Most urban city outside the top 5 (live, compared, places, America)

[GatsbyGatz]

This helpful, nifty map shows the dynamite growth in Seattle's core (the map actually depicts every development city-wide which is mind-blowing):

https://www.seattleinprogress.com/

[kidphilly]

after the top 5 (NYC, Chicago, Boston, Philly, SF in no particular order) I would say DC and LA (LA could be as high as #2 and as low as #7 depending on the way you see it though for me in many ways I still have trouble placing it above Chicago for #2 but honestly would be hard pressed to argue any position from 2 to 7. As for DC I think it falls after the first 5 I listed and potentially LA depending on the metric)


Then would probably say between Miami, Seattle, and Baltimore and a spattering of older rust belt cities could make arguments as well depending on the metric or way is evaluated.

[Freddy K]

I have la behind Nyc and chi. From rogers park to south shore is all urban, and thats a long way. Even parts of the bungalow belt can be urban
i lived in chicago 10 years, la the past 2..
Las density never drops off really, and most of its storefronts are built to the street. Not strip malls. I also think only nyc crams in more restaurants/retail on it commercial streets than la does. La really packs that stuff in.
sf/philly being 4/5 or 5/4.
Boston 6

[NOLA101]

There's basically NYC, a huge gap, and then a Big 5 of Boston, SF, Chicago, DC and Philly, in really any order.

After that, probably Seattle, but there's a gap.

LA is kind of its own thing and not really comparable.

[Tim Randal Walker]

LA has been described by others as being its own beast.

[nei]

Is Los Angeles really that different from most other American cities (outside of the traditional urban ones) in being de-centralized? Its unusual in that its dense and decentralized.

[i'm not a cookie]

Originally Posted by NOLA101

There's basically NYC, a huge gap, and then a Big 5 of Boston, SF, Chicago, DC and Philly, in really any order.

After that, probably Seattle, but there's a gap.

LA is kind of its own thing and not really comparable.

Exactly

[Buckeye614]

A portion of D.C. does not feel urban in the same sense that a lot of other American cities do. Part of this is due to the height restriction.

Places in D.C. that don't give off "big city" feels

Capitol Hill/Eastern Market
Hill East
Far Northwest D.C is essentially suburban (Tenleytown, Friendship Heights etc).
Parts of Kenilworth.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Buckeye614

A portion of D.C. does not feel urban in the same sense that a lot of other American cities do. Part of this is due to the height restriction.

Places in D.C. that don't give off "big city" feels

Capitol Hill/Eastern Market
Hill East
Far Northwest D.C is essentially suburban (Tenleytown, Friendship Heights etc).
Parts of Kenilworth.

I'm not sure I get this. Most of the land area of Philly, Chicago, Boston, or San Francisco is comprised of a mixture of single-family homes (detached or attached) and small-scale multi-unit buildings (Chicago two-flats, Boston triple-deckers, etc).

Regardless, I'm of the mindset that urbanity has much more to do with the design of a neighborhood than the height of its structures. A neighborhood can feel very "urban" and still be dominated by 2-3 story buildings.

[Buckeye614]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I'm not sure I get this. Most of the land area of Philly, Chicago, Boston, or San Francisco is comprised of a mixture of single-family homes (detached or attached) and small-scale multi-unit buildings (Chicago two-flats, Boston triple-deckers, etc).

Regardless, I'm of the mindset that urbanity has much more to do with the design of a neighborhood than the height of its structures. A neighborhood can feel very "urban" and still be dominated by 2-3 story buildings.

All the neighborhoods I mentioned don't have an extremity urban feel to me regardless of height.