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.
With near unanimous agreement that New York reaches a level of urbanity in the US that is unparalleled, it sits atop the pyramid of urbanity by itself...
But then, what's after New York?
This particular thread, should flesh out the second, maybe third tier of urban cities in the US, and what exactly separates "scale" from one tier to the next. Like, what separates the scale of New York from the scale of the next tier of most urban cities, that while likely a distant second, are still second to New York?
So here are the 11 cities I think deserve discussion in that next tier of the pyramid, and from these 11 cities, we can say who doesn't belong in this grouping, and order the ones who are left over:
Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Seattle, Washington
In general when I think of "scale" I think of a combination of factors, not necessarily weighted too strongly to one particular thing as I think they all have value. I think of built form. I think of transit infrastructure. I think of sphere of influence that emanates from the city into the surrounding counties and region. I think of the size and amenities of a city's downtown, and of a city's "core", reading "core" as the inner city, central-most regions of cities. I think of the ease of walkability and pedestrian accessibility...
So for this part one of the series, how would you rank these 11 cities?
I can try this in tiers since ranking individually can be pretty messy. The cities in each tier are unordered.
Tier 1: New York City Tier 2: Chicago, Washington, San Francisco, Boston, Philadelphia Tier 3: Seattle Tier 4: Los Angeles, Miami Tier 5: Houston, Atlanta, Dallas
New York City is number 1 and far ahead of everyone else for obvious reasons. Chicago, DC, Philly, Boston, and SF all perform well by US standards for urbanity and comfortably make the next tier. I have Seattle in its own tier 3 since I find it distinctly more urban than LA and Miami but distinctly less urban than the cities above it. I have LA and Miami composing of the next tier since they seem more urban as a whole in comparison to the tier 5 cities. Lastly, Houston, Atlanta, and Dallas don’t have as many urban areas as the cities above them (but are improving).
I can try this in tiers since ranking individually can be pretty messy. The cities in each tier are unordered.
Tier 1: New York City Tier 2: Chicago, Washington, San Francisco, Boston, Philadelphia Tier 3: Seattle Tier 4: Los Angeles, Miami Tier 5: Houston, Atlanta, Dallas
New York City is number 1 and far ahead of everyone else for obvious reasons. Chicago, DC, Philly, Boston, and SF all perform well by US standards for urbanity and comfortably make the next tier. I have Seattle in its own tier 3 since I find it distinctly more urban than LA and Miami but distinctly less urban than the cities above it. I have LA and Miami composing of the next tier since they seem more urban as a whole in comparison to the tier 5 cities. Lastly, Houston, Atlanta, and Dallas don’t have as many urban areas as the cities above them (but are improving).
Yours is the same as mine. I could hear an argument for LA in Tier 3 if one were to make one.
So here are the 11 cities I think deserve discussion in that next tier of the pyramid, and from these 11 cities, we can say who doesn't belong in this grouping, and order the ones who are left over:
Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Seattle, Washington
It seems to me a pretty simple proposition (or maybe not, if we start playing with metrics); the older the built environment, the higher up the urbanity scale you are. My thinking is that you divide them up as such: Cities that came into their own pre-1850, 1850-1945(end of WWII), and 1945-present. Doing such gives us something like this:
The Horse and Carraige Era:
Boston
Philadelphia
New York
Washington
The Railroad and Streetcar Era:
Chicago
San Francisco
The Automobile Era:
Atlanta
Dallas
Houston
Los Angeles
Miami
Seattle
Having said all that, it also seems the oldest cities have hit their 'urban plateau', while newer cities (all located in the Sunbelt save Seattle) are playing catchup at a rapid rate. With major shifts in population to the south and west, transplants (particularly the younger ones) are demanding the urban amenities that they were accustomed to at home. It's inevitable that sometime in the next 25-50 years the scale will even out.
Having said all that, it also seems the oldest cities have hit their 'urban plateau', while newer cities (all located in the Sunbelt save Seattle) are playing catchup at a rapid rate. With major shifts in population to the south and west, transplants (particularly the younger ones) are demanding the urban amenities that they were accustomed to at home. It's inevitable that sometime in the next 25-50 years the scale will even out.
Yeah there’s a lot of catchup that are making them a lot more walkable than they were just 20 years ago. But the neighborhoods they’re building as “catchup” are still noticeable different than your old school NE neighborhoods. They are still designed to be comfortable in the car; just with a walkable component.
I stated my intent that this will be a series. I started with the generally agreed upon most important cities, to tier those cities out in urban scale, because as thus series continues it'll leave room to push cities up or down a tier(s)...
The intent wasn't that these are the only cities to be discussed, but they are the cities I wanted to discuss in this Part I...
Seems to be near-unanimous agreement that the southern cities come in the last tier of this group of cities, am I reading this correct?
To that point, I agree. So there's a separate tier, potentially, of Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Miami. To this I'll say, having never been to Houston or Miami, have been to Dallas and Atlanta, and while they are in the same class/range of urban scale----->Atlanta is a slight step ahead of Dallas. It feels grander, there are more people on the streets walking, more walkable nodes, the subways add an element of urbanity, and everywhere in Atlanta is comparably built up more than its Dallas parallels: Downtown Atlanta, Midtown Atlanta, Buckhead...
Ultimately again it's more on Dallas' scale of urbanity than the other cities but I want to point out that Texas cities in general (have been to Fort Worth and El Paso), they all seem to feel somewhat smaller than they actually are...
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.
