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.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,558,075 times
Reputation: 5785
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade
I do think it’s a too 6
BUT
ATL is not in this convo. I could think of MANY cities before ATL.
Sure, you could very well put Cleveland, Cincinnati, Portland, and a few other smaller cities ahead of Atlanta in urbanity. Though Midtown along the urban spine of Peachtree has filled in nicely, city wide it would be after the others.
Even if DC is after the other 5, the grouping of most urban American cities that IMO will never be surpassed in urbanity in the US cuts off at 6. This won't change in any of our lifetimes and probably not ever.
So the conversation starts at SEA, LA, Balt, Pitt, NO, MIA, ATL, Detroit etc.
If Baltimore could ever economically turn it around and experience high growth, I could see it being along DC and Boston, no? It has massive potential.
If Baltimore could ever economically turn it around and experience high growth, I could see it being along DC and Boston, no? It has massive potential.
100%. It would be so awesome if BMore could turn things around. You'd have 2 very different and high functioning cities 45 minutes away from one another.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,558,075 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spade
If Baltimore could ever economically turn it around and experience high growth, I could see it being along DC and Boston, no? It has massive potential.
Short answer, maybe.
DC is a bit more nodal than Baltimore overall with strong commercial development outside of Downtown. Then you have the differences in transit infrastructure which Boston and DC will remain ahead, but Baltimore has great structural urbanity, and slimmer streets than DC at least.
DC is a bit more nodal than Baltimore overall with strong commercial development outside of Downtown. Then you have the differences in transit infrastructure which Boston and DC will remain ahead, but Baltimore has great structural urbanity, and slimmer streets than DC at least.
Yeah I thought about the transit factor when I hit submit. A HRT system would work well in Baltimore. It has the density to support it.
How is that possible if Seattle has a larger population than Baltimore and actually smaller land area and more hilly terrain than Baltimore? Abandoned infrastructure shouldn’t count.
Because Baltimore retains the bones of a city that once housed close to a million people, Seattle never had that population and is building towards a density B-more once had. Hell as of last year they were near identical in 1-3 mile radius population despite Seattle’s absurd construction boom.
Seattle is 84 Sq. mi, Baltimore is 81 sq. mi in land area and the terrain difference is negligible considering both the cities have massive port infrastructures that eat up multiple square miles of city proper land and area, and Baltimore has row homes vs. Seattle’s detached housing..
Seattle has by far the larger downtown thanks to the last decades construction boom, Baltimore however as a whole is unequivocally more urban than Seattle in built form/structure.
Because Baltimore retains the bones of a city that once housed close to a million people, Seattle never had that population and is building towards a density B-more once had. Hell as of last year they were near identical in 1-3 mile radius population despite Seattle’s absurd construction boom.
Seattle is 84 Sq. mi, Baltimore is 81 sq. mi in land area and the terrain difference is negligible considering both the cities have massive port infrastructures that eat up multiple square miles of city proper land and area, and Baltimore has row homes vs. Seattle’s detached housing..
Seattle has by far the larger downtown thanks to the last decades construction boom, Baltimore however as a whole is unequivocally more urban than Seattle in built form/structure.
I’ve been to both.
Perhaps. Keep in mind that Baltimore had slightly less than 1 million people when most families had 3-5 kids and Americans generally occupied much less square foot per person. My guess is that Seattle likely has significantly more habitable square feet now that Baltimore ever had.
I'd say DC is ahead of Philly, which is limited to Center City. And with recent growth, might even put Seattle ahead of Philly. But after NY, Bos, DC, SF, Chi, Seattle, Philly, it's a fairly big drop off. Portland and San Diego are solid, but fewer walkable blocks. LA was making progress, but ruined by homeless and awful government. Minneapolis might be #10, def ahead of the rest of the Midwest besides Chicago. Baltimore is way down given population loss and crime. Besides three blocks on Pratt Street, that is not a walkable city.
My guess is that Seattle likely has significantly more habitable square feet now that Baltimore ever had.
Seattle has one of the lowest # of people per household in the country. Its household density is almost the same as Chicago's and Philly's. I know both Seattle and Baltimore well, not close, Seattle is far, far more walkable.
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.
