Which is more urban Baltimore or Seattle? (places, Chicago, skyscrapers)

[irishimm]

SF is more urban than any east coast city besides NYC.

Originally Posted by john_starks

^^ true..technically LA is a car-based lifestyle, but its more fast paced than a lot of compact cities...


but no way more urban.....visiting LA & SF was like hanging out in a big country club

[Backstrom]

Baltimore is probably more urban, but not in it's own favor.

[e2ksj3]

Baltimore is more urban, but Seattle isn't too far behind.

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by john_starks

^^ true..technically LA is a car-based lifestyle, but its more fast paced than a lot of compact cities...


but no way more urban.....visiting LA & SF was like hanging out in a big country club

So you basically stayed in the park the entire time you were in SF?

[john_starks]

^^ no, i saw all of SF and to say that its more urban than every city in the NE except NYC is just plain crazy talk...

p.s. hartford, bridgeport and newark are more urban than 99% of cali cities...

[fashionguy]

Hartford, LOL.

Originally Posted by john_starks

^^ no, i saw all of SF and to say that its more urban than every city in the NE except NYC is just plain crazy talk...

p.s. hartford, bridgeport and newark are more urban than 99% of cali cities...

[john_starks]

Originally Posted by fashionguy

Hartford, LOL.

hey no one said hartford was cool , but its definitely more urban

[john_starks]

i mean, i'm not doubting that there are urban envireonments on the west coast, its just that most of the cities incorporate the natural backdrop with the city. i'm sure that's a big part of city planning there.

why put up brick highrises to block the mountains, hills and the ocean? i wouldn't do it...

bottom line, i just don't get the same feeling when walking through newark vs walking through seattle or san diego...who's gonna argue that?

[DC's Finest]

SF is very urban but it isn't fast paced as east coast cities!!!!

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by john_starks

i mean, i'm not doubting that there are urban envireonments on the west coast, its just that most of the cities incorporate the natural backdrop with the city. i'm sure that's a big part of city planning there.

why put up brick highrises to block the mountains, hills and the ocean? i wouldn't do it...

bottom line, i just don't get the same feeling when walking through newark vs walking through seattle or san diego...who's gonna argue that?

I wouldn't argue with the feeling you get from walking through a city, but it seems like a gross exaggeration when talking about SF in terms of a country club. Seattle, San Diego, LA, etc.--yea, I definitely agree with you. But SF? Then again, you might be working with a very different idea of what urban means. Bustling, crowded, and lively?