Top 5 American cities for block after block of continuous urbanity for a minimum of 10 square miles? (compare, place)

[Trafalgar Law]

Don't put all of the focus on one type of urban form. I mean as long as you can go about your life without the intervention of automobiles for commuting or running errands. Having access to a widespread amount of amenities clustered neatly block after block, urban canyon like effects, and nice pedestrian friendly sidewalks, lively use of entertainment, intense structural and population density, with a good blend of office space, hotel, retail, and residential. A few squares and urban parks here and there.

We all have different opinions on what's urban, mine is any major city that has over 10 square miles of block after block of functionally efficient urbanity. If a city cant get into double digits, and it's a major city, then what's the point?

Also what would be some of the boundaries for these 10 square mile areas in these cities? What streets or geographies border outline it?

[RightonWalnut]

You know where I come from: "Philly:

[PerseusVeil]

Originally Posted by MDAllstar

Based on structural built form and development intensity:
#2 Chicago

I would agree with this only if you do Chicago60614's method of heading straight north from the Loop. If you go in other directions, or even try to spread it out some between the different directions, Chicago is going to tumble down. Whether it tumbles down as far as other cities such as Philadelphia, which have also lost industry and population, I cannot say.

[Duderino]

Originally Posted by MDAllstar

Based on structural built form and development intensity:

#1 NYC
#2 Chicago
#3 San Francisco
#4 Washington D.C.
#5 Philadelphia
#6 Boston
#7 Baltimore
#8 Los Angeles
#9 Seattle
#10 ????????

You do realize that Philadelphia is 135 sq. miles versus DC's 68 square miles, right? Even though downtown DC has an impressive footprint, the city becomes much more low-density residential much quicker before Philly does. Think of the wide swaths of Northwest DC that could qualify as suburbs. Philadelphia's rowhouse neighborhoods comprise conservatively around 80% of the city (108 sq. miles). That's still far larger than the ENTIRE city of DC.

[radiolibre99]

I make the case for Los Angeles. I just cannot understand the strange "LA is not urban like NYC" talk. In my opinion for all intents and purposes Los Angeles is 2nd to NYC in terms of size and urban development. It may not have the skyscrapers that Chicago has but it's certainly bigger in size and scope as a city.

Los Angeles is the Most Densely Populated Urban Area in the US - Facts & Figures - Curbed LA

I just think that there is a bias and perception people in the east have about LA that is outdated.

[AJNEOA]

^^^Cool photo of LA. Based on that, maybe something like this:

Top 5:
1. NYC
2. Chicago
3./4. LA / Philly
5. SF

Others:
Boston
DC
Baltimore
Seattle

[MichiVegas]

Originally Posted by radiolibre99

Just stop right there. Apparently you've never been to Koreatown.

Can you please show us a block in Koreatown comparable to Manhattan?

Heck, can you please show us a block in Koreatown comparable to the denser parts of Bronx, Brooklyn or Queens?

Originally Posted by radiolibre99

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.

Wilshire and Vermont looks absolutely nothing like Upper Manhattan, in any way. Upper Manhattan is characterized by 5-10 floor prewar art deco apartment buildings and tenements, rising cheek-by-jowl. Wilshire and Vermont has a Shell gas station, a 60's-era office building/parking garage, and some modern apartments. Similarity appears to be 0.

Also why does "you can easily get around by train and bus" mean an area looks "like Manhattan"? I can "easily get around by train and bus" anywhere in Europe, so all of Europe looks "like Manhattan"? My college town of 30,000 was "easy to get around by train and bus" so it looks "like Manhattan"?

Originally Posted by radiolibre99

Have you seen Wilshire Corridor? A mile or something stretch of high rise condos? Wilshire also goes into downtown you know.

I have lived in Orange County, and am on Wilshire all the time. I know it extremely well, every section from SM to downtown.

The "mile or something stretch of high rise condos" is in Westwood, and very suburban in feel. There are almost no pedestrians or street-level retail in that part of Wilshire. One block away, you're on normal suburban streets. It's actually one of the less urban parts of Wilshire. Wilshire is much more urban just to the east, in Bev Hills, and just to the west, around UCLA.

Originally Posted by radiolibre99

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.

You're being silly. First, I have lived in Southern CA. Second, NYC and Chicago are completely different from one another, and Chicago is not in the Northeast. Third, I never mentioned skyscrapers as having anything to do with density, you were the one who made such a claim. And fourth, LA is much less urban or dense than NYC.

Originally Posted by radiolibre99

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.

If a place is "not Manhattan" then that doesn't mean "it's Dallas". You realize that 99% of places aren't "Manhattan" or "Dallas", right?

[MichiVegas]

Originally Posted by PerseusVeil

I would agree with this only if you do Chicago60614's method of heading straight north from the Loop. If you go in other directions, or even try to spread it out some between the different directions, Chicago is going to tumble down. Whether it tumbles down as far as other cities such as Philadelphia, which have also lost industry and population, I cannot say.

Yeah, this is why I don't know how to place Chicago. It's arguably #2 on the list, or it's possibly not even on the list, depending on your exact criteria. It's going to depend on how you deal with the industrial corridors in Chicago, and in what directions from downtown you choose to look.

[RightonWalnut]

The real answer is:

1. NYC
2. Chicago
3. Philadelphia
4. Boston
5. San Francisco
6. DC
7. LA
8... Seattle?
9... Pittsburgh?
10.... No idea???

I put Philadelphia above Boston and San Francisco because it is just so much larger in square miles compared to those two. It's structural density goes on for mile after uninterrupted mile, even into the suburbs in some cases.

[Trafalgar Law]

So some of you are seriously saying there are 10 square miles that have people (and a huge mass of them) at all hours of the day walking around, day in and day out, from one built up neighborhood to the next, in almost uniform liveliness (for majority of the area, understandably not all) in Seattle or Baltimore?

Seriously? I've lived in the DMV area for a while now, I go to Baltimore every single time I want to get seafood, and seriously? 10 contuously built up square mileage of nothing but European style pedestrian liveliness from one area to the next? Sometimes I even wonder if Washington fits that quota.