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

[BnaBreaker]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

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.

This is a shot from literally the last east-west street still within the Chicago city limits on the northside, about ten miles as the crow flies from the center of The Loop:

https://goo.gl/maps/qfsDGyfp4KpqWLLz8

[LA21st]

K

Originally Posted by Segun

^ That's like the bungalow belt with more highrises. Spaces like those single family homes would be a premium in the livelier parts of Chicago. The single family homes not in the bungalow belt are more like narrow shacks in some of the older working class areas of the city. It's hard to quantify (unless some nerd wants to start measuring streets), but I'd say that Chicago has the 2nd largest quantity of 3-4 (in Chicago's case 2.5) story streets with the cozy urban tunnel effect, where you feel a bit walled it, on both the commercial and residential side.

The bungalow belt has more in common to the Sfv than this part of la .
I've lived in both

For all your talk about sleepiness In la, Chicago does that too with the bungalow belt..
Those aren't vibrant areas. I was amazed how quiet some of those neighborhoods are.
Nice, but sleepy and quiet as hell. Many look like they haven't changed since the 1970s.

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by BnaBreaker

This is a shot from literally the last east-west street still within the Chicago city limits on the northside, about ten miles as the crow flies from the center of The Loop:

https://goo.gl/maps/qfsDGyfp4KpqWLLz8

A sleepy, tree-lined block containing one martial arts studio, one hardware store, one tax office and three senior-aged pedestrians. Clearly, the definition of vibrant urbanity. What was I thinking?

[BnaBreaker]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

A sleepy, tree-lined block containing one martial arts studio, one hardware store, one tax office and three senior-aged pedestrians. Clearly, the definition of vibrant urbanity. What was I thinking?

Come on now, don't move the goalposts. You can admit that you were wrong, it's okay. The issue of vibrancy was never raised by you until after the fact. What was in question was your comically uninformed assertion that Chicago is 'suburban' outside of The Loop. Perhaps the issue here is that you're obviously just making up your own definition of "urban" as you go along to suit your own needs as they pertain to this conversation. In the context of this thread, the word refers to development forms and patterns, not whether there are trees or how many hipsters are on their way to a coffee shop in a particular picture. Vibrancy is fluid. Is an urban area with a bustling daytime population suddenly no-longer urban at 3AM when nobody is on the street?

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ here you go.

Thanks!

[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.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

A sleepy, tree-lined block containing one martial arts studio, one hardware store, one tax office and three senior-aged pedestrians. Clearly, the definition of vibrant urbanity. What was I thinking?

I lived 2 miles from Howard. I wouldn't call it sleepy, but it sure isn't a place to hang out in.
Very sketchy.
It's busier than what Google image suggests, which is why we shouldn't take those snaps shots seriously for anywhere.

[Sun Belt]

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

[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!

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by BnaBreaker

Come on now, don't move the goalposts. You can admit that you were wrong, it's okay. The issue of vibrancy was never raised by you until after the fact. What was in question was your comically uninformed assertion that Chicago is 'suburban' outside of The Loop. Perhaps the issue here is that you're obviously just making up your own definition of "urban" as you go along to suit your own needs as they pertain to this conversation. In the context of this thread, the word refers to development forms and patterns, not whether there are trees or how many hipsters are on their way to a coffee shop in a particular picture. Vibrancy is fluid. Is an urban area with a bustling daytime population suddenly no-longer urban at 3AM when nobody is on the street?

My opinion is that Chicago is less "urban" than New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Philly, Boston and D.C. Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend / accept?

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

My opinion is that Chicago is less "urban" than New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Philly, Boston and D.C. Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend / accept?

You are entitled to your opinion, but some opinions are just stupid, and the bolded below falls in that category:

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

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.

[Steely Dan]

so with 50 votes now cast, this poll has done exaclty what i had hoped it would do: demonstrate that there is no clear-cut consensus #2 most urban city in the US.

all we are left with is a bunch of subjective and varying opinions, which is fine, but there is nothing definitive here like there is for #1.

but i am a tiny bit surprised that DC hasn't garnered a single vote yet. come on, someone be brave and show DC some love too

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

so with 50 votes now cast, this poll has done exaclty what i had hoped it would do: demonstrate that there is no clear-cut consensus #2 most urban city in the US.

all we are left with is a bunch of subjective and varying opinions, which is fine, but there is nothing definitive here like there is for #1.

This ^ is not entirely true. With 50 votes cast, literally everyone (as in, 100% of voters) agree that #2 is clearly one of the 6 cities listed, as opposed to "some other city".

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

This ^ is not entirely true. With 50 votes cast, literally everyone (as in, 100% of voters) agree that #2 is clearly one of the 6 cities listed, as opposed to "some other city".

well, duh.

i was talking about the fact that the poll demonstrates there is no SINGLE clear-cut consensus #2 most urban city in the US on this forum.

happy now?

[homebucket]

Based on the poll, at least one consensus determination can be made.

DC is not in the running for 2nd most urban city in the US.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

but i am a tiny bit surprised that DC hasn't garnered a single vote yet. come on, someone be brave and show DC some love too

I think DC is a semi-plausible choice, in that it's arguably the second most cosmopolitan city and arguably has the second most desirable city core (in terms of rents and building valuation). I believe it has the second highest transit share. It also has an enormous, contiguous city core. It's probably the second most iconic, globally recognizable core. If a disaster movie destroys two U.S. cities, it's probably NYC and DC.

Granted, none of these characteristics directly speak to relative urbanity, but they're all (arguably) somewhat related.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

but i am a tiny bit surprised that DC hasn't garnered a single vote yet. come on, someone be brave and show DC some love too

IMO, D.C.'s large blocks make it a little less pedestrian friendly than every other city on that list, besides L.A.

[Steely Dan]

* posts deleted *

a not-so-friendly reminder to stay on topic and discuss the topic, not where you think other forumers are from and how you interpret their geographical location being an influence on their opinions.

all further such off-topic stupidity will also be swiftly and summarily disposed of.

[BnaBreaker]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

My opinion is that Chicago is less "urban" than New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Philly, Boston and D.C. Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend / accept?

There you go once again moving the goalposts on me. I said nothing about your ranking. Are you at all capable of just having a straight, honest conversation with someone? Once again, I was specifically addressing your bizarre claim that Chicago is "suburban" outside of The Loop, which is obviously not the case. You are free to have whatever opinions you'd like, dear, however uninformed they might be. It doesn't matter to me.

[Cirrus]

It's an interesting phenomenon that DC clearly belongs in the immediately-below-New York tier along with all these other cities, but there's not much case for it being #2. If you care mostly about a large expanse of never-ending urban neighborhoods, DC holds its own against SF or Boston, but can't measure against Chicago or Philadelphia. If you care mostly about peak density/urbanity then DC holds its own against Chicago & Philly but can't measure against SF or Boston.

So I might object if anyone said DC doesn't belong in this discussion at all, but even I don't think there's much case for it being number 2.

That said, since we're now on page 14, if we wanted to ID categories in which DC had an argument for number 2, I can think of two: Transit ridership and size of downtown. WRT transit, DC, Chicago, and SF are clearly above Boston and Philadelphia, with year-to-year and raw-vs-per-capita differences. WRT downtown size, DC vs Chicago are well ahead of the others, and the choice between them is the peak vs area difference again, but this time Chicago has the peak instead of the area.