New Census data: Americans are returning to the far-flung suburbs

[Segun]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Good list JP, and the recommendations are certainly agreeable. Same general idea here, but I'd expand that idea a bit to divide the US & Canada's major cities into 5 defined tiers & sub-tiers.

1. New York. It's really in a league of its own - whether in size, in density, transit usage, housing types, pedestrian traffic, or vibrancy. An urban lifestyle is not only common, its the norm here. It's the only city comparable in form & function to the cities of the Old World.

2. Urban cities. Here, living in an urban format is effortless and normal, with a significant portion of the population of all types (but not the majority) doing so. In these cities, most people are apartment dwellers, transit service is extensive & widely used, urban amenities are plentiful, streets are vibrant, density is moderately high, and downtowns still function as the economic & cultural core of the region. Some reached their urban peak in the mid 20th century while others have more urban stock now than ever, but all have seen continued development and are still desirable, prosperous places.

3. New Urban cities. Having seen most of their development in the 20th century, they don't have as much of a legacy urban core to draw upon as the second tier cities (nor have they been as intensely developed as some of the others in recent years), but have nonetheless managed to avoid having their cores hollowed and have made great strides in recent decades to build up. Suburban living still dominates, but the urban cores and TODs are substantial - and growing.

4. Rustbelt. These cities benefit from a legacy urban core that peaked in the prewar era, many of them with more solid bones than third tier and even some second tier cities, but have since declined with most growth not only occurring in the suburbs, but happening at the expense of the city - which now suffer from high crime, low growth, low desirability, and poor economies, and in turn, struggle to attract development and the ability to re-urbanize. Those in the 4A category prominently feature things like rowhouses & apartments on the cityscape, and along with rapid transit systems make an urban lifestyle possible, but not as many people are doing so as could be, especially compared to what once was. Those in the 4B category however have always been a bit less intensely urban in form, which coupled with the post-war decline, make urban living unlikely or at least difficult today.

5. Sprawlers. These cities are defined by their post-war suburban sprawl, but those in the 5A category at least have seen a fair bit of modern infill and rapid transit development, and now generally offer greater urban amenities than the 4B cities - and may eventually eclipse even the 4A cities. Urban living is a bit niche and doesn't hold widespread appeal, but is still possible, and the downtowns at least are still major employment centres. The 5B cities however are little more than monolithic suburbs and show little sign of being able to change that. A bit of an outlier, but I would also include Detroit in this category, despite being quintessentially "rust belt", as its urban core is just so far gone that most of what exists is firmly suburban in form & use.



A list of all metro areas over 1 million would come out looking something like this, to the best of my knowledge:


1. New York

2. Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Boston, DC, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver

3A. Portland, Seattle, Los Angeles, Miami, San Diego, Ottawa
3B. Minneapolis, Denver, Calgary

4A. Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Baltimore, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Providence, Milwaukee, Louisville, New Orleans, Richmond
4B. Indianapolis, Memphis, Buffalo, Rochester, Hartford, Columbus, Grand Rapids, Birmingham

5A. Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Charlotte, San Antonio, Nashville, Virginia Beach, Raleigh, Salt Lake City, Edmonton
5B. Phoenix, Riverside, Orlando, Las Vegas, Oklahoma City, Detroit

Good list, but after coming back from Atlanta, I will say that it should be up a bit higher. Atlanta seems to be heading towards a more of an LA model now. It still has a lot of work to do.

The main artery of Atlanta (Peachtree: Well one of them anyway), is a winding road that hits many quasi-suburban/urban nodes. Buckhead is somewhere between Missassauga and North York nowadays. Sure its mostly gigantic chains built without zoning, but the development is clustered so much around one area and has been so consistent, its starting to resemble that weird suburban/urban hybrid that LA is so famous for. Also, I'm starting to see more two-story strip malls rising up. Like LA, Atlanta is being forced to urbanize whether it likes it or not. Midtown is growing to be well, like a "Midtown" for Atlanta, supplanting downtown as the place to be after work. Its still mostly full of clubs, but its growing with restaurants, grocers and other daily amenities.

Furthermore, the East side of Atlanta has very Narrow, winding roads with sporadic, but very Vibrant areas of walkable Streetcar urbanity, and little hints of urbanity that go back further than that. Its a hell of lot more than a few blocks here and there. When you add in Decatur, Sweet Auburn, Little 5 Points (which is teeming with people), Cabbagetown, Flat Shoals, Virginia Highland, etc.....you wind up with a bit of a respectable area. Also, let me reiterate that the narrow, narrow, winding streets add to the charm, even though they're hell for ATL's legendary traffic. Its very odd, (but not surprising), that these areas aren't most traveled by casual visitors.

Look at this, I can't name too many cities that have scenes like this. https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7488...00WD0PXxMw!2e0

Speaking of traffic, the interplay between the built environment and the sheer volume of traffic between adds to the excitement, much like LA streets. MPLS and SD don't have anywhere near the traffic Atlanta has, on the expressway or streets. The fact that these areas of interest are so consistently PACKED with traffic lets you know that people are willing to visit, all it needs is reliable transit to speed up the process of urbanity.

Atlanta, fix your damn transit.

[Jasonhouse]

I'm gonna go ahead and slide Tampa in there at 5C..

[fflint]

The thing that really distinguishes Los Angeles from other purportedly similar US and Canadian cities is the very high population densities both over large swathes of the city and in random neighborhoods throughout.

For example, the purportedly suburban San Fernando Valley has at least 10 Census tracts with densities exceeding 30,000 ppsm, peaking at 82,354 ppsm--which blows the peak population densities of cities it's being compared with out of the water. And that is not even the densest part of the city.

Just as with New York, Los Angeles is such a singular urban beast that it might just merit a class of its own.

[nito]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

I think this is a bit inaccurate. Memphis not fun and vibrant, what? Compared to Leeds of all places? c'mon...

Also Dublin is absolutely one of the most beautiful cities in Europe (Georgian architecture, etc). LA meanwhile is fantastically vibrant, it's just that the vibrancy is spread out.

Leeds probably is more vibrant than Memphis simply because it has a larger population catchment and is better integrated into the wider region (and country) with a far more extensive public transport network. It certainly has a larger number of pedestrianised spaces with greater pedestrian permeability. The key separation point that has been touched upon by other posters is the recurring theme that European cities and societies have generally been and remain more focused on their city centre cores than their American counterparts.

[simms3_redux]

^^^LA is definitely also in a category of its own. It is a beast. A dense beast. But I don't consider it urban. Similarly, I don't consider Miami urban, though it is certainly dense with some nice corridors. I consider both areas to be characterized by dense urban sprawl, but not by genuine urbanity. In my opinion, a large global city of 10-20 million people in the metro should look more like Paris or London if it wants to be considered urban. I realize I'm generalizing, but you do get to a point when you get that large that you would think transit/urbanity/walkability would be more of a thing.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by jpdivola

I can see an argument for DC being maybe a half tier behind the rest.

It is a lot smaller than Philly or Chicago and a lot less dense than SF. Boston is it's closest competitor. But, even there Boston is about 30% denser, with about the same population in a much smaller land mass. Plus, Boston has urban suburbs like Cambridge, Somerville and Chelsea with pop densities of 16kppsm and several with pops densities about 10k ppsm (Everett, Malden, Winthrop). Granted DC has some impressive urban zones around its suburbs. But, they don't sustain there densities like Boston's suburbs.

DC doesn't have the density, but it has a lot of other urban attributes that (IMO) would put it in the same class as Chicago, SF, Philly and Boston. It has arguably the best transit out of the bunch (it certainly has the highest transit share) it is the second or third largest office center in the U.S., it has the wealth and population and the subjective attribute of being very international and cosmopolitan (probably the most out of that bunch).

Its density is probably also hurt a bit by the monumental center, the massive parkland everywhere, the govt. and office space dominating the core, and the fact that density tends to be linear, along transit, rather than just concentrated in a contiguous mass towards the center, like you see in the other cities.

If you want a traditional, old school city, DC doesn't match up with Boston and Philly, if you want high density over a large area, DC doesn't match up with Chicago and SF, but on balance I think it's pretty solidly in that class of cities.

[ColDayMan]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

4. Rustbelt. These cities benefit from a legacy urban core that peaked in the prewar era, many of them with more solid bones than third tier and even some second tier cities, but have since declined with most growth not only occurring in the suburbs, but happening at the expense of the city - which now suffer from high crime, low growth, low desirability, and poor economies, and in turn, struggle to attract development and the ability to re-urbanize. Those in the 4A category prominently feature things like rowhouses & apartments on the cityscape, and along with rapid transit systems make an urban lifestyle possible, but not as many people are doing so as could be, especially compared to what once was. Those in the 4B category however have always been a bit less intensely urban in form, which coupled with the post-war decline, make urban living unlikely or at least difficult today.

A list of all metro areas over 1 million would come out looking something like this, to the best of my knowledge:


1. New York

2. Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Boston, DC, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver

3A. Portland, Seattle, Los Angeles, Miami, San Diego, Ottawa
3B. Minneapolis, Denver, Calgary

4A. Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Baltimore, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Providence, Milwaukee, Louisville, New Orleans, Richmond
4B. Indianapolis, Memphis, Buffalo, Rochester, Hartford, Columbus, Grand Rapids, Birmingham

5A. Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Charlotte, San Antonio, Nashville, Virginia Beach, Raleigh, Salt Lake City, Edmonton
5B. Phoenix, Riverside, Orlando, Las Vegas, Oklahoma City, Detroit

4B category however have always been a bit less intensely urban in form, which coupled with the post-war decline, make urban living unlikely or at least difficult today.

I would put Columbus in an A-B category, since it isn't 4B (the old city is far more walkable than, say, Indianapolis or Memphis; it also embraces urban living within the old city) but it isn't as "intense" as Cincinnati or Pittsburgh. It's like Toronto minus the whole condo-tower/megacity thing (annexed-suburbs-part-of-city-and-all). Or more bluntly, Denver minus actual transit.

[Ant131531]

Originally Posted by Segun

Good list, but after coming back from Atlanta, I will say that it should be up a bit higher. Atlanta seems to be heading towards a more of an LA model now. It still has a lot of work to do.

The main artery of Atlanta (Peachtree: Well one of them anyway), is a winding road that hits many quasi-suburban/urban nodes. Buckhead is somewhere between Missassauga and North York nowadays. Sure its mostly gigantic chains built without zoning, but the development is clustered so much around one area and has been so consistent, its starting to resemble that weird suburban/urban hybrid that LA is so famous for. Also, I'm starting to see more two-story strip malls rising up. Like LA, Atlanta is being forced to urbanize whether it likes it or not. Midtown is growing to be well, like a "Midtown" for Atlanta, supplanting downtown as the place to be after work. Its still mostly full of clubs, but its growing with restaurants, grocers and other daily amenities.

Furthermore, the East side of Atlanta has very Narrow, winding roads with sporadic, but very Vibrant areas of walkable Streetcar urbanity, and little hints of urbanity that go back further than that. Its a hell of lot more than a few blocks here and there. When you add in Decatur, Sweet Auburn, Little 5 Points (which is teeming with people), Cabbagetown, Flat Shoals, Virginia Highland, etc.....you wind up with a bit of a respectable area. Also, let me reiterate that the narrow, narrow, winding streets add to the charm, even though they're hell for ATL's legendary traffic. Its very odd, (but not surprising), that these areas aren't most traveled by casual visitors.

Look at this, I can't name too many cities that have scenes like this. https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7488...00WD0PXxMw!2e0

Speaking of traffic, the interplay between the built environment and the sheer volume of traffic between adds to the excitement, much like LA streets. MPLS and SD don't have anywhere near the traffic Atlanta has, on the expressway or streets. The fact that these areas of interest are so consistently PACKED with traffic lets you know that people are willing to visit, all it needs is reliable transit to speed up the process of urbanity.

Atlanta, fix your damn transit.

I've been saying Atlanta is just as urban as Minneapolis and Denver for a while now and Atlanta's eastern side has a similar vibe to Minneapolis, but because of it's large suburban area, it will forever be known as sprawling.

[jpdivola]

Originally Posted by Crawford

DC doesn't have the density, but it has a lot of other urban attributes that (IMO) would put it in the same class as Chicago, SF, Philly and Boston. It has arguably the best transit out of the bunch (it certainly has the highest transit share) it is the second or third largest office center in the U.S., it has the wealth and population and the subjective attribute of being very international and cosmopolitan (probably the most out of that bunch).

Its density is probably also hurt a bit by the monumental center, the massive parkland everywhere, the govt. and office space dominating the core, and the fact that density tends to be linear, along transit, rather than just concentrated in a contiguous mass towards the center, like you see in the other cities.

If you want a traditional, old school city, DC doesn't match up with Boston and Philly, if you want high density over a large area, DC doesn't match up with Chicago and SF, but on balance I think it's pretty solidly in that class of cities.

Yeah, I agree DC is probably as functionally urban as Boston or Philly in that it is walkable and just as easy to get around without a car. I just say maybe place it a half tier below because, stylistically, it doesn't quite have the same urban vibe of the others. It is a little lighter on the density and lacks the living downtown feel of the others. DC's civic life largely revolves around the commercial corridors of it's row house neighborhoods. It is like the neighborhoods of SF or Chicago without the Mag Mile or Union Square/Chinatown. Georgetown is a good shopping district, but is set in a low rise row house neighborhood so it doesn't quite give off the "downtown shopping feel" you find in Back Bay or Union Square. Gallery Place gives off the big city downtown a little bit, but it is pretty small and a little cut off from the rest of the action by lots of 9-5 office buildings.

In an idea world, you would combine Seattle's active downtown with DC's row house neighborhoods to create a city more on par with SF.

[urbanadvocate]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Good list JP, and the recommendations are certainly agreeable. Same general idea here, but I'd expand that idea a bit to divide the US & Canada's major cities into 5 defined tiers & sub-tiers.

1. New York. It's really in a league of its own - whether in size, in density, transit usage, housing types, pedestrian traffic, or vibrancy. An urban lifestyle is not only common, its the norm here. It's the only city comparable in form & function to the cities of the Old World.

2. Urban cities. Here, living in an urban format is effortless and normal, with a significant portion of the population of all types (but not the majority) doing so. In these cities, most people are apartment dwellers, transit service is extensive & widely used, urban amenities are plentiful, streets are vibrant, density is moderately high, and downtowns still function as the economic & cultural core of the region. Some reached their urban peak in the mid 20th century while others have more urban stock now than ever, but all have seen continued development and are still desirable, prosperous places.

3. New Urban cities. Having seen most of their development in the 20th century, they don't have as much of a legacy urban core to draw upon as the second tier cities (nor have they been as intensely developed as some of the others in recent years), but have nonetheless managed to avoid having their cores hollowed and have made great strides in recent decades to build up. Suburban living still dominates, but the urban cores and TODs are substantial - and growing.

4. Rustbelt. These cities benefit from a legacy urban core that peaked in the prewar era, many of them with more solid bones than third tier and even some second tier cities, but have since declined with most growth not only occurring in the suburbs, but happening at the expense of the city - which now suffer from high crime, low growth, low desirability, and poor economies, and in turn, struggle to attract development and the ability to re-urbanize. Those in the 4A category prominently feature things like rowhouses & apartments on the cityscape, and along with rapid transit systems make an urban lifestyle possible, but not as many people are doing so as could be, especially compared to what once was. Those in the 4B category however have always been a bit less intensely urban in form, which coupled with the post-war decline, make urban living unlikely or at least difficult today.

5. Sprawlers. These cities are defined by their post-war suburban sprawl, but those in the 5A category at least have seen a fair bit of modern infill and rapid transit development, and now generally offer greater urban amenities than the 4B cities - and may eventually eclipse even the 4A cities. Urban living is a bit niche and doesn't hold widespread appeal, but is still possible, and the downtowns at least are still major employment centres. The 5B cities however are little more than monolithic suburbs and show little sign of being able to change that. A bit of an outlier, but I would also include Detroit in this category, despite being quintessentially "rust belt", as its urban core is just so far gone that most of what exists is firmly suburban in form & use.



A list of all metro areas over 1 million would come out looking something like this, to the best of my knowledge:


1. New York

2. Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Boston, DC, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver

3A. Portland, Seattle, Los Angeles, Miami, San Diego, Ottawa
3B. Minneapolis, Denver, Calgary

4A. Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Baltimore, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Providence, Milwaukee, Louisville, New Orleans, Richmond
4B. Indianapolis, Memphis, Buffalo, Rochester, Hartford, Columbus, Grand Rapids, Birmingham

5A. Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Charlotte, San Antonio, Nashville, Virginia Beach, Raleigh, Salt Lake City, Edmonton
5B. Phoenix, Riverside, Orlando, Las Vegas, Oklahoma City, Detroit

Fun list!

What about Austin and Sacramento as 3Bs?

What about Kansas City? Based on my last visit it seemed like it was transitioning out of a 4 but is not exactly a 3?

Not sure Honolulu is 1 million MSA but is an interesting different take on things perhaps.

[cabasse]

Originally Posted by Segun

Good list, but after coming back from Atlanta, I will say that it should be up a bit higher. Atlanta seems to be heading towards a more of an LA model now. It still has a lot of work to do.

. . .

Speaking of traffic, the interplay between the built environment and the sheer volume of traffic between adds to the excitement, much like LA streets. MPLS and SD don't have anywhere near the traffic Atlanta has, on the expressway or streets. The fact that these areas of interest are so consistently PACKED with traffic lets you know that people are willing to visit, all it needs is reliable transit to speed up the process of urbanity.

Atlanta, fix your damn transit.

your synopsis is much appreciated, and i agree with what you are saying. we have three big rail expansion projects that have been on the books for some time now, (north/red line addition, crosstown rail between lindbergh-emory/cdc-decatur, green/east expansion) on top of a rather large streetcar expansion plan, and as of last night we seem to have taken a big step in the right direction.

http://wabe.org/post/ga-lawmakers-st...arta-expansion

http://saportareport.com/wp-content/...asing-plan.jpg

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Good list JP, and the recommendations are certainly agreeable. Same general idea here, but I'd expand that idea a bit to divide the US & Canada's major cities into 5 defined tiers & sub-tiers.

1. New York. It's really in a league of its own - whether in size, in density, transit usage, housing types, pedestrian traffic, or vibrancy. An urban lifestyle is not only common, its the norm here. It's the only city comparable in form & function to the cities of the Old World.

2. Urban cities. Here, living in an urban format is effortless and normal, with a significant portion of the population of all types (but not the majority) doing so. In these cities, most people are apartment dwellers, transit service is extensive & widely used, urban amenities are plentiful, streets are vibrant, density is moderately high, and downtowns still function as the economic & cultural core of the region. Some reached their urban peak in the mid 20th century while others have more urban stock now than ever, but all have seen continued development and are still desirable, prosperous places.

3. New Urban cities. Having seen most of their development in the 20th century, they don't have as much of a legacy urban core to draw upon as the second tier cities (nor have they been as intensely developed as some of the others in recent years), but have nonetheless managed to avoid having their cores hollowed and have made great strides in recent decades to build up. Suburban living still dominates, but the urban cores and TODs are substantial - and growing.

4. Rustbelt. These cities benefit from a legacy urban core that peaked in the prewar era, many of them with more solid bones than third tier and even some second tier cities, but have since declined with most growth not only occurring in the suburbs, but happening at the expense of the city - which now suffer from high crime, low growth, low desirability, and poor economies, and in turn, struggle to attract development and the ability to re-urbanize. Those in the 4A category prominently feature things like rowhouses & apartments on the cityscape, and along with rapid transit systems make an urban lifestyle possible, but not as many people are doing so as could be, especially compared to what once was. Those in the 4B category however have always been a bit less intensely urban in form, which coupled with the post-war decline, make urban living unlikely or at least difficult today.

5. Sprawlers. These cities are defined by their post-war suburban sprawl, but those in the 5A category at least have seen a fair bit of modern infill and rapid transit development, and now generally offer greater urban amenities than the 4B cities - and may eventually eclipse even the 4A cities. Urban living is a bit niche and doesn't hold widespread appeal, but is still possible, and the downtowns at least are still major employment centres. The 5B cities however are little more than monolithic suburbs and show little sign of being able to change that. A bit of an outlier, but I would also include Detroit in this category, despite being quintessentially "rust belt", as its urban core is just so far gone that most of what exists is firmly suburban in form & use.



A list of all metro areas over 1 million would come out looking something like this, to the best of my knowledge:

1. New York

2. Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Boston, DC, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver

3A. Portland, Seattle, Los Angeles, Miami, San Diego, Ottawa
3B. Minneapolis, Denver, Calgary

4A. Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Baltimore, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Providence, Milwaukee, Louisville, New Orleans, Richmond
4B. Indianapolis, Memphis, Buffalo, Rochester, Hartford, Columbus, Grand Rapids, Birmingham

5A. Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Charlotte, San Antonio, Nashville, Virginia Beach, Raleigh, Salt Lake City, Edmonton
5B. Phoenix, Riverside, Orlando, Las Vegas, Oklahoma City, Detroit

Please tell me where the rowhouse neighborhoods in Cleveland, Milwaukee, and Providence are. They don't seen much more urban to me than Buffalo, Rochester, or Hartford honestly.

Regardless, here's your list reordered by transit utilization for work commutes within the core city.

NYC - 55.9%

DC - 38.4%
Boston - 33.3%
San Francisco - 32.6%
Chicago - 26.7%
Philadelphia - 26.1%
Baltimore - 25.1%

Seattle - 19.2%
Hartford - 17.8%
Pittsburgh - 17.5%
Minneapolis - 13.4%
Portland - 11.6%
Miami - 11.3%
Los Angeles - 11%
Cleveland - 10.9%
Atlanta - 10.3%

Saint Louis - 9.8%
Providence - 8.7%
Detroit - 8.7%
Milwaukee - 8.5%
Cincinnati - 7.9%
Rochester - 7.9%
Denver - 7.1%
New Orleans - 7%
SLC - 6.2%
Richmond - 6.1%
Orlando - 4.7%
Houston - 4.3%
San Diego - 4%
Dallas - 4%
Las Vegas - 4%
Charlotte - 3.8%
Grand Rapids - 3.5%
San Antonio - 3.4%
Phoenix - 3.4%
Louisville - 3.3%
Columbus - 3%
Riverside - 2.6%
Birmingham - 2.4%
Memphis - 2.3%
Nashville - 2.2%
Indianapolis - 2.1%
Raleigh - 2.1%
Virginia Beach - 0.7%
Oklahoma City - 0.6%

Based upon these rankings, I'd say you put Denver and San Diego too highly. Both are fundamentally sun-belt cities - indeed, far more car dependent than Atlanta. Atlanta should be upgraded, as should Detroit - it's a wreck, but transit utilization remains higher than any sun-belt city (barring Atlanta) on your list.

The rust belt is a real mixed bag. Baltimore's transit utilization is right behind Philly. On the other hand, somewhere like Columbus or Louisville have pathetic, Sun-belt like utilization. Broad city limits play a role here of course, given cities with more suburban neighborhoods within the core city come out worse.

Note that if we included satellite cities within major metros, they would rank higher on this list than most core cities. Examples include Cambridge, Alexandria, Daly City, Newark, etc.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Please tell me where the rowhouse neighborhoods in Cleveland, Milwaukee, and Providence are. They don't seen much more urban to me than Buffalo, Rochester, or Hartford honestly.

Regardless, here's your list reordered by transit utilization for work commutes within the core city.

NYC - 55.9%

DC - 38.4%
Boston - 33.3%
San Francisco - 32.6%
Chicago - 26.7%
Philadelphia - 26.1%
Baltimore - 25.1%

Seattle - 19.2%
Hartford - 17.8%
Pittsburgh - 17.5%
Minneapolis - 13.4%
Portland - 11.6%
Miami - 11.3%
Los Angeles - 11%

Transit utilization is important, but I don't think it's the only proxy for a city's urbanness.

I'm pretty sure most people who like urban living would rather live in Portland than Hartford.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Please tell me where the rowhouse neighborhoods in Cleveland, Milwaukee, and Providence are. They don't seen much more urban to me than Buffalo, Rochester, or Hartford honestly.

Regardless, here's your list reordered by transit utilization for work commutes within the core city.

NYC - 55.9%

DC - 38.4%
Boston - 33.3%
San Francisco - 32.6%
Chicago - 26.7%
Philadelphia - 26.1%
Baltimore - 25.1%

Seattle - 19.2%
Hartford - 17.8%
Pittsburgh - 17.5%
Minneapolis - 13.4%
Portland - 11.6%
Miami - 11.3%
Los Angeles - 11%
Cleveland - 10.9%
Atlanta - 10.3%

Saint Louis - 9.8%
Providence - 8.7%
Detroit - 8.7%
Milwaukee - 8.5%
Cincinnati - 7.9%
Rochester - 7.9%
Denver - 7.1%
New Orleans - 7%
SLC - 6.2%
Richmond - 6.1%
Orlando - 4.7%
Houston - 4.3%
San Diego - 4%
Dallas - 4%
Las Vegas - 4%
Charlotte - 3.8%
Grand Rapids - 3.5%
San Antonio - 3.4%
Phoenix - 3.4%
Louisville - 3.3%
Columbus - 3%
Riverside - 2.6%
Birmingham - 2.4%
Memphis - 2.3%
Nashville - 2.2%
Indianapolis - 2.1%
Raleigh - 2.1%
Virginia Beach - 0.7%
Oklahoma City - 0.6%

Thanks for tallying that up. You missed Sacramento, with 4% of commutes by public transit.

Based upon these rankings, I'd say you put Denver and San Diego too highly. Both are fundamentally sun-belt cities - indeed, far more car dependent than Atlanta. Atlanta should be upgraded, as should Detroit - it's a wreck, but transit utilization remains higher than any sun-belt city (barring Atlanta) on your list..

Miami, Los Angeles and Atlanta are 'sunbelt' cities with higher transit utilization than Detroit, going by your figures.

And I agree with those who feel transit use isn't the only metric of note. The number of people bicycling and, especially, walking to work can also be measures of an area's urbanity.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I'm pretty sure most people who like urban living would rather live in Portland than Hartford.

I'm from Connecticut, and even I think the Hartford numbers seem suspiciously high. I think four things play a role here.

1. Connecticut cities have unusually constrained city limits even for Northeastern cities. Hartford has the inverse of the Sun Belt skew - the vast majority of the metro is outside of the core city.

2. Hartford is mostly lower-middle to lower class, which means it will skew for higher transit utilization.

3. Everywhere in the Northeast Corridor tends to have higher transit usage. Bridgeport and New Haven, while not as high, would have topped 10% themselves.

4. Hartford is a regional jobs hub, between state government and insurance. That said, this probably has the least effect, because besides the West End of Hartford, professional Downtown workers don't live in the city much.

Originally Posted by fflint

Miami, Los Angeles and Atlanta are 'sunbelt' cities with higher transit utilization than Detroit, going by your figures.

The guy I was replying to didn't classify Miami or LA as being Sun Belt, but "New Urban" My point was that Atlanta merits inclusion in this category, but Denver, and certainly San Diego, do not.

Originally Posted by fflint

And I agree with those who feel transit use isn't the only metric of note. The number of people bicycling and, especially, walking to work can also be measures of an area's urbanity.

This is true. Walk share to work is typically very low in larger cities outside of NYC however. It can be very large in small cities which are college towns, but the scale of most major cities means that many people simply cannot roll out the door and walk to work in 15 minutes.

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by eschaton

2. Hartford is mostly lower-middle to lower class, which means it will skew for higher transit utilization.

The city propers of Atlanta and Detroit also skew much poorer than the rest of their metros, so you're likely seeing the same thing at work there. Higher transit usage in large part because of income levels.

This is true. Walk share to work is typically very low in larger cities outside of NYC however. It can be very large in small cities which are college towns, but the scale of most major cities means that many people simply cannot roll out the door and walk to work in 15 minutes.

Walk share to work for a few selected cities:

Boston 13.36%
DC 12.27%
NYC 10.72%
Pittsburgh 10.02%
SF 9.82%
Philly 9.22%
Seattle 7.72%
Baltimore 7.28%
Minneapolis 6.85%

So, no, it doesn't seem like walk share to work is "typically very low in larger cities outside of NYC", especially since NYC doesn't even top the list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...rian_commuters

For me personally, pedestrian commute share is the best metric to determine "urban-ness". It doesn't necessarily provide a good ranking (Chicago is certainly more urban than many cities listed here even though only 5.8% walk to work there), but it's a good way to bucket cities. Any large city with 5% or more pretty much has to have a strong urban residential core.

[mhays]

Holy moly...2000 numbers from Wikipedia!

My goal was to look at more recent commute numbers and hopefully catch Seattle up with Baltimore. Turns out Seattle was well ahead per the 2013 ACS. Not to pick on Baltimore, an impressive city in its own right. Adding Portland and Philly for the hell of it.

Residents of city-of, 2013 ACS:
Walking: Seattle 9.0%, Baltimore 6.6%, Portland 5.8%, Philly 8.5%.
Transit: Seattle 19.2%, Baltimore 17.8%, Portland 11.6%, Philly 26.1%.
Drove alone: Seattle 51.5%, Baltimore 60.5%, Portland 59.0%, Philly 50.5%.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Gordo

So, no, it doesn't seem like walk share to work is "typically very low in larger cities outside of NYC", especially since NYC doesn't even top the list.

I was mostly referring to Manhattan here. I've seen maps which show that the walk to work percentage is very high in Central/Lower Manhattan - so high that transit utilization is actually a bit lower than in Upper Manhattan and the nearer parts of the Outer Boroughs.

Still, looking at the Wiki list, the top three cities are known primarily as college towns, and everything in the top 10 (which NYC narrowly misses) has a major university.

Certainly the last maps I saw for Pittsburgh showed Oakland as being the major area people walked to work. Not that they didn't downtown either, but Downtown was still mostly non-residential then, so it's a high percentage of a rather small number.

[fflint]

The 2013 ACS has 10.1% of San Francisco workers walking to work.

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Still, looking at the Wiki list, the top three cities are known primarily as college towns, and everything in the top 10 (which NYC narrowly misses) has a major university.

Sure, college towns will be even higher. However, the preceding discussion was about moving Atlanta and Detroit up an urban notch due to transit use in the 8-10% range, which is the same basic range that I used for walk share. A city with a 10% walk share is basically always going to have an urban or university built form, but cities with 10% transit shares are all over the map (could be poverty causing this, could be a decent park and ride setup, etc).