Any American cities moving up a tier?

[park123]

Denver is an interesting case for me. I've never been there but took a bit of an interest. It seems a little like a smaller Seattle? The downtown has a "grand" urban street (16th Street?), a new area around the transit station, and bar areas nearby. Then there's a satellite shopping downtown called Cherry Creek. To me it seems more urban (in the traditional pedestrian-friendly sense) than at least my image of Dallas and most certainly Houston. Plus you have Boulder 1 hour up the road, which seems like a large town, but an economically prosperous town with a nice urban town center.

How about Minneapolis? I've heard good things about it, but on google streetview its built environment looks sparse. Mostly detached homes (that remind me of the old towns around Newark NJ) with some brick "city" buildings here and there. And quite a lot of parking lots and breaks in urbanity.

[DCReid]

I see a better chance of the smaller metros, like Seattle and Portland joining the top tier 6 in terms of walkability. I don't see LA, Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, and the other booming metros joining anytime soon. When I think of walkability, I think whether you can walk from one part of the city to just about anywhere else in the city, or take a bus/metro and be there quickly. I don't see that happening anytime soon on LA and those other cities, since their business and residential districts are extremely sprawling and multi-modal and becoming even more so, despite downtown development. Perhaps a little less sprawl may not be happening in LA, but LA's downtown is really small considering the metro has over 12 million people and I don't see the extremely car-centric aspect of LA changing anytime soon.

[Chisouthside]

DTLA blows Dallas and Denver out the water for walkability and cool things to see.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by park123

Denver is an interesting case for me. I've never been there but took a bit of an interest. It seems a little like a smaller Seattle? The downtown has a "grand" urban street (16th Street?), a new area around the transit station, and bar areas nearby. Then there's a satellite shopping downtown called Cherry Creek. To me it seems more urban (in the traditional pedestrian-friendly sense) than at least my image of Dallas and most certainly Houston. Plus you have Boulder 1 hour up the road, which seems like a large town, but an economically prosperous town with a nice urban town center.

Denver's downtown looked more or less the same as DFW and Houston but Denver was certainly more active and with locals and tourists (people vacation there rather than Houston or Dallas) so there were more cool things around compared to here or Dallas.

[LAsam]

Originally Posted by DCReid

I see a better chance of the smaller metros, like Seattle and Portland joining the top tier 6 in terms of walkability.

Question for everyone. Why isn't Portland in the same tier of walkability as anywhere is in the US? When I visited without a car, I had zero issues walking or taking public transit anywhere I damn well pleased. Is Portland less walkable than NYC? Smaller, yes... but less walkable? I'm not so sure about that.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

Just for clarification. . . none of those areas you're describing will look like that in the near future - if they even look "sketch" today. . . much of what was skid row in Chicago only 20 years ago is the booming-est office/residential market anywhere in the Midwest. . . there's nothing in the South Loop (everything north of I55) that is "sketch" - Steely already went into that. . . everything within a block of those buildings is desirable residential and retail. . . as for Cabrini Green and whatever slums that were adjacent - that's all gone and is being replaced by luxury housing. .
. . .

My issue has nothing to do with public housing, but anti-urban desolation. Much of the South Loop is desolate and pedestrian hostile. And all the demolition/redevelopment is generally making things worse.

I've seen pics of 1960's-1970's-era State Street in the South Loop and it looks like a real sleazy corridor. Lots of porn theaters, flophouses and grit. But it was probably more intact and vibrant than today. I don't think desolate corridors feel safer than busy ones, even if the neighborhood is "nicer". I feel safer on major corridors in the South Bronx than in Prospect Park late at night, even if the latter is statistically much safer.

[jpdivola]

Seattle is definitely the closest to a "Big 6" style city. It obviously doesn't sustain it's density the way the a Boston or DC does. But, it has come the closest to creating a "critical mass" of walkable urbanism. The core spanning the waterfront, the DT Core, Pioneer Square, Belltown, Lower Queen Ann, SLU, International District, First Hill is probably the most cohesive/vibrant mixed use area in the US outside the big 6. The density does drop off. But, the city is building up its urban zones: U District, Ballard, Freemont/Wallford, West Seattle, etc. It's rail transit is not as impressive as others. But, it is functionally very transit friendly with its buses, lightrail and mixed use development patterns.

[LAsam]

Originally Posted by LAsam

Question for everyone. Why isn't Portland in the same tier of walkability as anywhere is in the US? When I visited without a car, I had zero issues walking or taking public transit anywhere I damn well pleased. Is Portland less walkable than NYC? Smaller, yes... but less walkable? I'm not so sure about that.

I did some research:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...nsit_ridership

The following is a list of United States cities of 100,000+ inhabitants with the 50 highest rates of public transit commuting to work, according to data from the 2015 American Community Survey. The survey measured the percentage of commuters who take public transit, as opposed to walking, driving or riding in an automobile, bicycle, boat, or some other means.

1. New York City, New York – 56.5%

2. Jersey City, New Jersey – 47.6%

3. Washington, D.C. – 37.4%

4. Boston, Massachusetts – 33.7%

5. San Francisco, California – 33.1%

6. Cambridge, Massachusetts – 28.6%

7. Chicago, Illinois – 27.6%

8. Newark, New Jersey – 26.7%

9. Arlington, Virginia – 26.4%

10. Yonkers, New York – 26.4%

11. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania – 26.2%

12. Alexandria, Virginia – 21.7%

13. Berkeley, California – 21.6%

14. Oakland, California – 20.3%

15. Seattle, Washington – 20.1%

16. Daly City, California – 19.8%

17. Baltimore, Maryland – 18.6%

18. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania – 17.0%

19. Hartford, Connecticut – 16.6%

20. Stamford, Connecticut – 14.1%

21. Richmond, California – 14.0%

22. Edison, New Jersey – 13.4%

23. New Haven, Connecticut – 13.3%

24. Minneapolis, Minnesota – 13.1%

25. Portland, Oregon – 12.1%

And basically disproved myself, LOL. Seattle is definitely up there, btw!

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Crawford

My issue has nothing to do with public housing, but anti-urban desolation. Much of the South Loop is desolate and pedestrian hostile. And all the demolition/redevelopment is generally making things worse.

I've seen pics of 1960's-1970's-era State Street in the South Loop and it looks like a real sleazy corridor. Lots of porn theaters, flophouses and grit. But it was probably more intact and vibrant than today. I don't think desolate corridors feel safer than busy ones, even if the neighborhood is "nicer". I feel safer on major corridors in the South Bronx than in Prospect Park late at night, even if the latter is statistically much safer.

From my rather short time living down here(2 months), the biggest anti-urban aspect of this area is the huge blocks south of Roosevelt.

[TKallDAY]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

That's nice.

My understanding of the topic, though, is that it is mores about which cities are up next in terms of being "bigger and denser". Aside from Denver's Civic Center Park and state capitol area, I disagree with your perspective on its "urban bones and walkability" being any better than that of the cities I mentioned. One could make a case around San Diego, but not necessarily any more of a case as could be made around Austin.

The question is which city is the next great pedestrian friendly cities, not the cities with the shiniest new skyscrapers. Have you ever been to Austin? It's incredibly sparse at ground level and there are parking lots on every corner. I don't find DT Austin or it's "urban" neighborhoods particularly walkable at all. Austin is doing an amazing job at filling those lots, however.

Downtown Denver may be the least dense portion of central Denver. When people mention Denver's urban bones, they're specifically talking about the vast amounts of prewar neighborhoods directly encompassing the downtown area. They're extremely walkable/bikeable. If you came to Denver and didn't venture into the Highlands, Capitol Hill, Cheeseman Park etc, then you did Denver wrong. That would be like staying in DT Portland and not venturing into the Pearl District or staying in DT Chicago and never exploring Lincoln Park.

I'm assuming this because you mention Civic Center Park and if you actually explored Denver, there's no way you could have even mentioned that area as a representation of the walkability or the "urban bones" of Denver. Ridiculous. Literally never heard anyone mention this area as a highlight of Denver. Most locals avoid that area.

Lastly, as someone who moved to Denver from Houston a couple yrs ago, there's no comparison to how walkable, dense or urban Denver is to Houston. Houston has to be the most hostile, pedestrian unfriendly city I've ever lived in. And due to the extreme heat, disconnected neighborhoods, and underground tunnels, it's literally a ghost town everywhere. Central Houston and the Galleria area are glorified office parks. The TMC would be the exception but that's due to the nature of that cluster of buildings and what people are doing in that particular area.

I'm gonna guess you stayed at a hotel between 14th and 15th streets by the convention center, again because of the Civic Center reference. Yeah, that area is the least active part of DT Denver and is going through a major transition right now. If true, sorry you didn't make the best of your trip.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by park123

How is Seattle compared to Vancouver in terms of consistent urbanity and walkability? In the greater downtown core and also the main urban neighborhoods (Ballard or the university area in Seattle?). Is Seattle getting close to (or perhaps surpassing) Vancouver? I only ask because I'm more familiar with Vancouver, and both cities are so close to each other.

Vancouver is substantially denser and more transit oriented, despite being 2/3 the size. By some measures it outdoes some of the big 6.

As for those wiki transit stats, Seattle has moved up since 2015.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by Chisouthside

DTLA blows Dallas and Denver out the water for walkability and cool things to see.

Pretty much.
I think people have old stereotypes of what it used to be. It's pretty vibrant on the weekends and with nightlife now.

And downtown LA isnt a slouch In land area. It's just underdeveloped for now.
From Union station/Chinatown towards Staples is a good hike in comparison to the other new cities.

[park123]

Originally Posted by LA21st

Pretty much.
I think people have old stereotypes of what it used to be. It's pretty vibrant on the weekends and with nightlife now.

I haven’t been to DT LA for a long time, but I was looking at some walking video of there on YouTube and the vibe kind of reminded me not of Manhattan, but of Williamsburg Brooklyn actually. Of course there are way more tall buildings, but it seems very hister-ish in terms of people on the street and businesses.

Which makes we wonder, what is the Manhattan of LA? Still the westside?

[park123]

Originally Posted by mhays

Vancouver is substantially denser and more transit oriented, despite being 2/3 the size. By some measures it outdoes some of the big 6.

As for those wiki transit stats, Seattle has moved up since 2015.

The built up parts of Vancouver are not nearly as extensive as any of the big 6. Maybe they have high transit ridership, but if you’re physically there, it just isn’t very big in the sense of you can walk from one side of the core to the other pretty fast. And there’s not too much outside of the core compared to the big 6 either. Isn’t greater downtown Seattle at least as large as the Vancouver core at this point?

[bossabreezes]

Originally Posted by McBane

Tier 2 would be Philly, Boston, DC, SF, and Chicago; but the differences in terms urbanity/walkability are trivial. I would also add one other place to the Tier 2 list of cities: Hudson County, NJ. Its high-density areas are as big and dense as Philly, Boston, et. al. If the county consolidated into its own city, I don't think its status would be debatable.

Hudson County, NJ has around 700,000 people in 62 square miles. It's extremely urban in all of it's buildable area. This is important to note, as a good portion of the county (16 square miles) is unbuildable wetlands. That leaves 46 square miles of land, similar in size to San Francisco. If it were consolidated it would be regarded as one of the nation's great cities- but it's definitely overshadowed by Manhattan.

In my opinion, if it were a borough, it would land between Brooklyn and Queens in terms of sheer urbanity, density and desirability. It's location is superior and closer to Manhattan than most places in Brooklyn and all other Boroughs. It's also become quite a trendy place, and it's booming currently. Especially Jersey City.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by park123

I haven’t been to DT LA for a long time, but I was looking at some walking video of there on YouTube and the vibe kind of reminded me not of Manhattan, but of Williamsburg Brooklyn actually. Of course there are way more tall buildings, but it seems very hister-ish in terms of people on the street and businesses.

Which makes we wonder, what is the Manhattan of LA? Still the westside?

I haven't been to Williamsburg, but downtown LA definitely has that kind of crowd and it's growing fast. I'm always amazed how fast the historic core continues
to add new bars and restaurants.
A few years ago, GQ magazine dubbed downtown LA the coolest neighborhood in the country I believe.

Manhattan of LA (or LA county) is the 15 mile area from downtown (or Boyle Hts) to Santa Monica/Venice. South of the hills, north of Pico/Washington.

[jmecklenborg]

Columbus, OH roared back to life in the 2010's with dramatic infill growth in the walkable prewar areas. It has fewer traditional streetcar suburb-type areas than Cincinnati or Cleveland, but much more than any of its Sunbelt peers, i.e. Nashville and Charlotte.

Also, Columbus is getting high quality infill construction. High St. between the statehouse and OSU is now the most vibrant urban stretch in the Midwest outside Chicago.

Down the road, Cincinnati is getting lower quality redevelopment than Columbus. There have been dramatic neighborhood turnarounds there as well, but its many traditional neighborhood business districts are morphing into instagram restaurant and bar nodes and no longer function so much as day-to-day hubs for their surroundings.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by bossabreezes

Hudson County, NJ has around 700,000 people in 62 square miles. It's extremely urban in all of it's buildable area. This is important to note, as a good portion of the county (16 square miles) is unbuildable wetlands. That leaves 46 square miles of land, similar in size to San Francisco. If it were consolidated it would be regarded as one of the nation's great cities- but it's definitely overshadowed by Manhattan.

Have there ever been any discussions about the various municipalities of Hudson County merging into a single city?

I have to believe that the area would get more attention if it were unified under a single city brand.

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

The urban tier thing gets a bit tricky beyond the "Big 6" because you have essentially two paths down to tier below: there are the legacy cities that have declined and lost a lot of the urbanity that they once had - think Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati, etc; and then there are the new urban cities - places like LA, Seattle, Miami, or Houston, which don't have the same bones but are growing and have rapidly been urbanizing in a post-war format.

Which ones are more urban though? Tough to say - in some ways it's the legacy cities, in others it's the newcomers.

Yeah, where do you put Providence, for example? Pretty under the radar for anyone outside of the Northeast, but in terms of the size and scope of its continuous walkable urbanity (and subjectively, in terms of quality IMO), Providence tops cities with metros 3-4x its size.

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by TKallDAY

Have you ever been to Austin?

Yes (lived there for 5 years).

Originally Posted by TKallDAY

It's incredibly sparse at ground level

No more so than Denver.

Originally Posted by TKallDAY

and there are parking lots on every corner.

^ Factually incorrect.

Originally Posted by TKallDAY

I don't find DT Austin or it's "urban" neighborhoods particularly walkable at all.

Thank you for sharing your opinion.

Originally Posted by TKallDAY

Downtown Denver may be the least dense portion of central Denver. When people mention Denver's urban bones, they're specifically talking about the vast amounts of prewar neighborhoods directly encompassing the downtown area. They're extremely walkable/bikeable. If you came to Denver and didn't venture into the Highlands, Capitol Hill, Cheeseman Park etc, then you did Denver wrong. That would be like staying in DT Portland and not venturing into the Pearl District or staying in DT Chicago and never exploring Lincoln Park.

I've been to Denver numerous times, have ventured into those neighborhoods and as a result, am aware that the city offers that type of environment adjacent to its downtown.

Guess what? So does Austin.

Originally Posted by TKallDAY

I'm assuming

^ Mistake #1

Originally Posted by TKallDAY

this because you mention Civic Center Park and if you actually explored Denver, there's no way you could have even mentioned that area as a representation of the walkability or the "urban bones" of Denver. Ridiculous. Literally never heard anyone mention this area as a highlight of Denver. Most locals avoid that area.

"Most locals avoid that area" because its littered with homeless encampments, sketchy individuals and rampant drug use, not because it lacks prewar development or walkability (I know this because I walked straight through it en route to the Denver Art Museum).

Originally Posted by TKallDAY

Lastly, as someone who moved to Denver from Houston a couple yrs ago, there's no comparison to how walkable, dense or urban Denver is to Houston.

As someone who lived in Houston for three years and, as previously stated, have visited Denver numerous times, again, thank you for sharing your opinion.

Originally Posted by TKallDAY

Houston has to be the most hostile, pedestrian unfriendly city I've ever lived in. And due to the extreme heat, disconnected neighborhoods, and underground tunnels, it's literally a ghost town everywhere. Central Houston and the Galleria area are glorified office parks. The TMC would be the exception but that's due to the nature of that cluster of buildings and what people are doing in that particular area.

Interesting that you find the core of a metro with 7+ million residents and among the nation's fastest growing to be "literally a ghost town everywhere", while Denver's core, on the other hand, is some sort of dense, walkable urban paradise. During my most recent visit to Denver (last month), I found it to be the same exact "ghost town" you described Houston to be. I'd love to hear your impressions of Charlotte, Atlanta, Phoenix, etc.

Originally Posted by TKallDAY

I'm gonna guess you stayed at a hotel between 14th and 15th streets by the convention center, again because of the Civic Center reference. Yeah, that area is the least active part of DT Denver and is going through a major transition right now. If true, sorry you didn't make the best of your trip.

Thank you for your concern. For future reference, where would you suggest I stay to ensure I get the extreme walkable / bikeable, vibrant urbanesque experience you claim is so prevalent there?