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.
The part of Los Angeles city located in the L.A. basin (about 2.5 million people) is the same as Chicago or Philadelphia in terms of population and structural density.
The part of Los Angeles city located in the San Fernando Valley (about 1.5 million people) is still twice as dense as Dallas, Houston, or Atlanta.
There's nowhere in the city limits that isn't a dense, urban area.
Street width would give a more urban appearance I suppose, but in terms of population density, the San Fernando Valley portion of L.A. (the part most ridiculed as being suburban) will be catching up to Baltimore city in population density in the next few years.
It seems like we're giving out points for urbanity just for being an older city. It's not incumbent on newer cities to build narrow, horse and carriage streets or brownstone apartment homes to pander to the eastern establishment for urbanity points.
As others have said, to the OP...Las Vegas doesn't belong that high. Probably doesn't belong on the list at all.
Vegas is trying to become more dense/urban downtown and The Strip, but by definition it really has no chance. The blocks where residential is occurring are too long and wide for any real density, plus how many really want to live in the heart of a major tourist destination? Perhaps some, but I can't imagine many. The rest of Vegas is urban sprawl by and large.
How so? LA is known for having high density... it's definitely an outlier amongst most other sunbelt cities in this regard as the poster stated that its #'s are more then double (probably more like x4) places like Atlanta etc..
1. New York
2. Houston
3. Los Angeles
4. Phoenix
5. Chicago
6. Philadelphia
7. San Antonio
8. Dallas
9. San Diego
10. Nashville
11. Seattle
12. Boston
13. Honolulu
14. Columbus
15. Miami
Odd list. Never saw anyone place Houston so high. Above LA ..... no way. Unless they have the Big One. I also am surprised Phoenix is above Chicago ...... I doubt it. Philly high ..... nice to see, could happen. Certainly its historic importance never will lessen. But I'd never count Chicago out in maintaining importance.
Odd list. Never saw anyone place Houston so high. Above LA ..... no way. Unless they have the Big One. I also am surprised Phoenix is above Chicago ...... I doubt it. Philly high ..... nice to see, could happen. Certainly its historic importance never will lessen. But I'd never count Chicago out in maintaining importance.
How so? LA is known for having high density... it's definitely an outlier amongst most other sunbelt cities in this regard as the poster stated that its #'s are more then double (probably more like x4) places like Atlanta etc..
Of course it's an outlier, it's geographically constrained. As usual, you're reaching to discredit Atlanta.
That's not what you said. You stated it wasn't "classically urban," but "superficially urban" while lumping Atlanta in with other cities.
Again, I stand by my post. It's a totally inaccurate characterization, this isn't an old school Northeastern city but it IS urban in it's own Piedmont Region way. I didn't catch the part of the OP's original post where it zeroed in on urban structure seamlessly extending unimpeded for miles upon miles outside of their cores.
That may be your interpretation of the meaning of urbanity, but it isn't the definition of it.
You are absolutely entitled to your opinion, but there is something called facts. Atlanta at minimum has less than half the density of any of those cities, and as a city it structurally pales in comparison to their urban built forms.
The OP asked what are the most urban cities, not the most urban downtowns.
So once again it's not an inaccurate characterization of Atlanta (as a city).
IWhat Atlanta lacks is the urban structure that seamlessly extends unimpeded for miles upon miles outside their cores like Philly, Boston, DC, Baltimore, SF etc.. which is why no one calls it a truly urban city
You don't get to define why no one calls any place 'truly urban,' this is nothing more than your opinion and there is a lot of ignorance out there. North Atlanta/Buckhead is very similar to NW DC, the Connecticut and Massachusetts Ave corridors are older but extremely similar to Peachtree. Your condescension of single family home neighborhoods adjacent to intense commercial corridors is ludicrous, this exists in almost every large city.
You are absolutely entitled to your opinion, but there is something called facts. Atlanta at minimum has less than half the density of any of those cities, and as a city it structurally pales in comparison to their urban built forms.
The OP asked what are the most urban cities, not the most urban downtowns.
So once again it's not an inaccurate characterization of Atlanta (as a city).
Wrong. It's a total mischaracterization, period. You made a sweeping generalization that isn't true, but insist on doubling down and digging in. You are clearly incapable of ever admitting that you could possibly be misinformed or wrong. It obviously doesn't fit your narrative, and I'm beginning to believe you've never even been here.
The part of Los Angeles city located in the L.A. basin (about 2.5 million people) is the same as Chicago or Philadelphia in terms of population and structural density.
The part of Los Angeles city located in the San Fernando Valley (about 1.5 million people) is still twice as dense as Dallas, Houston, or Atlanta.
There's nowhere in the city limits that isn't a dense, urban area
No one is saying LA is not population dense, but it's the outlier compared to SF, Chicago, NYC, Philly, DC & Baltimore, when it comes to urban feel & look.
Ugh... immediately to south east of Downtown there is nothing but warehouses/distribution centers lots until you hit the LA river?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Losfrisco
Street width would give a more urban appearance I suppose, but in terms of population density, the San Fernando Valley portion of L.A. (the part most ridiculed as being suburban) will be catching up to Baltimore city in population density in the next few years.
Street width plays a massive role in it, as narrow streets are more conducive for pedestrian activity & allow greater structural density. Regarding Baltimore, it doesn't have that hyper population density anymore... Seattle & Minneapolis surpassed it back in '16.
That being said, they are still nowhere near as urban from structural standpoint.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Losfrisco
It seems like we're giving out points for urbanity just for being an older city. It's not incumbent on newer cities to build narrow, horse and carriage streets or brownstone apartment homes to pander to the eastern establishment for urbanity points.
They get points not for being old, but for virtually every major city trying to replicate their urbanism by scrambling to build dense walkable environments/neighborhoods overnight. New cities have just replaced the brownstones with lofty glass/modern apartment buildings, the principal concept is still there.
Last edited by Joakim3; 10-17-2019 at 02:18 AM..
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.
