HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


View Poll Results: What is the second most urban US city after NYC?
Boston 3 5.00%
Chicago 28 46.67%
DC 0 0%
LA 6 10.00%
Philly 7 11.67%
San Francisco 16 26.67%
some other city 0 0%
Voters: 60. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #201  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2019, 3:57 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,635
here we are on page 11 and the best answer to the OP's question is still the one given in the 3rd post of the thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
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.

there is no clear-cut consensus answer for the #2 most urban US city because there simply isn't one.

no city stands head and shoulders above the other contenders for #2 the way that NYC does at #1.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.

Last edited by Steely Dan; Oct 16, 2019 at 4:11 PM.
     
     
  #202  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2019, 3:57 PM
destroycreate's Avatar
destroycreate destroycreate is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by The North One View Post
The good thing about wide streets is that they can be pretty easily redesigned. Increase the width of the sidewalks, add street trees, remove mediums, add bike lanes, or add some light rail and it becomes a totally different experience.
Agreed. If only LA would plant tree/landscaping medians between those wide streets it would be such a different experience. Melrose could really use that, similar to what they did on Rodeo Drive (IMO one of the most stunning streets in the whole country, but from what I've seen it's only done in the wealthiest of areas):

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0688...7i13312!8i6656
__________________
**23 years on SSP!**
Previously known as LaJollaCA
https://www.instagram.com/itspeterchristian/
     
     
  #203  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2019, 3:58 PM
LA21st LA21st is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,992
Good points but I disagree with the Santa Monica Blvd. I think the Golden Triangle/Beverly Drive is right there with Hollywood as well. Historic Core/Little Tokyo is still better than both, imo. And I think it will only get betterr as the Arts District expands. Stil, Spring and Broadway are pretty cohesive from 3rd to Olympic (8-9 blocks).

It's not SF walkablity, but because LA has SO MANY of these those areas, it just adds up. Fairfax, Abbot Kinney, Westwood, etc.
And because it's adding mixed use developments everywhere, pedestrian activity is increasing. Just look at Miracle Mile on Wilshire, between La Brea and Fairfax. It's changed a ton in the past 5 years. Same with La Brea/Santa Monica Blvd.

Last edited by LA21st; Oct 16, 2019 at 4:29 PM.
     
     
  #204  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2019, 4:11 PM
The North One's Avatar
The North One The North One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by destroycreate View Post
Agreed. If only LA would plant tree/landscaping medians between those wide streets it would be such a different experience. Melrose could really use that, similar to what they did on Rodeo Drive (IMO one of the most stunning streets in the whole country, but from what I've seen it's only done in the wealthiest of areas):

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0688...7i13312!8i6656
I mean medians are usually not preferable. It's much better to put that space to use for other things like larger sidewalks or sidewalk level bike lanes or just reducing the size of the road in general. Even street parking is arguably a better use.
__________________
Spawn of questionable parentage!
     
     
  #205  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2019, 4:35 PM
destroycreate's Avatar
destroycreate destroycreate is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by LA21st View Post
Good points but I disagree with the Santa Monica Blvd. I think the Golden Triangle/Beverly Drive is right there with Hollywood as well. Historic Core/Little Tokyo is still better than both, imo. And I think it will only get betterr as the Arts District expands. Stil, Spring and Broadway are pretty cohesive from 3rd to Olympic (8-9 blocks).

It's not SF walkablity, but because LA has SO MANY of these those areas, it just adds up. Fairfax, Abbot Kinney, Westwood, etc.
And because it's adding mixed use developments everywhere, pedestrian activity is increasing. Just look at Miracle Mile on Wilshire, between La Brea and Fairfax. It's changed a ton in the past 5 years. Same with La Brea/Santa Monica Blvd.
Interesting, (new to LA here) I thought Miracle Mile always looked this way given the bulk of the buildings look pre-war. What exactly changed?
__________________
**23 years on SSP!**
Previously known as LaJollaCA
https://www.instagram.com/itspeterchristian/
     
     
  #206  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2019, 4:37 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876 View Post
^^^^

Imagine if they rezoned that whole section in the last pic. Hundreds of thousands of much needed units could be added.
A total rezoning isn't necessary (not to mention the citizenry wouldn't stand for it).

See that 6-lane roadway going directly to the ocean in the left-center of the photo? That's Geary Blvd, one of the city's widest streets. Currently there has been a BRT system planned for it but it really needs a subway in the downtown area and a surface LRV in a dedicated center section of the street the rest of the way to the ocean.

If that were done, Geary could be lined with 9-12 story multifamily residential buildings with ground floor retail (it is already one of the city's most important neighborhhood shopping streets) which, due to its length, could go a long way to accommodating the city's housing demand all by itself. However, there are a couple more specific streets (e.g. 3rd St) where you could do the same without any need at all to disrupt the fabric (or confront the desires) of single family neighborhoods.
     
     
  #207  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2019, 4:43 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by The North One View Post
I mean medians are usually not preferable. It's much better to put that space to use for other things like larger sidewalks or sidewalk level bike lanes or just reducing the size of the road in general. Even street parking is arguably a better use.
Or transit (rail or BRT) with a dedicated right of way which is what SF is finally doing on 3 of its widest streets (3 of only 5 I can think of with medians, one other already having a "modern streetcar" above and subway below).
     
     
  #208  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2019, 4:47 PM
LA21st LA21st is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,992
Quote:
Originally Posted by destroycreate View Post
Interesting, (new to LA here) I thought Miracle Mile always looked this way given the bulk of the buildings look pre-war. What exactly changed?
There's been several new 6-7 story complexes added. They used to be parking lots or small structures.
     
     
  #209  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2019, 4:53 PM
edale edale is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 2,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by destroycreate View Post
So I live in the heart of Koreatown (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0617...7i16384!8i8192) and I find the area so interesting because it is extremely dense, but often a very hostile enviornment for the walker. Walkability (i.e. proximity to restaurants, bars, stores) from a practical standpoint is one thing, but is it walking-friendly? LOL. Two things I think we should differentiate more here on this site.

I've been here in LA for a year and the thing I've come to conclusion is that it's a very unique city in built form (as we've already covered) in that everything looks hyper dense in a lot of places, but because the blocks are huge, the streets so wide (with many speeding cars to boot, I've never encountered the kind of reckless drivers like I do here which makes it horrifying as a pedestrian) even those that are residential, it is not particularly pleasant to take walks. While it's not that you "don't see any pedestrians" after driving around for 10min, it's for sure you don't see the packed sidewalks like you do in other cities. It's what I miss SO much about Seattle and SF from when I lived there...just walking out my door and getting lost in the city for a day. In LA, it's really hard to have that experience....and the most busy parts of the city in terms of pedestrians, are not always the safest for someone who looks like me (i.e. Westlake) if I'm honest.
Precisely. I live in LA and there is so much to enjoy about the city and metro area, but from a pedestrian standpoint, it largely sucks. It is very dense, but walking any sort of distance is just super unpleasant in 90% of the city. When I lived in DC, I used to love to just walk out my door, find a neighborhood or point of interest many miles away, and just walk for hours exploring the city and eventually take the metro back home when I got tired or reached my destination. When I've tried to do this in LA, it has been terribly unpleasant. The street widths, amount of cars, tons of curb cuts and auto-centric developments (strip malls, auto repair shops, drive thrus), fencing, lack of tree canopy, ugly architecture on the commercial streets....yeah, not pleasant.

This is Vermont Ave. Arguably LA's best served transit corridor outside of Wilshire and possibly Hollywood, and close to where I live. Does this look like a great urban street to walk down?
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0834...7i13312!8i6656

Compare this to Connecticut Ave, one of DC's main arteries but also super pleasant to walk down.
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9125...7i16384!8i8192

This is what I meant when I said LA is massive but not traditionally urban like SF, DC, NYC, Chicago, Boston, Philly. I would bet the population density is higher in the neighborhoods around my Vermont Ave example in LA than around Connecticut Ave in DC. If not denser, at least comparable. But those density numbers don't translate to traditional urbanity and walkability.

* FYI, before I get accused of being an LA hater, I very much enjoy this city. The culture, access to nature, endless things to do, diversity...basically unmatched. *
     
     
  #210  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2019, 5:09 PM
skysoar skysoar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
here we are on page 11 and the best answer to the OP's question is still the one given in the 3rd post of the thread:




there is no clear-cut consensus answer for the #2 most urban US city because there simply isn't one.

no city stands head and shoulders above the other contenders for #2 the way that NYC does at #1.
I totally disagree, Chicago is clearly above the others, in my opinion. The sheer magnitude of Chicagos urbanity is un- matched outside of N.Y.C . The problem is there is no consensus of what constitutes urbanity, is it size?is it scale? is it East coast urbanity or West coast urbanity. One question I would add, if NYC was made up like D.C, with limited height of buildings would it still be seen as far superior to other cities? um..therein lies my choice of Chicago, scale is very underated.
     
     
  #211  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2019, 5:17 PM
homebucket homebucket is offline
你的媽媽
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Bay
Posts: 8,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by edale View Post
Precisely. I live in LA and there is so much to enjoy about the city and metro area, but from a pedestrian standpoint, it largely sucks. It is very dense, but walking any sort of distance is just super unpleasant in 90% of the city. When I lived in DC, I used to love to just walk out my door, find a neighborhood or point of interest many miles away, and just walk for hours exploring the city and eventually take the metro back home when I got tired or reached my destination. When I've tried to do this in LA, it has been terribly unpleasant. The street widths, amount of cars, tons of curb cuts and auto-centric developments (strip malls, auto repair shops, drive thrus), fencing, lack of tree canopy, ugly architecture on the commercial streets....yeah, not pleasant.

This is Vermont Ave. Arguably LA's best served transit corridor outside of Wilshire and possibly Hollywood, and close to where I live. Does this look like a great urban street to walk down?
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0834...7i13312!8i6656

Compare this to Connecticut Ave, one of DC's main arteries but also super pleasant to walk down.
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9125...7i16384!8i8192

This is what I meant when I said LA is massive but not traditionally urban like SF, DC, NYC, Chicago, Boston, Philly. I would bet the population density is higher in the neighborhoods around my Vermont Ave example in LA than around Connecticut Ave in DC. If not denser, at least comparable. But those density numbers don't translate to traditional urbanity and walkability.

* FYI, before I get accused of being an LA hater, I very much enjoy this city. The culture, access to nature, endless things to do, diversity...basically unmatched. *
This is correct. Density does not necessarily correlate with traditional urbanity. LA is still too auto-centric and pedestrian unfriendly to be considered in the "second most urban city" group with SF, Chicago, Philly, Boston, DC. It's improving, but it's not there yet. You can't spend a day wandering about (on foot only) like you can in the other second tier urban cities. I mean, I guess you could, but it wouldn't be enjoyable.
     
     
  #212  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2019, 5:17 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by skysoar View Post
I totally disagree, Chicago is clearly above the others, in my opinion. The sheer magnitude of Chicagos urbanity is un- matched outside of N.Y.C . The problem is there is no consensus of what constitutes urbanity, is it size?is it scale? is it East coast urbanity or West coast urbanity. One question I would add, if NYC was made up like D.C, with limited height of buildings would it still be seen as far superior to other cities? um..therein lies my choice of Chicago, scale is very underated.
Brooklyn has relatively few skyscrapers, but if it were its own city, it would be - by far - the most densely populated major city in the country.
     
     
  #213  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2019, 5:18 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by skysoar View Post
I totally disagree, Chicago is clearly above the others, in my opinion.
but that's just your opinion, and you know what they say about opinions*

the various responses given so far in the previous 10 pages of this thread literally prove that there is no clear-cut CONSENSUS #2.

i don't know how you can disagree with a fact like that, but the silliness found on the internet never ceases to amaze/bewilder.




(*) opinions are a lot like assholes; everybody has one and they're often full of shit.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.
     
     
  #214  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2019, 5:25 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
Brooklyn has relatively few skyscrapers, but if it were its own city, it would be - by far - the most densely populated major city in the country.
And the Bronx has far fewer skyscrapers (I guess none if 500 ft. is cutoff) yet has significantly higher weighted density than Brooklyn.

Skyscrapers have almost nothing to do with NYC's density/urbanity. Even highrises are largely irrelevent. NYC is unusually dense/urban because there's a shitload of midrise apartment neighborhoods.
     
     
  #215  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2019, 5:38 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,635
urban cities

i've added a poll to this thread to see if there's any kind of consensus on this topic or not.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.
     
     
  #216  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2019, 5:38 PM
skysoar skysoar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 238
Last thing I will say on this topic. Everything we speak on this forum is opinionated, and my opinion like yours is the one we are best qualified to give. If you had fully read my response it was also my assestment based on what I perceive. We can all disagree, some believe its Boston, some agree with Philadelphia, some agree its other cities, others probably agree with you, that is fine. What I did not know is that we all had to agree with you to be considered internet intelligent.
     
     
  #217  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2019, 5:46 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,635
^ you completely missed my point.

i actually agree with your opinion. if i had a gun to my head, i'd say that chicago, in aggregate, is the second most urban after NYC, but i wasn't talking about my opinion.

i was talking about the fact that there is no clear-cut CONSENSUS #2 that stands above all of the others the way that NYC does at #1.

please pay attention to the word "consensus" in the sentence above, i've tried to draw attention to it because it is an extremely important word in that sentence.

you said you disagreed with that fact which is just weird.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.
     
     
  #218  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2019, 5:47 PM
edale edale is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 2,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by skysoar View Post
One question I would add, if NYC was made up like D.C, with limited height of buildings would it still be seen as far superior to other cities? um..therein lies my choice of Chicago, scale is very underated.
Yes, if NYC was entirely low rise and still had the same population density, it would still be seen as far superior to rest of America's cities. It would basically have to resemble something like Paris to accommodate all those people, which of course is one of the best and most urban cities in the world.

If height and scale were of primary importance in deciding what is or isn't most urban, Dubai would be more urban than Paris. There isn't just one factor you can put over the rest in this conversation, and there ultimately isn't one correct answer here.
     
     
  #219  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2019, 5:51 PM
sopas ej's Avatar
sopas ej sopas ej is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Pasadena, California
Posts: 6,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by LA21st View Post
There's been several new 6-7 story complexes added. They used to be parking lots or small structures.
And some of those surface parking lots used to be buildings. Up until the early 80s, there was a big Streamline Moderne department store called The Broadway on the Miracle Mile, but when the Beverly Center opened, The Broadway moved there, and the old building on Wilshire was knocked down, and it was a vacant lot for DECADES. I think there were plans in the mid-80s to build something there, probably an office development, but those plans fell through.
__________________
"I guess the only time people think about injustice is when it happens to them."

~ Charles Bukowski
     
     
  #220  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2019, 6:01 PM
Segun's Avatar
Segun Segun is offline
<-- Chicago's roots.
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,929
Quote:
Originally Posted by edale View Post
. When I've tried to do this in LA, it has been terribly unpleasant. The street widths, amount of cars, tons of curb cuts and auto-centric developments (strip malls, auto repair shops, drive thrus), fencing, lack of tree canopy, ugly architecture on the commercial streets....yeah, not pleasant.
I challenge anyone on the forum to do this. I've walked from Hollywood to the Beach, making stops in some of the busier areas. At times I was the only person on the sidewalk for long periods. Thank goodness I had alcohol.

I understand the fundamental comparison between places like Tokyo, Sao Paulo, Jakarta, etc. I've been to Tokyo, Rio, and Sao Paulo, and witnessed the sheer amount of pedestrians at every corner of the city as well as the traffic. Downtown Sao Paulo was as crowded as NYC. I've only seen places like Jakarta in footage and pictures. I see streets full of crowded sidewalks that could probably put NYC to shame. IMO, that's too extreme to just overlook.

I've also spent considerable time in Accra and Kumasi, cities with almost no public transit. The central areas are super-crowded with pedestrians and pedestrians walk alongside the road everywhere you go.

IMO, all of LA's comparable peer cities in infrastructure are in the US: Relatively quiet downtown, sporadic areas of pedestrian activity, and traffic out this World. Visit Atlanta, some of the streets are downright sleepy, but then you see what looks like a 16 lane highway moving at 5 mph, or bumper to bumper traffic on some of it's major streets. As I said before, it does add to the electricity of the city. Those people are driving somewhere.

LA is amazing because its the only megacity where you'll find this phenomenon across large stretches.
__________________
Songs of the minute - Flavour - Ijele (Feat. Zoro)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjEFGpnkL38

Common - Resurrection (Video Mix)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmOd0GKuztE
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Closed Thread

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:14 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.