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.
D.C is more walkable than LA, but LA is still the more urban city. LA > DC > Seattle. Seattle is also more walkable than LA, but LA is vastly the more urban city.
LA has by far the greatest aggregate density, but it is a very nodal city. Being nodal isn't necessarily a bad thing, as Tokyo or London are also nodal. But unlike those cities, LA's nodes are not tied together by contiguous walkable urbanism between the nodes. In my mind, that makes LA more a collection of adjoining cities than a comprehensive urban city like NYC or Chicago. As such, it is really hard to rank. It has far more urban walkable areas than DC or Seattle, but they aren't as integrated together as more traditional urban cities like DC and Sea.
DC is probably the most traditionally urban. It lacks old school urban character, density and contiguous vibrancy of Boston/Philly. But, I would say it is functionally as urban as those cities. In that has many walkable commercial strips and has good public transit. IMO, DC's downtown is very underwhelming, way too much office space. Save for a couple blocks around "Gallery Place" it is basically a giant office district, with bland architecture. But, it has a nice collection of adjoining residential neighborhoods north of downtown (Dupont, Adams Morgan, Logan, Shaw, Columbia Heights..plus Georgetown a little bit further away). These neighborhoods are somewhat reminiscent of Lincoln Park/Lakeview in Chicago with apartment buildings mixed in with leafy rowhouses and lively commercial strips throughout.
Seattle is somewhat of the opposite of DC. It has a much better "living downtown" with lots more activity on the way. Pioneer Square, Belltown, Pikes Market and the retail core compose pretty much the best "big city" downtown outside the top 5. But, Seattle lacks the urban neighborhoods of DC. Close in neighborhoods like Queen Anne, Capital Hill/First Hill/Pike and Pine are pretty good, and there are some more isolated nodes (particularly Ballard, U-District, West Seattle, Fremont/Wallingford) but on the whole Seattle's urban neighborhoods are nowhere near as extensive as in DC or the top 5.
LA has by far the greatest aggregate density, but it is a very nodal city. Being nodal isn't necessarily a bad thing, as Tokyo or London are also nodal. But unlike those cities, LA's nodes are not tied together by contiguous walkable urbanism between the nodes. In my mind, that makes LA more a collection of adjoining cities than a comprehensive urban city like NYC or Chicago. As such, it is really hard to rank. It has far more urban walkable areas than DC or Seattle, but they aren't as integrated together as more traditional urban cities like DC and Sea.
DC is probably the most traditionally urban. It lacks old school urban character, density and contiguous vibrancy of Boston/Philly. But, I would say it is functionally as urban as those cities. In that has many walkable commercial strips and has good public transit. IMO, DC's downtown is very underwhelming, way too much office space. Save for a couple blocks around "Gallery Place" it is basically a giant office district, with bland architecture. But, it has a nice collection of adjoining residential neighborhoods north of downtown (Dupont, Adams Morgan, Logan, Shaw, Columbia Heights..plus Georgetown a little bit further away). These neighborhoods are somewhat reminiscent of Lincoln Park/Lakeview in Chicago with apartment buildings mixed in with leafy rowhouses and lively commercial strips throughout.
Seattle is somewhat of the opposite of DC. It has a much better "living downtown" with lots more activity on the way. Pioneer Square, Belltown, Pikes Market and the retail core compose pretty much the best "big city" downtown outside the top 5. But, Seattle lacks the urban neighborhoods of DC. Close in neighborhoods like Queen Anne, Capital Hill/First Hill/Pike and Pine are pretty good, and there are some more isolated nodes (particularly Ballard, U-District, West Seattle, Fremont/Wallingford) but on the whole Seattle's urban neighborhoods are nowhere near as extensive as in DC or the top 5.
Great descriptions, but a good part of downtown Seattle is nothing but office towers as well and boring, but not to the level of D.C.
Great descriptions, but a good part of downtown Seattle is nothing but office towers as well and boring, but not to the level of D.C.
Yeah Seattle's downtown is very corporate. Along with hotels/condos.
The real action and vibrancy is in the neighborhoods nearby. (cap hill, ballard, queen anne, west seattle, u-district, etc)
Well i would include L.A in the top 5 & place D.c or Atlanta up next .
What city would you bump out of the top 5? I can see DC. But, what is your case for Atlanta being next? Above Seattle or Baltimore? Seattle appears to have more of the modern apartment building city feel than Atlanta and Baltimore has more of the urban rowhouse feel.
Pittsburgh should be in the next top 5 in my opinion.
Seattle
DC
Baltimore
LA
PGH
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.
