What is the second most urban city in the United States?

[SFBruin]

The question is pretty self-explanatory: What would generally be regarded as the second most urban city in the United States?

This has nothing to do with overall size or cultural influence, but just to do with the level of activity and infrastructure within the core of the metro.

[Jawnadelphia]

Probably Chicago, then Philadelphia.

[Crawford]

Relative urbanity is subjective, so there's no definitive answer.

Based on the factors I believe most contribute to urbanity, I would say Philly, but you could just as easily say Chicago, SF, LA, DC and Boston.

[Steely Dan]

^ yep.

NYC is obviously in its own universe within the US when it comes to all things urban.

The number 2 in that category gets a lot more messy to sort out. A great deal of subjective hair-splitting always ensues whenever someone insists on there being a definitive and lone #2.

IMO, it makes far more sense to just think of that next group of most urban US cities below NYC collectively as tier #2.

[park123]

I would say Chicago, because it is the only other city in the USA that has a megalopolis kind of feel. Some other cities (like SF or Boston) might have a more 100% intact urban fabric, but those other cities come across as a kind of "provincial city" to me.

I mean SF is great for example, but if you take someone from London or Tokyo there, I think they can't help but feel reminded of a nice large town, rather than a world capital.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by park123

I would say Chicago, because it is the only other city in the USA that has a megalopolis kind of feel. Some other cities (like SF or Boston) might have a more 100% intact urban fabric, but those other cities come across as a kind of "provincial city" to me.

I mean SF is great for example, but if you take someone from London or Tokyo there, I think they can't help but feel reminded of a nice large town, rather than a world capital.

I think Los Angeles has this feel, despite its relative lack of skyscrapers.

But as far as the original question goes, it depends on what aspect of urbanity you're talking about. I'd say Chicago simply because the downtown is huge with tons of skyscrapers, even in Asia Chicago would be one of the better skylines. This may not directly correlate with urbanity for some people but definitely helps.

This has nothing to do with overall size or cultural influence, but just to do with the level of activity and infrastructure within the core of the metro.

Yea, still Chicago or maybe LA. Miami could be a contender

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

But as far as the original question goes, it depends on what aspect of urbanity you're talking about. I'd say Chicago simply because the downtown is huge with tons of skyscrapers, even in Asia Chicago would be one of the better skylines. This may not directly correlate with urbanity for some people but definitely helps.

Skyscrapers don't have great correlation with urbanity, IMO. For instance, Barcelona is one of the greatest urban experiences in the world, and doesn't have anything that most of us would consider a skyscraper.

[park123]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

I think Los Angeles has this feel, despite its relative lack of skyscrapers.

But as far as the original question goes, it depends on what aspect of urbanity you're talking about. I'd say Chicago simply because the downtown is huge with tons of skyscrapers, even in Asia Chicago would be one of the better skylines. This may not directly correlate with urbanity for some people but definitely helps.



Yea, still Chicago or maybe LA. Miami could be a contender

I mean LA is definitely large. But it is just so unique and even alien to anyone from most other developed countries, that it's even hard to describe what it is to most foreigners. It's an enormous built up area with 20 million people, but from a foreign perspective, has essentially zero pedestrian activity. A town of 200,000 in Japan or Western Europe would have a healthier, more active pedestrian urban core than the LA basin has.

From a Western European or East Asian perspective, Chicago is definitely sparse in regard to pedestrian traffic (compared to peer cities like Rome, Barcelona, Osaka), but it's still recognizably a city. And a very monumental city at that. The first impression is that it's huge. the 2nd impression might be that it's not very crowded.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

I think Los Angeles has this feel, despite its relative lack of skyscrapers.

But as far as the original question goes, it depends on what aspect of urbanity you're talking about. I'd say Chicago simply because the downtown is huge with tons of skyscrapers, even in Asia Chicago would be one of the better skylines. This may not directly correlate with urbanity for some people but definitely helps.



Yea, still Chicago or maybe LA. Miami could be a contender

Miami... no.

Not even close to a contender in the “most urban” category.

Miami and south Florida in general are characterized by very dense, suburban-style development. Even though Miami has lots of high-rise condo towers, they are best described as “suburban life in the sky”... as almost all of them are built atop massive parking pedestals (many with zero street-level tenancy). And within 2 blocks from those core 50+ story condo towers are 1-story single-family homes with front and back yards (often with swimming pools) and driveways and garages. There are also supermarkets, drive thru restaurants, banks, and drug stores all with surface parking lots in the same adjacent proximity to the downtown core skyscrapers. Miami was designed to be and functions as an automobile dependent culture. That’s not “urban” by any classification we generally abide to on this forum.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by park123

I would say Chicago, because it is the only other city in the USA that has a megalopolis kind of feel. Some other cities (like SF or Boston) might have a more 100% intact urban fabric, but those other cities come across as a kind of "provincial city" to me.

I mean SF is great for example, but if you take someone from London or Tokyo there, I think they can't help but feel reminded of a nice large town, rather than a world capital.

Sorry, but LA has a larger mega feel to it than Chicago does. Downtown Chicago is more impressive than downtown LA for sure, so if you're going by that.. yes.

But the rest? No. LA's just too big and adding density everywhere.
Like others have said, it's hard to quantify here. LA's density is too different to compare to the other urban cities.

Not counting LA, I'd put Chicago at 2. Philly 3, Boston/SF 4/5. DC 6. Baltimore 7. Seattle 8. New Orleans/St. Louis 9/10.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by LA21st

Sorry, but LA has a larger mega feel to it than Chicago does. Downtown Chicago is more impressive than downtown LA for sure, so if you're going by that.. yes.

But the rest? No. LA's just too big and adding density everywhere.
Like others have said, it's hard to quantify here. LA's density is too different to compare to the other urban cities.

Not counting LA, I'd put Chicago at 2. Philly 3, Boston/SF 4/5. DC 6. Baltimore 7. Seattle 8.

L.A. definitely feels more like a mega city. Chicago definitely wins the urbanity argument.

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by skysoar

Chicago and its not even close. If New York is 1A then Chicago is definitely 2A. When we speak of urbanity, how do you describe that. When I visited New York I personally enjoyed it, but somewhat dissapointed, I walked around the area of the Empire State bldg. and the Madison Square Garden area and I did not feel any more synergy than I do in parts of downtown Chicago. I know that's a small sample but are we confusing size with quality when describing urbanity. My opinion is NYC has the greatest urbanity but are we judging by its old folklore when we continue to give it great superiority over cities like Chicago, and I would add Los Angeles which has a different type of urbanity ….

There is no equivalent in Chicago to 34th st/penn station/herald sq when it comes to pedestrian traffic. In terms of Urbanity, Chicago is much closer to the next tier than it is to NYC. Just to put NYC into perspective:
-There are more people on the 22sq miles of manhattan than the entire 230sq
miles of Chicago.
-NYC has a higher train ridership than every other city in the US combined.
-NYC has more 100M buildings than the next 10 cities combined

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago

-There are more people on the 22sq miles of manhattan than the entire 230sq
miles of Chicago.

That's not true...

[RedCorsair87]

^Ya, that's definitely not true. Chicago has at least a million more than Manhattan. Brooklyn has more than Manhattan, but less than Chicago.

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

That's not true...

Yes it is. Manhattan has a daytime population of ~4M people

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

That's not true...

He might be referring to daytime population which in 2012 was calculated/studied at 4 million. Presently, its probally like 300-400k more on any given weekday so 4.3/4.4 million within 22 sq-miles.

But purely population (residents), yeah thats its false.

Originally Posted by austlar1

Chicago is number two simply because of its highrise core and ample rail transit. After Chicago, I think LA gets the nod. Obviously it is not a traditional urban environment, but it has a depth of human activity that can only be found in a global metropolis. No other US city comes close, not even Chicago. I would rank LA number two except for the fact that Chicago's core is so impressive.

IMO, #2 would be Los Angeles or if we want to look at it from a metro area standpoint of built urban nature, LA. Really I think because its just consistant density throughout the basin with pockets that can be quite dense, and several multi-nodal CBD's skyline.

Chicago is quite intense in a way, and Philly but LA has its advantages due to its size and the metro area. Kinda like Houston (although Houston is smaller nature), Los Angeles has that multiple cities in one vibe going. Its not just all centralized, but spread out and allows for some unique urbanism found in few American cities.

Even if we look at the NYC metro, there are areas where its extremely dense, and than it drops off dramatically. LA though retains this urban built environment that gives the illusion that it extends into the horizon if you see some aerial pics.

Chicago has this effect to an extent, but I think LA's multi-nodal nature gives it a perceptual edge.

[Investing In Chicago]

In my opinion, the only two cities that are in contention are Chicago and LA.

I look at this question from two angles:
1. Intensity
2. Scale

NYC is clearly #1 in both Intensity and Scale, but after that things become more interesting.

Chicago, Philly, SF, Boston all have very similar intensity, SF may have a slightly higher peak than the other 4, but it is over a very small area - Tenderloin/Union Square area. LA / DC are probably a notch below the others in terms of Intensity.

As for scale, LA is clearly ahead of Chicago, Philly, SF, Boston - it's urban area is just so vast, even if it isn't traditional urbanism. Chicago is the very clear #2 of this group in terms of scale, with either Philly or SF after that.

Not saying this is the only approach to the question, but when I look at it this way, the only two logical answers are Chicago and LA.

I can't think of any argument for Boston or DC being most urban (after NYC), they are just too far behind the others in scale.

[CaliNative]

A city may be "urban", dense and full of activity, but do you want to walk there? Should safety and low rates of violent crime be a consideration? Can an ugly, "gritty" and high crime city be urban? Tokyo and Singapore are very urban, but also quite safe. Can a largely planned (mostly) new city like Dubai be urban in the best sense, or must urbanity include a mix of historical structures and neighborhoods as are found in NYC, Boston, Chicago, SF etc.? The best cities include a mix of old and new. While L.A. bulldozed the old Victorian buildings on Bunker Hill, fortunately many of the old buildings and theaters remain standing in the Broadway area and are being refurbished.

[homebucket]

The results of the poll show that the second most urban city in the US out of Chicago, Philly, SF, LA, Boston is the one that is closest to the voter!

[iheartthed]

If we're going to define urbanity as a spectrum, and treat NYC as the most pure example of it, then I think there isn't a clear second place. We have about 4 or 5 cities that are grouped very closely to each other after NYC, and we all more or less agree on those cities: Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, San Francisco, D.C.