Rank these smaller European cities on how urban they feel compared to these American cities (apartments, houses)

[Trafalgar Law]

American cities
Boston
Philadelphia
San Francisco
Washington DC

World cities
Málaga
Lyon
Nice
Copenhagen
Valencia
Stockholm

I'm not asking for which ones feel the largest, frankly that has nothing to do with "most urban" or not. I'm simply asking any of you with relative experience in any of these cities to order them in a list of which ones are most urban to least and how the American cities stack up to the ones from elsewhere.

You're free to include things such as walkability, density, transit, vibrancy (pedestrian activity), large walkable and urban core area with bustling activity, so on in your analysis. I didn't want to put this in the urban planning forum since it's too broad for there and I'm not asking for only statistics but also for some personal experience from those of you that have been to any of these cities (you don't have to have experience in all, just a couple of American cities and a couple of overseas cities).

Next question, as a collective group. Do you think the American cities can hold their own or do you think they fall to the bottom of the list in comparison to some of these other European cities?

[paull805]

Boston and Philly have millions, and you pick medium sized European cities?

[Trafalgar Law]

Originally Posted by paull805

Boston and Philly have millions, and you pick medium sized European cities?

No I picked small to medium. European cities ranging from like 1 million to 3 million because that's what our American "large cities" are striving to compete with. Places like Barcelona, Madrid, Moscow, Randstad, London, Paris, you serious man? Those cities easily bloe the American ones out of the water on just about everything in terms of "urban". Size has nothing to do with it Paul.

Truth is, American cities punch well below their weight in an urban sense. Have you seen Valencia and Washington DC?

Washington DC technically has 6 million people in it's metropolis compared to like what, 2.5 million for Valencia but which one do you think feels more urban? The answer is Valencia. It's FAR more active and it has a larger area that can be considered "urban" compared to the horror show that is single family homes just miles out of downtown Washington.

Seriously, if you're suggesting a comparison between Washington to somewhere like Randstad or something, somewhere that has 7 million people then you're honestly underrating your own continents cities.

[paull805]

All the American cities you picked are much larger the the European cities you picked.

Hamburg, Bucharest, Vienna, Warsaw etc would be better picks.

[cmptrwlt]

Originally Posted by paull805

All the American cities you picked are much larger the the European cities you picked.

Are you sure?

Boston - city:
625,087 people
232.14 km²

San Francisco - city:
815,358 people
600.6 km²

Stockholm - city:
871,952 people
188 km²
---
1,372,565 in the urban area (381.63 km²)

Copenhagen - city:
559,440 people
77.20 km²
---
1,230,728 people in the urban area (615.7 km²)

[ColdAilment]

Originally Posted by Code Lyoko

No I picked small to medium. European cities ranging from like 1 million to 3 million because that's what our American "large cities" are striving to compete with. Places like Barcelona, Madrid, Moscow, Randstad, London, Paris, you serious man? Those cities easily bloe the American ones out of the water on just about everything in terms of "urban". Size has nothing to do with it Paul.

Truth is, American cities punch well below their weight in an urban sense. Have you seen Valencia and Washington DC?

Washington DC technically has 6 million people in it's metropolis compared to like what, 2.5 million for Valencia but which one do you think feels more urban? The answer is Valencia. It's FAR more active and it has a larger area that can be considered "urban" compared to the horror show that is single family homes just miles out of downtown Washington.

Seriously, if you're suggesting a comparison between Washington to somewhere like Randstad or something, somewhere that has 7 million people then you're honestly underrating your own continents cities.

So if you already have a formulated opinion which you believe to be factual on which continent has more urbanized cities, why are you asking other people for input? It doesn't appear that anyone is going to change your mind anyway.

I don't see what the infatuation with urbanity is. Why people would want to live packed in tight apartments and row houses tucked away like sardines is beyond me. American cities are obviously less dense, even our older east coast cities, with the exception of a few, obviously New York City, Boston, Baltimore, and a few others, but their metro areas are surprisignly more spread out than their European counterparts. We are a completely different culture over here, a country that was once, and for the most part, is still full of open unzoned land. Most Americans like their space, their land, their property. Ownership of not just a home, but of a house, unique to your making with property lines that span acres is a mark of success to most of us.

I know New York City was not on the list, but it would win hands down over almost any other city. Boston, Philadelphia, and Baltimore would hold their own against most foreign cities. San Francisco might win out againt a few, and it's probably the most dense and urban of any west coast city, but it's on a different level from most European cities.

[paull805]

Originally Posted by cmptrwlt

Are you sure?

Boston - city:
625,087 people
232.14 km²

San Francisco - city:
815,358 people
600.6 km²

Stockholm - city:
871,952 people
188 km²
---
1,372,565 in the urban area (381.63 km²)

Copenhagen - city:
559,440 people
77.20 km²
---
1,230,728 people in the urban area (615.7 km²)

Boston etc view population boundaries differently. They are a lot larger than the cities the OP picked.

[cmptrwlt]

Originally Posted by paull805

Boston etc view population boundaries differently. They are a lot larger than the cities the OP picked.

Hmm.

Boston:
City area: 232.14 km² - 625,087 people

versus

Stockholm:
City area: 188 km² - 871,952 people

I have visited San Francisco. I did not feel like a big city. I could not care less about the metro area.

[paull805]

Hmmm try it for the rest of them and I might be impressed.

[Ariete]

Originally Posted by cmptrwlt

Hmm.

Boston:
City area: 232.14 km² - 625,087 people

46% of this area is water -> uninhabitable. The land area of Boston is 125 km2.

The metro area of Stockholm is 6,519 km2 with 2.1 million inhabitants.
The Boston urban area 4,852 km2 with 4.1 million.