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.
Not that anyone really cares, but here is my take on America's most urban cities (in order):
(1) New York City
(2) San Francisco
(3) Chicago
(4) Philadelphia
(5) Boston
(6) Washington DC
(7) Baltimore
(8) Pittsburgh
(9) Cincinnati
(10) St. Louis
Not that anyone really cares, but here is my take on America's most urban cities (in order):
(1) New York City
(2) San Francisco
(3) Chicago
(4) Philadelphia
(5) Boston
(6) Washington DC
(7) Baltimore
(8) Pittsburgh
(9) Cincinnati
(10) St. Louis
I can dig that list. 4-8 are a toss-up. Nice list.
I agree with most of that list, but I think DC should move up. Or maybe just have Philly, Boston, and DC tie.
You know, I've honestly been contemplating those three--which one is more urban? The reason I gave it to Philly is because some of their row house neighborhoods (like South Philly) are so dense; Boston has Back Bay; but DC's CBD is almost completely connected....so that was my tie breaker, but truly it could go any way. If I had to change it, I might say DC, Philly, Boston, but I think I'll leave it as is.
I know density doesn't determine urbanity, but Wiki says Boston's density is 12,000+. Philly=10,000+. DC=9,500+. I don't see how DC's is that low, unless that's the metro because in the metro there are some very low density suburbs out west. However, the actual DC square has Rosslyn, Alexandria, Arlington, and all of southern and western DC which is extremely dense and filled with row houses and brownstones.
IDK, maybe it's just because I like DC more. But, also, when you think about it, Boston doesn't seem as urban as DC or Philly. I guess it is though. Just doesn't seem like it.
Ok, I guess I take that back. Here's some pics from the Boston link from C-D.com
I know density doesn't determine urbanity, but Wiki says Boston's density is 12,000+. Philly=10,000+. DC=9,500+. I don't see how DC's is that low, unless that's the metro because in the metro there are some very low density suburbs out west. However, the actual DC square has Rosslyn, Alexandria, Arlington, and all of southern and western DC which is extremely dense and filled with row houses and brownstones.
IDK, maybe it's just because I like DC more. But, also, when you think about it, Boston doesn't seem as urban as DC or Philly. I guess it is though. Just doesn't seem like it.
Ok, I guess I take that back. Here's some pics from the Boston link from C-D.com
When I say density, I certainly mean structural density and not population density. I think population density is arbitrary and deceptive. For instance, most Eastern and Midwestern cities are going to have substantial lose in their urban cores; cities like Pittsburgh get hit twice as hard as it has hills that can't be built upon. In Pittsburgh's stats you'll never see that neighborhoods like Crawford-Roberts had a density of 67,000 ppl/ sq. mi. Not to mention where the borders of cities and neighborhoods run is arbitrary as well. So I think the point is: you will never see an accurate stat for defining urbanity...that's part of what makes it interesting to discuss!
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.
