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

The question is pretty self-explanatory: What would generally be regarded as the second most urban city in the United States?

This has nothing to do with overall size or cultural influence, but just to do with the level of activity and infrastructure within the core of the metro.

Probably Chicago, then Philadelphia.

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.

^ yep.

NYC is obviously in its own universe within the US when it comes to all things urban.

The number 2 in that category gets a lot more messy to sort out. A great deal of subjective hair-splitting always ensues whenever someone insists on there being a definitive and lone #2.

IMO, it makes far more sense to just think of that next group of most urban US cities below NYC collectively as tier #2.

I would say Chicago, because it is the only other city in the USA that has a megalopolis kind of feel. Some other cities (like SF or Boston) might have a more 100% intact urban fabric, but those other cities come across as a kind of "provincial city" to me.

I mean SF is great for example, but if you take someone from London or Tokyo there, I think they can't help but feel reminded of a nice large town, rather than a world capital.

I think Los Angeles has this feel, despite its relative lack of skyscrapers.

But as far as the original question goes, it depends on what aspect of urbanity you're talking about. I'd say Chicago simply because the downtown is huge with tons of skyscrapers, even in Asia Chicago would be one of the better skylines. This may not directly correlate with urbanity for some people but definitely helps.

Yea, still Chicago or maybe LA. Miami could be a contender

If we're going to define urbanity as a spectrum, and treat NYC as the most pure example of it, then I think there isn't a clear second place. We have about 4 or 5 cities that are grouped very closely to each other after NYC, and we all more or less agree on those cities: Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, San Francisco, D.C.

Skyscrapers don't have great correlation with urbanity, IMO. For instance, Barcelona is one of the greatest urban experiences in the world, and doesn't have anything that most of us would consider a skyscraper.

Sorry, but LA has a larger mega feel to it than Chicago does. Downtown Chicago is more impressive than downtown LA for sure, so if you're going by that.. yes.

But the rest? No. LA's just too big and adding density everywhere.
Like others have said, it's hard to quantify here. LA's density is too different to compare to the other urban cities.

Not counting LA, I'd put Chicago at 2. Philly 3, Boston/SF 4/5. DC 6. Baltimore 7. Seattle 8. New Orleans/St. Louis 9/10.

I mean LA is definitely large. But it is just so unique and even alien to anyone from most other developed countries, that it's even hard to describe what it is to most foreigners. It's an enormous built up area with 20 million people, but from a foreign perspective, has essentially zero pedestrian activity. A town of 200,000 in Japan or Western Europe would have a healthier, more active pedestrian urban core than the LA basin has.

From a Western European or East Asian perspective, Chicago is definitely sparse in regard to pedestrian traffic (compared to peer cities like Rome, Barcelona, Osaka), but it's still recognizably a city. And a very monumental city at that. The first impression is that it's huge. the 2nd impression might be that it's not very crowded.

L.A. definitely feels more like a mega city. Chicago definitely wins the urbanity argument.

Miami feels like a mega city as well and is far less urban than LA

Boston and San Francisco are extremely similar— multi nodal centers, smallish and extremely wealthy urban core with many interesting satellite cities, etc

Chicago as a mega city depends on how you feel about midwestern style garden suburbs

Miami... no.

Not even close to a contender in the “most urban” category.

Miami and south Florida in general are characterized by very dense, suburban-style development. Even though Miami has lots of high-rise condo towers, they are best described as “suburban life in the sky”... as almost all of them are built atop massive parking pedestals (many with zero street-level tenancy). And within 2 blocks from those core 50+ story condo towers are 1-story single-family homes with front and back yards (often with swimming pools) and driveways and garages. There are also supermarkets, drive thru restaurants, banks, and drug stores all with surface parking lots in the same adjacent proximity to the downtown core skyscrapers. Miami was designed to be and functions as an automobile dependent culture. That’s not “urban” by any classification we generally abide to on this forum.

Boston/Philly/Chicago are all tied for #2

Thinking of it in a per capita way...

1.) NYC
2.) Philly
3.) SF proper/Chicago tied
4.) Boston
5.) DC

San Francisco is the only contender vs. Chicago in my opinion.

Boston and Philly too, but they don't feel like the same scale.

LA is expansive and has areas of density, but it never feels like a huge city to me, more like a medium-sized city that keeps going.

Baltimore seems very out of place here. Townhouses are great, but its downtown and peripheral downtown areas don't feel large at all, or busy.

As for Barcelona, phenomenal city, but I never saw a true center or peak density.

The correct answer is really Toronto, if you expand the question to USA+Canada. It's just enough more lively and intact/contiguous than Chicago, and larger than SF/Philly/Boston, to make it a clear number 2.

It’s Tokyo, if you expand the question to US+Asia

Let’s stick to the question asked.

clever riposte! Because Tokyo is 60 miles from the US border and uses basically American English as its native language.

There is no equivalent in Chicago to 34th st/penn station/herald sq when it comes to pedestrian traffic. In terms of Urbanity, Chicago is much closer to the next tier than it is to NYC. Just to put NYC into perspective:
-There are more people on the 22sq miles of manhattan than the entire 230sq
miles of Chicago.
-NYC has a higher train ridership than every other city in the US combined.
-NYC has more 100M buildings than the next 10 cities combined