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.
While I think NY is the most notable in the US, I don't think it is fair to limit the options to the selected cities only.. any city in an urban metro area could qualify if you ask me.
Well, I included Portland, OR as well and although that city is fairly old for the West, it really didn't become urban until around the 1970's. The city made a conscious decision to control sprawl through land use regulations, better zoning, and investing in public transportation instead of focusing exclusively on highways. This shows that cities can change if they really want to and the common excuses about new/old cities are not particularly relevant. It's about policy choices folks and for almost 50 years we have made the conscious decision for sprawl and frankly, pretty sorry cheaply made suburban development.
Every city on the list is a true American urban city.But to me the most urban cities are the ones with a high density,at least 5,000 people per square mile.Heres the cities I voted for.New York City,San Francisco,Chicago,Boston,Miami,Philly,Washington D.C.,Los Angeles,Baltimore,Buffalo,Seattle,Minneapolis,Detr oit,Milwaukee,Cleveland,St. Louis,and Pittsburgh.City Data also gives density stats,so those cities are in order.Atlanta,Dallas,Houston,New Orleans,Charleston,Savannah,Kansas City,Portland,San Siego,and Salt Lake City all has density rates of under 5,000 people per square mile.Im not saying there not urban cities,but there not as densely populated as the ones I voted for.Some of the places I voted for are becoming less dense though as people leave the cities for the suburbs.
I agree, to an extent. Density has to do with # people within the city limits. Some cities, like NO, have large areas within the city limits that are virtually uninhabited (even pre-Katrina), but very dense neighborhoods as well (eg, French Quarter, Midtown, Garden District) Other cities have virtually all areas developed, but, but medium or low density, with few or no high density areas (eg, LA, Houston, Dallas)
In the aggregate this may be the case but the residential areas are more compact and Portland is nationally known to have made a conscious decision to control sprawl and invest in transit. I believe another reason you see the lower density there is because the city has a lot of parks and green spaces (one of the highest percentages of any city I believe).
In the aggregate this may be the case but the residential areas are more compact and Portland is nationally known to have made a conscious decision to control sprawl and invest in transit. I believe another reason you see the lower density there is because the city has a lot of parks and green spaces (one of the highest percentages of any city I believe).
I feel like parks and green spaces would make a place less urban. That's what people move to the country for!
I feel like parks and green spaces would make a place less urban. That's what people move to the country for!
I like parks and green spaces within cities. Central Park is great. The Common is awesome. Fairmont Park in Philly, etc.
Having a nice mix of walkable, dense neighborhoods along with urban parks enhances quality of life. Plenty of major cities around the world have huge urban parks (look at London, Berlin, etc)
Last edited by irwin; 01-28-2008 at 07:56 PM..
Reason: Typo
I like parks and green spaces within cities. Times Square is great. The Common is awesome. Fairmont Park in Philly, etc.
Having a nice mix of walkable, dense neighborhoods along with urban parks enhances quality of life. Plenty of major cities around the world have huge urban parks (look at London, Berlin, etc)
Times square is a park?
Not that major cities don't have them, but IMO it decreases the urban focus.
Not that major cities don't have them, but IMO it decreases the urban focus.
Well, you're certainly free to have that opinion.
I would just point out that every major city in the world balances density with undeveloped green spaces. I would much rather have this development than sprawl with SFH on acre lots with little to no surrounding park space.
think of what the air quality would be in the urban spaces without trees.
I know it would be awful! Don't worry though, I'm not saying trees aren't a good thing! I was making the point that while many urban metros have trees, trees detract from a city whose sole intrest is urbanity, and therefore a comparison of urbanity is less limited within that context (because open fields, parks, etc., decrease density).
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.
.
