of the surrounding areas are super vibrant, but I think a little less so than SF's NE quadrant. 5) Bos- the core seems very similar to Philly in vibrancy, although I would put it a notch below as it does not hold its density in the same way Philly does with it's endless row houses.
6) DC- DC seems to have about the same amount of vibrant areas as Bos or Philly, but I rank it a little below them as DC's vibrancy is not as clustered around a mixed use urban core like central Bos/Philly. Much of DT DC is structurally urban, but basically a 9-5 office district. Instead, DC's vibrancy is spread out across a collection of neighborhood commercial corridors. Each one is individually vibrant, but it doesn't quite come together in the same seamless way Center City or Back Bay/ DT Bos does.
It seems there are two discussions going on in here. One is about population density and vibrancy and the the other is about urban design, urban planning, zoning requirements, built environment, and structural density. I guess everyone is going to need to decide whether this discussion centers on the design of buildings, streets, and cities or the people who live in the buildings.
I think many people on here aren't really discussing the streets and buildings and their relationship to each other. Most people seem to be more focused on the census survey results. If the population density is really what this discussion is about, we really don't need to visit the cities or see pictures to rank them. All we need are the population numbers from factfinder2 on the census website.
Just stop right there. Apparently you've never been to Koreatown. From Koreatown to downtown you can easily get around by train and bus. When I first got off the train at Wilshire and Vermont, my first impression was; is this LA or upper Manhattan? It was very urban and very dense.
Have you seen Wilshire Corridor? A mile or something stretch of high rise condos? Wilshire also goes into downtown you know.
So please just end the ridiculous anti-LA stuff cus it's getting out of hand. The city is just as dense and urban as NYC and Chicago or any northeast city. Just cus it doesn't have skyscrapers all over town doesn't make it any less urban or dense.
Sometimes I wonder if any of you ever visited LA past 1990? The city is NOT the suburban sprawl anti pedestrian super car centered place you guys think it is. It's not Dallas or Houston.
Chicago would jump Philly and SF but there are too many gaps and fill ins needed. I could see DC over Boston, but Boston is more compact at street level so went with Boston.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdaelectro
So DC and Paris hold no similarities in layout? Don't go off on a tangent.
Not any worth discussing. DC only looks like Paris on the boulevards, the other streets (i.e. most of the entire city) they aren't similar whatsoever. It's corny to think that, only people who have said that have obviously never been to Paris.
There seems to be confusion in the thread whether we're doing about miles of contiguous good urban design or miles of contigous density. If its the former, then I'll throw my hat in the ring for my old home: Washington DC. Its a combination of factors: excellent top-down urban planning from DC's inception, a solid understanding of urban design on the part of DC's office of planning and DDOT, and the fact DC's height limit has forced development into every inch of available space, leaving no gaps. The end result is a city that with solid urban design and walkable streets almost from edge to edge (things get a little weird around SW and SE though.)
If we're just talking about straight up density, then I'll throw my hat in the ring for my new home: Los Angeles. Urban design can be weak outside of LA's walkable urban centers like Downtown, Koreatown, Hollywood, etc, but the density never lets up. LA doesn't have a core as dense and tall as Manhattan, but unlike NYC where the density falls off rapidly when you get to the outer boroughs, LA is literally 400 square miles of this:
That's the reason LA has an average density even higher than NYC. LA's unique defining characteristic is that its density stays almost uniform, edge to edge.
Is anyone actually paying attention to the urbanity of the built environment in these city?
Chicago would jump Philly and SF but there are too many gaps and fill ins needed.
Not any worth discussing. DC only looks like Paris on the boulevards, the other streets (i.e. most of the entire city) they aren't similar whatsoever. It's corny to think that, only people who have said that have obviously never been to Paris.
What boundaries are you using for Chicago and San Fran? How is San Fran ahead of Chicago and Philly above Chicago?
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.
