Any American cities moving up a tier?

[McBane]

Originally Posted by park123

Regarding Philly I just got the sense that huge areas of blight are adjascent to the center city, while in Chicago there's more of a physical separation between the good areas and bad areas. Tale of 2 cities thing in Chicago.

I'm sorry to say that this assessment hasn't been accurate for many years now. Center City is wealthy and the adjacent neighborhoods are fully gentrified and quite expensive in their own right. Certainly, one would have to walk for a long time outside Center City before stumbling upon shady neighborhoods.

As for tiers, I would place NYC alone in Tier 1. As it is the case for many of our debates, NYC is its own animal, head and shoulders above any other American city when it comes to urbanity/walkability, transit usage, etc.

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.

After that, there is definitely a drop off. Mostly in terms of size. Places like Cleveland, Denver, Pittsburgh, Seattle, Baltimore, etc. have dense, urban areas but it's just confined to a smaller area relative to the Tier 2 cities.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by park123

Most people would agree that in the USA, the top 6 urban, pedestrian-friendly cities would be NYC, Chicago, SF, DC, Boston, and Philadelphia. With a big drop off after that. I've heard that Seattle is best poised to move into that group. I haven't been to Seattle in ages. Is it close to pulling even to or overtaking any of the weaker of those 6 cities?

I suppose NYC, Chicago and SF are unquestionably the top three. With in my opinion Boston (compact/small), DC (sparse), and Philadelphia (relatively unhealthy) at the bottom of the 6.

Any other American cities with a chance to join that group in the near future (say 15 years)?

It depends on what you mean, Most moderate and above metros have at least one or a few urban-ish areas that are walkable but they are typically surrounded by sprawl and cater more to people who want the novelty of an urban area.

Most of the top 20 cities have some level of a walk able and urban downtown especially over the last 15 years they have universally improved and become more populated.

In terms of which city will soon be considered "urban" and walk able to the level of Chicago and DC?

Probably Seattle, Denver maybe but it still has a way to go much of the downtown is still very 9-5. Portland, but Portland is still pretty small when it comes to major population centers.

Most of the cities that are becoming urban and walkable are still primarily suburban. I dont think you'll change that even if urban neighborhoods continue to grow and be popular.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I don't think there are any "scary" areas, but there are less desirable blocks. The South Loop is also a very quiet area (for urban core standards), with a lot of dead-ends.

Areas like this do not scream desirable. I see projects, empty land, gates, no people. I would not want my wife walking around here after dark:

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8529...7i16384!8i8192

Of course, there's some subjectivity involved. The Hub in the South Bronx is one of the poorest census tracts in urban America, and high crime for NYC standards. But it's packed-in and vibrant. Is it "scarier" to have dead space or lots of activity?

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8163...7i13312!8i6656

Personally, I feel more comfortable in any area with activity, whether "bad" or "good". I actually feel that some of the parkside blocks in super low-crime Park Slope feel more "sketch" late at night than the South Bronx, again, because there's no one there. I've gotten nervous very late at night hearing someone running out of the park towards me, when it was just a jogger.

I see what you are saying. lol I knew you would refer to those buildings though, which honestly I walk right by and never felt any type of way. The grounds surrounding it actually look kind of nice.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

I knew you would refer to those buildings though, which honestly I walk right by and never felt any type of way. The grounds surrounding it actually look kind of nice.

those are the hillard homes, designed by betrand goldberg. they are some of the few remaining public housing highrises left in chicago, mostly because of their architectural pedigree.

about 20 years ago the CHA dumped a bunch of money into them to redevelop them as mixed-income apartments, which has met with much greater success than the CHA's old strategy of using highrise public housing as vertical warehouses exclusively for the poorest of the urban poor (see the now-demolished cabrini-green, ABLA, henry horner, robert taylor, stateway gardens, etc. projects).


source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...iard_Homes.jpg

[jtown,man]

Yeah, it's funny really, I've always seen those buildings in pics and street view and thought to myself...man those look scary. I was hesitant about walking to Chinatown with my gf instead of taking the train the first time she brought it up, almost solely based on these buildings. However, to my surprise, my girlfriend actually commented (without me prompting her) about how she really likes the "weird" look of the buildings. And in subsequent trips down south, I've come to respect the look and realized the area surrounding them(at least on the north and west sides-the only sides I've walked past) are completely fine safety-wise. I could be totally wrong, but perception is what it is I suppose.

[Tom In Chicago]

Originally Posted by Crawford

In any case, you can find poor folks or less desirable close to downtown Chicago. There are a few sketch blocks between South Loop and Chinatown, whatever you want to call the area. If you walked to United Center from downtown, you'd encounter sketch blocks. To the north, there are still the Cabrini Green remnants, and assorted Section 8/public housing etc.

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. . .

. . .

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Yes, Cermak is horrible.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8527...7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8527...7i16384!8i8192

I get it. You said Cermak area, not the actual street. I think a better example would be to just say "south of 55" because the Cermak area isn't bad at all. I live between the south loop and Cermak, granted closer to the south loop, but I wouldn't catagorize the area as blighted in any sense.

Maybe, but LA is so much larger than Seattle. What is LA's density around downtown for the size of Seattle? I don't think Seattle wins that at all. This is not just for Seattle,but other large cities like DC too.

oops, I think I replied to the wrong post.

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by Obadno

In terms of which city will soon be considered "urban" and walk able to the level of Chicago and DC?

Probably Seattle, Denver maybe but it still has a way to go much of the downtown is still very 9-5.

Any mention of Denver in this discussion ahead of L.A., Dallas, Houston and several other "legacy" (yet diminishing) urban cities and emerging urban cities is laughable.

Yes, Denver is growing, and beginning to show signs of development in its core. But in its present state, it still "feels" like a medium sized city stuck in the 80's relative to the others IMO.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

Any mention of Denver in this discussion ahead of L.A., Dallas, Houston and several other "legacy" (yet diminishing) urban cities and emerging urban cities is laughable.

Yes, Denver is growing, and beginning to show signs of development in its core. But in its present state, it still "feels" like a medium sized city stuck in the 80's relative to the others IMO.

LA and Dallas are largely in the same boat as Denver, their urban cores are relatively small and act more like a novelty to the overall city.

Sure LA's downtown is bigger but its not a "walkable city" like NY or Chicago or DC

Seattle is closest, Denver is getting there I dont think any other city developed in the post car era will ever move that way, including in Dallas and LA

The downtown's may grow but I don't see either being defined by their urban cores like what the original question was asking.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

Any mention of Denver in this discussion ahead of L.A., Dallas, Houston and several other "legacy" (yet diminishing) urban cities and emerging urban cities is laughable.

Yes, Denver is growing, and beginning to show signs of development in its core. But in its present state, it still "feels" like a medium sized city stuck in the 80's relative to the others IMO.

I prefer Denver and San Diego downtowns to Dallas and Houston. They are not bigger or denser, but they have better urban bones and walkability. If Midtown Houston can one day resemble the Gaslamp Quarter in SD, it will have come a long way.

[mhays]

Seattle isn't there yet. But it's the closest by some definitions. Only LA really has a case among the rest.

Seattle has a MUCH higher transit commute share than LA. Also a much higher walk share and bike share. Rail is nice, but LA's numbers aren't very good.

LA gets credit for high densities, but less for form.

Seattle's core districts get credit for being far denser than you might expect given the average within city limits, or the UA. Growth is focused on dozens of nodes, and many of the nodes are becoming pretty urban. I mean both residential density and office density.

Seattle's real case is its downtown growth, which doesn't have a real parallel among the contenders.

[MonkeyRonin]

I think the only case against Seattle right now is it's lousy rail system. If it had a proper metro system it'd be up there in the first tier (well, really the second tier below New York) already. Either way I think it's a pretty clear #7 in the US.

[LAsam]

Originally Posted by Obadno

LA and Dallas are largely in the same boat as Denver, their urban cores are relatively small and act more like a novelty to the overall city.

Downtown LA is not a novelty anymore relative to LA as a whole... it was 10 or 15 years ago, but not today. The amount of investment that has happened, and continues to happen, has transformed it into a vibrant neighborhood outside of business hours.

I'm not saying this to be defensive... I just think some perceptions of downtown LA don't match the reality of where we are today.

[JManc]

I thought DTLA felt rather large since it's not just the baron cluster of skyscrapers but the dense pre-war areas as well. I was there last year and there was all kind of (re)development going on.

[LAsam]

Originally Posted by JManc

I thought DTLA felt rather large since it's not just the baron cluster of skyscrapers but the dense pre-war areas as well. I was there last year and there was all kind of (re)development going on.

Yes. If you include Chinatown, Little Tokyo, Bunker Hill, South Park, Historic Core, Arts District, and Fashion District... it really is quite massive. Even if you only included Bunker Hill, South Park, and the Historic Core... it's still huge.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by JManc

I thought DTLA felt rather large since it's not just the baron cluster of skyscrapers but the dense pre-war areas as well. I was there last year and there was all kind of (re)development going on.

People in this forum have no idea what they are talking about. Saying things like LA's core isn't walkable or large lol. Downtown LA, Koreatown, Hollywood... These are all large, walkable areas. Sure, the walkable areas of LA aren't connected like Boston or NY or SF, but there are many walkable and dense neighborhoods

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by badrunner

I prefer Denver and San Diego downtowns to Dallas and Houston. They are not bigger or denser, but they have better urban bones and walkability. If Midtown Houston can one day resemble the Gaslamp Quarter in SD, it will have come a long way.

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.

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by Obadno

LA and Dallas are largely in the same boat as Denver, their urban cores are relatively small and act more like a novelty to the overall city.

^ Categorically false.

[park123]

Originally Posted by mhays

Seattle isn't there yet. But it's the closest by some definitions. Only LA really has a case among the rest.

Seattle has a MUCH higher transit commute share than LA. Also a much higher walk share and bike share. Rail is nice, but LA's numbers aren't very good.

LA gets credit for high densities, but less for form.

Seattle's core districts get credit for being far denser than you might expect given the average within city limits, or the UA. Growth is focused on dozens of nodes, and many of the nodes are becoming pretty urban. I mean both residential density and office density.

Seattle's real case is its downtown growth, which doesn't have a real parallel among the contenders.

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.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

People in this forum have no idea what they are talking about. Saying things like LA's core isn't walkable or large lol. Downtown LA, Koreatown, Hollywood... These are all large, walkable areas. Sure, the walkable areas of LA aren't connected like Boston or NY or SF, but there are many walkable and dense neighborhoods

It's used a stand in for New York, Boston, Chicago and a host of other cities all the time in TV/ movies so I never understood that perception.