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 movement of another city into the top 10 won't change in our life time. It doesn't mean other cities outside the top 10 won't heavily urbanize. I say what I said because the urban bones of these cities will not change, and they can only densify more structurally. What US city will urbanize to be more contiguously urban than these in the next two generations, with greater urban bones? Who has the urban DNA to replicate or better these? Do you care to nominate one?
Also this was Seattle in 1950. DT Seattle had good urban bones 70+ years ago.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,129 posts, read 7,579,110 times
Reputation: 5796
Quote:
Originally Posted by nadnerb
Detroit and Cleveland were easily top 10 back in 1970. Certainly many cities have surpassed them.
I plan on being alive in 50 years, so I don’t see why our current top 10 cities are assumed to be set in stone for the duration of my lifetime.
Likewise, and I don't plan on seeing another city jump these in urbanity, based on the combination of their urban bones currently, and outlook going forward. I could see if you had a specific place in mind, and projections are never easy, but I don't see it changing based on what already exists and how these cities are currently built out. That can't be undone. Philadelphia doesn't have the same city rank as before either, it's still among the 5 most urban cities in the nation because of it's urban DNA.
It's not impossible, but I would agree that that development patterns tend to be pretty entrenched.
In fact, the few metro areas that were becoming more urbanized/dense in and around their cores over the past decade or more already have the densest urban cores.
For example, this was taken from a NYTimes report from about 6 years ago when they analyzed housing unit estimates based on Census tracts in top metro areas:
Okay, but some of those cities that are urbanizing are not in the supposed set in stone top 10. What would stop any of them (Minneapolis, for example) from elbowing their way into the top 10.
Likewise, and I don't plan on seeing another city jump these in urbanity, based on the combination of their urban bones currently, and outlook going forward. I could see if you had a specific place in mind, and projections are never easy, but I don't see it changing based on what already exists and how these cities are currently out. That can't be undone. Philadelphia doesn't have the same city rank as before either, it's still among the 5 most urban cities in the nation because of it's urban DNA.
Minneapolis? Atlanta? Denver?
All these cities have seen substantial urban growth in past few decades. I don’t see why they wouldn’t continue. Especially when a city like Baltimore is stagnating.
All these cities have seen substantial urban growth in past few decades. I don’t see why they wouldn’t continue. Especially when a city like Baltimore is stagnating.
Baltimore's most likely to drop out of top ten. It hasn't stopped depopulating yet and with it has come continued dereliction and ultimately destruction of buildings and meanwhile some of the other cities that would be contenders have passed laws that make creating more dense and mixed-use construction easier (or, uh, legal).
I don't think Miami's foothold depending on the criteria is all that steady. If we're talking about a pretty high threshold for being urban, then Miami has it in a pretty small area and all of that is especially vulnerable to any rise in sea levels and flooding which will likely pose problems.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 01-11-2023 at 03:03 PM..
Yea the OP picked a pretty arbitrary threshold, in lots of places we can cut the lines, or draw different borders however you like. Bottom line is the 10 most urban contiguous cities/metros/areas regardless of order are:
NYC
Chicago
LA
Miami
SF
Philadelphia
Boston
DC
Seattle
Baltimore
I don't think there's much of a question to be had here. This also isn't changing in our future or lifetimes.
All of these cities, with the exception of DC have one thing in common.
Likewise, and I don't plan on seeing another city jump these in urbanity, based on the combination of their urban bones currently, and outlook going forward. I could see if you had a specific place in mind, and projections are never easy, but I don't see it changing based on what already exists and how these cities are currently built out. That can't be undone. Philadelphia doesn't have the same city rank as before either, it's still among the 5 most urban cities in the nation because of it's urban DNA.
I think it’s quite clear that outside the top 9 is such a big gap (and number 9, Seattle) is the fastest growing that #10 might change hand (right now it’s either Newark/NNJ or Miami).
Mostly cause for example Atlanta gained fewer people than Boston in the last decade despite its metro growing 3x faster.
In many cases the big suburban cities are seeing massive suburban growth rather than catching up to the more urban cities (Seattle is the outlier here)
The Atlanta, Dallas, or Houston’s of the world aren’t even making progress catching up to the DC, Boston, Seattle or SFs of the world.
Maybe Philly is growing slow enough the others might be making marginal progress against Philly
Keep in mind the world population growth is slowing down to maybe stagnating in the future. I think atleast the top 5 are a lock in it's place with an added bonus going towards being located by a coast.
Also merit for the urban bones of a city being a bonus for urbanity. Cities like Detroit and Cleveland went through a time period with major population growth and shifts. The future will be different so there is belief that the top 8 (resident 09 list) will remain steadfast in place.
I think it’s quite clear that outside the top 9 is such a big gap (and number 9, Seattle) is the fastest growing that #10 might change hand (right now it’s either Newark/NNJ or Miami).
Mostly cause for example Atlanta gained fewer people than Boston in the last decade despite its metro growing 3x faster.
In many cases the big suburban cities are seeing massive suburban growth rather than catching up to the more urban cities (Seattle is the outlier here)
The Atlanta, Dallas, or Houston’s of the world aren’t even making progress catching up to the DC, Boston, Seattle or SFs of the world.
Maybe Philly is growing slow enough the others might be making marginal progress against Philly
Denver, SD, and Twin Cities are a few cities making some progress in expanding the dense, urban spans of the city. I don't think they'll catch up to Philadelphia though as Philadelphia seems likely headed towards growth again. If you're counting NNJ separately, then Hudson County / lower Bergen County is ahead of Seattle and likely a couple of others.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 01-11-2023 at 04:44 PM..
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,129 posts, read 7,579,110 times
Reputation: 5796
Quote:
Originally Posted by nadnerb
Minneapolis? Atlanta? Denver?
All these cities have seen substantial urban growth in past few decades. I don’t see why they wouldn’t continue. Especially when a city like Baltimore is stagnating.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
Baltimore's most likely to drop out of top ten. It hasn't stopped
depopulating yet and with it has come continued dereliction and ultimately destruction of buildings and meanwhile some of the other cities that would be contenders have passed laws that make creating more dense and mixed-use construction easier (or, uh, legal).
.
Yeah it's these comments that make realize why this thread is a bit silly, and obviously it must be a bit to ambiguous of defining what's going on here. I think it's the perfect thread for people to cherry pick what they THINK, rather than understand what's concrete and what is not. Urbanity and contiguity is defined by urban structure and format, urban bones, streets, housing stock and the length of intensity you find that urbanity.
It does not matter if a city lost population, this will never decrease the contiguity of how far it's urbanity stretches. Baltimore ALL of it, should be considered one huge urban contiguous zone, this also would stretch north and west into it's immediate "urban" suburbs across land.
Let me state this clearly. Baltimore will NEVER in US or world history be LESS contiguously urban than those cities. That's N-E-V-E-R all caps. Baltimore was once the 2nd most populous city in America after New York, now it's barely 500k people, but still does not recede any of it's urban format. If Baltimore didn't add another home for another 50 years it would still be top 10 in US urbanity based on it's urban DNA, tight streets etc.
I could entertain an argument of a Detroit or Cleveland, because at least their bones are better. Minneapolis and Denver are more urban than Atlanta, but none of them come close to the urban feel or structure, or contiguity than Baltimore and it's surroundings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by btownboss4
Maybe Philly is growing slow enough the others might be making marginal progress against Philly
No city outside the top 10 in "contiguous urbanity" is EVER passing Philly...It's physically impossible, unless a brand new city that doesn't exist is built from scratch in the middle of nowhere.
Last edited by the resident09; 01-11-2023 at 04:51 PM..
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.
