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.
But the Beltline and West Midtown were pretty big omissions on your part IMO.
I was just naming a few examples of those pockets. And considering the thread topic, not sure how Atlanta belongs in the convo with these few pockets especially when large portions of the city limits are as I've already stated, single family homes.
I overall agree with you, and in the past decade or two Seattle seems to have done close to everything right from an urban planning standpoint so it's hard to refute. I'm just more getting at the original urban build of the two cities and what defines the two. Baltimore's layout, especially in and around the inner core/downtown is easily walkable. Quite honestly these two are apples in oranges to some extent with Baltimore having the more traditional urban bones, but Seattle being much better suited for urban infill across various parts of the city, and much more transit oriented. Both are walkable, but Seattle may have more areas of the city where one would "go walking".
It looks like Seattle functions more as an urban city, while Baltimore is structurally denser.
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.
That is simply a delusional and inaccurate thing to say. DC possibly has surpassed Boston, but certainly not Philly or San Francisco (which is close but slightly below Philly). Seattle also has significantly increased its urbanity as well especially in this last decade, but I can't even say it has surpassed on LA, let alone in the top 6 in urbanity. To expand the most urban list past 6.
1. NYC
2. Chicago
3. Philly
4. San Francisco
5. Boston
6. DC
7. LA
8. Seattle
9. Baltimore
10. Minneapolis? Denver? Pittsburgh? Portland? Not too sure
LA is a wild card. It's not a traditional urban city, but on paper it has the second number of high density areas in the US after NYC. Does LA's autocentric nature deserve criticism? Yes, but LA deserves some respect in general when it comes to its urbanity.
I agree that DT DT is pretty well integrated into the surrounding residential streets. It's more or less on par with Bos/SF/Philly in that regard and quite a bit better than Chicago
I would also say that it is a little hard to argue that there is a "big 5" that runs from NYC down to Bos. Although, I think Boston is more urban than DC on a number of measures (density, contiguous core vibrancy, architecture/built environment). It is a bit of a stretch to say the Bos is more like NYC than DC.
A more reasonable scheme might be:
tier 1: NYC tier 2: Chicago- huge and urban, but not as big or urban as NYC. tier 3: Bos, SF, Philly- more tightly built and cohesive than Chicago, but nowhere near the same size. tier 3a: DC- roughly similar scale to their 3. But, not as dense, contiguously vibrant, or architecturally urban. tier 4: Seattle, maybe Baltimore- two polar opposites (in pretty much everyway) that end up in a roughly similar places (for the time being). Below the big traditional urban cities in density,transit, etc, but above pretty much everywhere else. Seattle is racing ahead by the day, it's very possible Seattle may graduate to full 3a: territory. But for now, it's probably closer to Baltimore than Boston or even DC. tier 5: Portland, Pittsburgh, New Orleans - these are more honorable mentions. They all have great character and a few urban neighborhoods, but aren't really truly dense and urban like the others. Maybe a couple other cities could be included: SD, Denver, etc. tier 6: everywhere else- most cities are improving their downtowns and creating a walkable "yuppie" neighborhood or two. But for the most part, the action in most US cities remains in the suburbs and the car is king. Perhaps this could be split out between cities that are doing a particular good job and those that aren't. unrankable: LA and Miami- lots of density. But just too polycentric and qualitatively different from the other urban cities. The good news is they have the density, so they should be able to transition their cities in to more urban places easier than the other sunbelt towns.
Thought this would be worth a review.
I recall that someone else placed Las Vegas in an oddball category.
Notice that I specifically referenced the commercial districts of neighborhoods (old streetcar suburbs) like Va-Hi; I'm well aware that the dominant residential type is detached SFH but seeing as though Atlanta has a plethora of these neighborhood commercial districts, I think they are worth a mention.
I never disputed the presence of suburban apartment complexes within Atlanta city limits. I was only highlighting the urbanity that exists beyond downtown/Peachtree Street. It's also interesting to see how corridors like Ponce and Metropolitan are fleshing out, largely due to development spreading outward from key Beltline nodes.
I think Atlanta is gonna end up somewhere between a mix of DC and LA when it's all said and done. Midtown is really starting to build a pedestrian culture and construction shows no signs of slowing even during COVID. List of urbanizing neighborhoods outside Downtown and Midtown. I'll also post some Midtown for posters who aren't familiar with Atlanta. Once SONO is filled in Atlanta will truly transcend. Won't ever be top 10 though and it isn't necessarily a bad thing as long as urban nodes exist.
It sounds like you've never stepped foot in Philly or Baltimore ever.
LOL spent plenty of time in both, especially Harm City.
No one goes to Baltimore to walk around, unless they're documenting the decay.
You can walk all over Seattle, from the baseball stadium out to Capitol Hill and up Queen Anne hill. In Philly, you have to stay around Center City.
Sorry the truth is so hard to take. But no one in their right mind thinks Baltimore is a walker's paradise.
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.
