Most Urban built Mid-Size City (apartments, townhomes, neighborhoods)

[mhays25]

Those are the areas incorporated in the 50s I think...everything north of 85th for example.

Yes, definitely a city that's urban in core districts but not in others.

[Joakim3]

Originally Posted by mhays25

Maybe he means city as MSA.

Or you could say urban core of metros within a given size.

I don't know why people fixate on semi-irrelevant political/administrative boundaries so much.

Baltimore and Pittsburgh?

I'm simply using MSA size as the boundary for the what cities to compare, that's it lol

[jpdivola]

I'm curious why so many are mentioning Cleveland? My impression is it is mostly single-family homes, and has lost a lot of its legacy old school urban architecture.

I would say:
1) Baltimore
2) Pittsburgh
3) Milwaukee.

St Louis and Cinny also has some good urban bones. But, they are smaller/less vibrant IMO.

I could also see an argument of Portland Oregon. It isn't traditionally urban. But, it has seen a ton of infill and has a very walkable core.

[gladhands]

Originally Posted by mhays25

Maybe he means city as MSA.

Or you could say urban core of metros within a given size.

I don't know why people fixate on semi-irrelevant political/administrative boundaries so much.

Baltimore and Pittsburgh?

City proper is only meaningless if we’re discussing population; e.g. Miami is bigger than Jacksonville.

Sometimes, we’re really talking about cities. Specifically, when we were discussing urbanity. Cleveland doesn’t magically become more urban than Pittsburgh because its suburbs are more densely built.

[CCrest182]

I'd say KC, and it's not economically depressed (like some of these cities are)

[Tom Lennox 70]

I consider 2 to 3 million to be a very large metro area, not mid-sized, but within this population range probably Baltimore, St. Louis, or Cleveland.

As for what I consider a mid-sized metro, then Louisville, Richmond, Savannah and Memphis are very urban.

[mhays25]

Originally Posted by gladhands

City proper is only meaningless if we’re discussing population; e.g. Miami is bigger than Jacksonville.

Sometimes, we’re really talking about cities. Specifically, when we were discussing urbanity. Cleveland doesn’t magically become more urban than Pittsburgh because its suburbs are more densely built.

My point is that "city" doesn't have to refer to the core municipality. But we've had that discussion already.

Certain people on CD go on with that misconception, apparently not reading urban studies books etc.

[Foamposite]

If you're looking for urbanity, why are you including the whole metro area?

[Joakim3]

Originally Posted by Foamposite

If you're looking for urbanity, why are you including the whole metro area?

Because MSA is a better metric for comparing cities as it throws away arbitrary city boarders which tends to skew population/density.

[Mutiny77]

Originally Posted by Foamposite

If you're looking for urbanity, why are you including the whole metro area?

MSA population is being used as a proxy for considering what cities would qualify as midsized instead of municipal population, for obvious reasons.