Most urban city outside the top 5 (live, state, largest, compare)

[the resident09]

Originally Posted by Freddy K

And dc is very residential, with very little commerical areas outside of the few around downtown.
La has far more amenties to walk to.

Another completely false statement, you guys are trying to set a record in one thread I see.

The city is very residential however, NOMA, Capitol Riverfront, Georgetown/Tenleytown/ Wisconsin Ave, GA Ave/Petworth, 14th St, U Street, Adams Morgan, H Street NE, 8th St SE Marine Barracks, Navy Yard, SW Waterfront are all walk-able commercial areas none of them in Downtown. Many have dedicated bike lanes and are WAY more walk-able than the streets of LA.

[Yeadon718]

Originally Posted by marothisu

DC for sure

Baltimore is more structurally dense than DC...

[Freddy K]

Originally Posted by the resident09

Another completely false statement, you guys are trying to set a record in one thread I see.

The city is very residential however, NOMA, Capitol Riverfront, Georgetown/Tenleytown/ Wisconsin Ave, GA Ave/Petworth, 14th St, U Street, Adams Morgan, H Street NE, 8th St SE Marine Barracks, Navy Yard, SW Waterfront are all walk-able commercial areas none of them in Downtown. Many have dedicated bike lanes and are WAY more walk-able than the streets of LA.

Thsts not alot of areas compared to la and outside of
Gt,
am,
14th
U st

Are pretty small or unimpressive.

Tenleytown?
Gerogia ave?

Do you how many sreas in la are like that?
Are you kidding?

[Yeadon718]

Originally Posted by Freddy K

Thsts not alot of areas compared to la and outside of
Gt,
am,
14th
U st

Are pretty small or unimpressive.

Tenleytown?
Gerogia ave?

Do you how many sreas in la are like that?
Are you kidding?

Yeah LA might not all that urban in northeastern terms but its def more urban than DC is, that's not even up for debate. DC is a really small city, the DC area is small too actually. Living in NYC kinda of changed my perception of things. LA sprawls just as much as NYC...

[mhays25]

Originally Posted by Calisonn

I'll be the first to admit that downtown Seattle is more desirable, but remember that I do live here, and I know how tiny Pikes place market is, you can't pull the wool over my eyes Gatz.

You live here and call it "Pikes Place Market"? It's Pike Place Market. "Pike Place" is the street running through the middle. As for "tiny," it has hundreds of shops and hundreds of day stalls on the equivalent of three city blocks plus unofficial fringe spinoff areas. That's not tiny. As for crowds, the three block main hallway can take a polite person 20 minutes to get through, or take me at half that, because of the throngs of people. Some of the other walkways are nearly as packed, starting with the sidewalk on the east side of Pike Place.

[afropack-man]

Originally Posted by nonsence

Yeah LA might not all that urban in northeastern terms but its def more urban than DC is, that's not even up for debate. DC is a really small city, the DC area is small too actually. Living in NYC kinda of changed my perception of things. LA sprawls just as much as NYC...

That's a little hard to believe. I think DC being so small would create an argument that it's more walkable; Especially more than L.A. L.A. is what I would describe "generally walkable" meaning you can get to certain amenties by walking depending on where you live. Being that L.A. is so spread out and has many urban environments. This can change person to person on how they feel a neighborhood is walkable.

My impression with DC is that it is more walkable but it doesn't have more walkable areas than L.A. That matters. If you live on one side of L.A. and work in another then that may not seem so walkable to a person that has lived on the east coast.

Still, I know this is a debate thread but the difference is so minute that does it really matter? There are many people who drive into DC just like there are many people who drive into wherever they work in L.A. I also live close enough to work in L.A. so luckily I don't have to go too far. PT is much better in DC but I have been driving way less doing leisure activities since the expo line opened in so it's not like it's doom and gloom. I like the fact that I take my bike to the beach via train even though others in L.A. are not as fortunate. I know that there are way too many people here that hold the opposite view to make my perception stick.

[OyCrumbler]

Basically, LA and DC are both nearing or within the tier of the others (save for NYC) when it comes to walkable, urban neighborhoods. Seattle is not and that was one of the arguments that was made earlier which doesn't make too much sense. These two are the primary cities that are outside of the top 5 of NYC (in a separate tier on its own), Chicago, SF, Philly, and Boston. There's a good argument that both LA and DC are approaching or already within that same tier (again, outside of NYC) for different varying reasons as well as not within that tier for different varying reasons. What should be evident is that even if DC and LA are not yet within that tier, they at least set themselves apart from any other cities in the US who have a much weaker claim for being the most urban city outside of the top five.

Anyhow, I'd recommend people try to visit LA without a car these days if they're interested in trying to see how urban it is now. If you start from one of the parts of the urban core, it can be a drastically different experience than what you might have experienced in the past. Uber, smartphones, a greatly enlarged transit system, and a good deal of development in the core has changed things a lot. You can now easily spend a fairly long vacation without renting a car or driving one of your own over in LA these days. This is a far cry from what it used to be, but the constant infilling and densification of LA's core has been leading up to this for decades. It's in some ways better as a visitor setting their own itinerary rather than as a resident, because the main issue with LA's density/urbanity/walkability is that you need the perfect middle ground as a resident to have both your workplace be accessible in this way and the place that is accessible to your workplace work within your budget. These aren't the same kind of concerns for tourists.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Tim Randal Walker

This better than many cities, in which an old downtown may be the only urban place in the entire city.

No doubt. I'd never argue that Pittsburgh was in the top 5, but it's surely in the top 15, and arguably near the bottom of the top 10.

Originally Posted by nei

Walkscore is trying to measure how practical walking is for daily activities; not how pleasant it is, which is somewhat subjective. Walkscore's not discounting for aesthetics is the correct choice, IMO, as long as the design isn't hostile to pedestrians (long detours to cross the road, lack of sidewalks, long walk from sidewalk to store through big parking lots, etc.).

I think streetscape does matter in terms of walkability. I mean, studies have shown that gaps in a commercial district caused by parking lots make pedestrians less likely to walk. And I'm having a hard time thinking of many four-lane roads which have successful walkable business districts.

Originally Posted by nonsence

Baltimore is more structurally dense than DC...

Baltimore definitely has a larger urban core overall, and a smaller percentage of its land area which is devoted to detached single-family housing. The peak density is a bit lower though - Baltimore has relatively few residential areas which are denser than rowhouses.

[Tim Randal Walker]

jpdivola listed Pittsburgh as an "honorable mention". We could use more of those.

[NOLA101]

Originally Posted by nonsence

Baltimore is more structurally dense than DC...

Kind of, yeah, if you're only looking at 19th century housing.

But then you could say Baltimore is structurally more dense than Chicago or San Francisco, too.