Quote:
Originally Posted by JAYNYC
L.A. gets little to no respect in this forum, which is comprised of many Midwestern and Northeastern boosters. It is easily the #2 most urban area after NYC (I've lived in both).
San Francisco is easily #3 (lived there, too).
Philly, Boston, and then D.C. follow, in that order (#4-6).
Chicago is undoubtedly the second most most vertical in the U.S. after NYC. But it becomes pretty suburban, though, beyond the loop and southside. Even within the loop it isn't as urban as San Francisco (as seen in a previous poster's Google Street View comparison of the two). Numerous wide one-way streets, trees planted along sidewalks, less rail, less street-level activity, etc. Big city, tall city - just nowhere near as urban as those listed above.
|
I agree.
Overall it's NY then
2] Los Angeles, then
3] Chicago, then
If we're only talking about CBDs then it's NY, then Chicago, then probably SF
Los Angeles maintains it's extreme
urbanity for at least 100 square miles [that's an extremely conservative figure], not including all the other dense nodes all around the greater LA area. Remember the ol' LA has a SF in it map?
Boston, Philly, Seattle, have small dense cores that quickly fade out to very low dense surroundings. The Southside of Chicago has been emptying out for decades now.
https://goo.gl/maps/c4yMcFfrdcpy952g9