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

[LA21st]

Again, where exactly are you seeing these no pedestrian zones for an hour? You didn't answer the quesiton before, and it's hard to take seriously. Even wealthy places like Brentwood and Pacific Palisades have commercial districts with pedestrians.

if you compared to those other cities, yes, it will seem like nothing. But that is true for DC, Chicago, Philly, Boston etc. They won't match that intensity either.

Not even sure why those other cities are mentioned here, since this thread is about American cities.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by skysoar

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.

Yeah it's pretty obvious, I don't know why people are suddenly tap dancing and obfuscating in here. it's clear in every other thread when we talk about urbanism. There is no other US city outside NYC that has the extensive walkable neighborhoods and urban corridors with decent public transit and street walls. In Chicago it just goes on for miles and miles in all directions.

[Chisouthside]

Ive walked from Boyle Heights to macarthur park and besides downtown and wilshire closer to macarthur park, walking through LA didnt feel very pedestrian friendly. I've also walked from downtown to dodger stadium and that seemed like a nightmare tbh. Granted LA is huge and there just a couple of examples. Also i do feel like walking is stigmatized in LA given the super autocentric culture there. I dont know if it's because the homeless walk everywhere and the poor have to take public transport but I definitely got that vibe from friends who are locals who questioned why i would bother walking anywhere. San Francisco's NORTHEAST quadrant in my opinion is super urban and walkable but most places outside of that quadrant leave alot to be desired tbh.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by edale

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 a similar situation to what one finds in Miami. Miami/South Florida is very densely populated. But most of it is jam-packed dense, auto-centric suburbia... with all the trappings as you describe in LA. South Miami Beach is really the only significantly-sized pedestrian-oriented environment.

Originally Posted by Crawford

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.

Exactly. While Midtown is obviously urban, it certainly doesn't represent the type of dense, active, accessible urbanity one experiences Downtown or in Brooklyn.

Originally Posted by skysoar

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.

I think urbanity as "classically" defined is characterized by human-scaled environment (there's probably more to add):

- high structural density
- high population density
- walkable blocks/non-auto oriented design
- mass transit
- architectural variety
- architectural/historical preservation
- diverse function (i.e., residential, retail, commercial, institutional, etc.)
- accessible public spaces
- local "flavor" to all of the above

I think that, in general, the less car-dependent/car-designed an area of a city is, the more urban it tends to be perceived by most people.

Originally Posted by skysoar

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?

Yes.

If Manhattan was filled with nothing but 10-story and less buildings, it would still be the most urban environment in the nation.

[Chisouthside]

Even when the NYC skyline stagnated for so many years they have tons and tons of neighborhoods with the sweet spot of apartment buildings with the sweetspot floorcount of between 4-10.

[Handro]

Originally Posted by The North One

Yeah it's pretty obvious, I don't know why people are suddenly tap dancing and obfuscating in here. it's clear in every other thread when we talk about urbanism. There is no other US city outside NYC that has the extensive walkable neighborhoods and urban corridors with decent public transit and street walls. In Chicago it just goes on for miles and miles in all directions.

Is there another US city besides NYC and Chicago in which you can walk in a straight-ish line from a hypothetical Point A 15 miles to a hypothetical point B through a practically unbroken urban street wall? Maybe Boston (if you include the near-ring suburbs that are basically Boston-light)?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Handro

Is there another US city besides NYC and Chicago in which you can walk in a straight-ish line from a hypothetical Point A 15 miles to a hypothetical point B through a practically unbroken urban street wall? Maybe Boston (if you include the near-ring suburbs that are basically Boston-light)?

I don't think you can do that in either city. NYC has rivers, and Chicago has no such corridor (somewhere like Clark Street is pretty damn long but not 15 miles and has lots of not particularly pedestrian friendly stretches). I think LA would probably be the best candidate for "15 miles of relative solid urbanity", due to Wilshire, but it's never really a great walking environment.

The better question is whether there's any city that's an outlier in terms of residents living in high density tracts, and there isn't, really. Chicago, SF, DC, Boston and Philly are pretty similar. SF is actually tops on this metric, which isn't shocking.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Handro

Is there another US city besides NYC and Chicago in which you can walk in a straight-ish line from a hypothetical Point A 15 miles to a hypothetical point B through a practically unbroken urban street wall? Maybe Boston (if you include the near-ring suburbs that are basically Boston-light)?

I think you could hypothetically do that in all of the cities we're discussing. It will either be 15 miles or the limit of the city.

I think San Francisco and Boston would beat out Chicago if we measured by how thoroughly developed the cities are within the boundaries. While San Francisco does, puzzlingly, still have some surface parking eyesores near downtown, I don't think I've ever seen a vacant lot or abandoned building in that entire city. Ditto Boston.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Handro

Is there another US city besides NYC and Chicago in which you can walk in a straight-ish line from a hypothetical Point A 15 miles to a hypothetical point B through a practically unbroken urban street wall? Maybe Boston (if you include the near-ring suburbs that are basically Boston-light)?

Philadelphia, maybe?

I'm thinking Broad St. has to be around 15 miles from South Philly around the stadiums/Packer Park up to North Philly/Cheltenham area. Or up Broad and veering NW off onto Germantown Ave. thru Germantown, Mt. Airy, and Chestnut Hill.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Chicago has no such corridor (somewhere like Clark Street is pretty damn long but not 15 miles and has lots of not particularly pedestrian friendly stretches).

the clark street corridor from printer's row up to downtown evanston is 13 miles long, but there are definitely some gaps, particularly the stretches that go past the cemeteries along the route.

[Handro]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I think you could hypothetically do that in all of the cities we're discussing. It will either be 15 miles or the limit of the city.

I think San Francisco and Boston would beat out Chicago if we measured by how thoroughly developed the cities are within the boundaries. While San Francisco does, puzzlingly, still have some surface parking eyesores near downtown, I don't think I've ever seen a vacant lot or abandoned building in that entire city. Ditto Boston.

That's my point--urbanity AND sheer size combine to make these the clear #1 and #2 (NYC and Chicago, respectively.)

Boston is dense and urban, but on a smaller scale. Ditto San Francisco and DC.

Originally Posted by pj3000

Philadelphia, maybe?

I'm thinking Broad St. has to be around 15 miles from South Philly around the stadiums/Packer Park up to North Philly/Cheltenham area. Or up Broad and veering NW off onto Germantown Ave. thru Germantown, Mt. Airy, and Chestnut Hill.

I've never made it to Philly so I couldn't say.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

the clark street corridor from printer's row up to downtown evanston is 13 miles long, but there are definitely some gaps, particularly the stretches that go past the cemeteries along the route.

And there are stretches of so-so urbanity. Not exactly pedestrian hostile, but not very pleasant, like Clark in Lakeview:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/N+...!4d-87.6449142

In Lakeview south of Belmont, Broadway, not Clark, is the pedestrian-friendly corridor.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Handro

That's my point--urbanity AND sheer size combine to make these the clear #1 and #2 (NYC and Chicago, respectively.)

I think that's a very narrow way to look at it (for the purposes of this discussion). This would favor Chicago over many European cities, such as Paris or Barcelona.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I think that's a very narrow way to look at it (for the purposes of this discussion). This would favor Chicago over many European cities, such as Paris or Barcelona.

It would even arguably favor Toronto over London or Paris. Yonge is pretty intense and at least semi pedestrian friendly for like 12 miles (except I think right around the 401).

I don't understand why density/urbanity along a single street is somehow more important than density/urbanity overall.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I think you could hypothetically do that in all of the cities we're discussing. It will either be 15 miles or the limit of the city.

I think San Francisco and Boston would beat out Chicago if we measured by how thoroughly developed the cities are within the boundaries. While San Francisco does, puzzlingly, still have some surface parking eyesores near downtown, I don't think I've ever seen a vacant lot or abandoned building in that entire city. Ditto Boston.

They’re both less than 50 square miles.

[dave8721]

You could easily do a 10 mile walk in a straight line up Collins Ave in Miami Beach and never leave a densely populated census tract but you would hit that mid-beach-not-so-pedestrian-friendly area around the Fontainebleau for a mile or so. A good argument for a single 15 mile urban corridor does not always make a city urban.

[Handro]

Originally Posted by Crawford

It would even arguably favor Toronto over London or Paris. Yonge is pretty intense and at least semi pedestrian friendly for like 12 miles (except I think right around the 401).

I don't understand why density/urbanity along a single street is somehow more important than density/urbanity overall.

You're the one who made the singular case for Clark... there are numerous roadways on which you can walk for miles and not come acorss long stretches like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0621...7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0621...7i16384!8i8192


The point is you can walk for miles--without zigzagging--in Chicago along any number of routes and remain in walkable neighborhoods with street fronting homes and businesses.

Clearly there are few cities--if more than two--that you are able to do that.

Chicago, New York--maybe Philadelphia? Maybe Boston?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

And there are stretches of so-so urbanity. Not exactly pedestrian hostile, but not very pleasant, like Clark in Lakeview:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/N+...!4d-87.6449142

oh for sure, i never disputed the gaps. i was just pointing out that the overall corridor does approach 15 miles in length.

chicago is like swiss cheese. extremely delicious, but oh so many '70s/'80s poor decision strip mall/drive-thru "holes" all over the place.

a boutique city like boston is more like cheddar. also extremely delicious, and generally more solid.

the big difference between the two is that there's just a lot more cheese in chicago, even if it is "holey" as fuck.


as to which "urban cheese" is tastier, well, enter the subjectivity of taste.

and here we are on page 12 splitting the same old hairs, going around in circles.

[pj3000]

^ Chicago and Boston are so fucking cheesy

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Handro

You're the one who made the singular case for Clark... there are numerous roadways on which you can walk for miles and not come acorss long stretches like this:

Because Clark is probably the best example in Chicago. The only other options I can think of are Lincoln and Milwaukee, and they probably have more breaks.

Originally Posted by Handro

The point is you can walk for miles--without zigzagging--in Chicago along any number of routes and remain in walkable neighborhoods with street fronting homes and businesses.

But you can do this in all these cities, except SF. You can walk right up Wisconsin, or Connecticut, in DC, for about 10 miles each, and it will always be quasi urban and walkable. You can walk up and down Broad in Philly for about 10 miles. You can walk Mass or Dot Ave. in Boston for many miles.

And again, I don't see the relevance. I don't think you can do this in London, because the commercial activity is more in nodes rather than corridors. But why does this matter? Linear urbanity is more of a recent phenomenon, I think.