SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   City Discussions (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   Any American cities moving up a tier? (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=241974)

park123 Feb 28, 2020 2:00 AM

Any American cities moving up a tier?
 
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)?

SFBruin Feb 28, 2020 4:03 AM

I don't think that Seattle is quite there yet. It is nowhere near as dense as the other six cities in your list.

uaarkson Feb 28, 2020 4:08 AM

In the last decade Detroit moved into its own tier; the very bottom.

Handro Feb 28, 2020 4:13 AM

LA and Dallas come to mind. I think both cities have been undertaking some pretty big transit projects. I don’t know about being dense per se, but maybe moving on from being completely auto-centric.

JManc Feb 28, 2020 4:25 AM

Not exactly pedestrian friendly but DFW and Houston are growing fast and denser. Dallas a little further along.

Chef Feb 28, 2020 4:44 AM

Parts of Minneapolis are significantly more urban than they were 20 years ago. I wouldn't say that it has gone up a level but it is in the process of it. That is probably true for most of the growing metros in the two to four million range that had moderately urban cores. If you add a couple hundred midrises to the gaps in the existing fabric in a city that size it goes a long way.

liat91 Feb 28, 2020 4:47 AM

Seattle and LA are closest.

Next rung would be; Denver, Minneapolis and Portland.

Third rung: San Diego, Dallas, Atlanta, Miami, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Nashville, Baltimore, Cincinnati.

Btw looking at cities with metros > 2 million.

JAYNYC Feb 28, 2020 7:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by liat91 (Post 8845139)
Seattle and LA are closest.

Next rung would be; Denver, Minneapolis and Portland.

Third rung: San Diego, Dallas, Atlanta, Miami, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Nashville, Baltimore, Cincinnati.

Btw looking at cities with metros > 2 million.

Can't speak for Minneapolis or Portland but I was in Denver last month and there's no way it's more dense than Dallas or Houston, let alone Austin.

jtown,man Feb 28, 2020 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uaarkson (Post 8845111)
In the last decade Detroit moved into its own tier; the very bottom.

North One will have words with you in 1...2...3...

thoughtcriminal Feb 28, 2020 1:22 PM

Philly "relatively unhealthy"-? WTF does that mean?

Shawn Feb 28, 2020 2:17 PM

I'd say the Tier 2 candidates are LA, Seattle, Dallas, Houston, and Miami.

You could make the argument that portions of LA will join the bottom of the Big 6 first: isn't it the only one of all the Tier 2 candidates really building out light and heavy rail?

Seattle has the bones and the culture to do it, but the transit situation isn't being addressed as seriously as LA is doing. And you'll never see Tier 1 urbanity without a real subway network.

Houston and Dallas won't be joining that Tier 1 list anytime soon, regardless of how much denser they get. I guess Dallas is set up for a closer approach (DART, which has to be the coolest transit authority name in the country), but Houston as a city seems more culturally inclined to try, even without any real transit upgrades. Either way though, there's only so much a city can hope to achieve in a Red State.

Miami, I just don't see it happening either. Too many tower-in-the-parks on top of parking podiums with minimal street activation. South Beach though, South Beach.

I don't know where to put Baltimore, which is a whole tier smaller than the Big 6, but offers walkable urbanity over large stretches just under what you can find in Boston, Philly, and DC. Pound for pound, a lot more than you'd find in all the Tier 2 candidates I listed maybe except for LA. People undersell LA's walkability; it's not continuous like you get in Tier 1 cities, but many of its islands of true urbanity are about the same size as Boston's or DC's or Philly's, just not as intense or high-grain.

IrishIllini Feb 28, 2020 2:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Handro (Post 8845115)
LA and Dallas come to mind. I think both cities have been undertaking some pretty big transit projects. I don’t know about being dense per se, but maybe moving on from being completely auto-centric.

Idk about Dallas...Even LA is spotty.

Crawford Feb 28, 2020 2:59 PM

You seem be ranking urbanity and nothing else. In that case, no, there will probably be no changes in our lifetime.

60 years ago, the most urban cities were NYC, Boston, Philly, DC, Chicago and SF. Nothing has changed, which makes sense, because relative urbanity is basically relative share of intact pre-auto form and corresponding pre-auto functionality.

In 60 years, do you think another European city will become equally as historic as Venice or Florence or Bruges? Doesn't make sense.

park123 Feb 28, 2020 3:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 8845403)
You seem be ranking urbanity and nothing else. In that case, no, there will probably be no changes in our lifetime.

60 years ago, the most urban cities were NYC, Boston, Philly, DC, Chicago and SF. Nothing has changed, which makes sense, because relative urbanity is basically relative share of intact pre-auto form and corresponding pre-auto functionality.

In 60 years, do you think another European city will become equally as historic as Venice or Florence or Bruges? Doesn't make sense.

Implicit in your post is the supposition that Americans can't build pedestrian-friendly urbanity from scratch anymore. That is probably a fair supposition. But it does seem like Americans can densify existing cities. Is that not possible in Seattle for example? Vancouver seems to be a successful example of that. Is Vancouver far off the bottom of America's top 6?

LA21st Feb 28, 2020 3:19 PM

La for sure.
People don't realize the impact the purple line will have. And that's just one thing.

Seattle is after that.

Steely Dan Feb 28, 2020 3:28 PM

if we're talking about the scale of walkable urbanism, then NYC is alone in its own tier, full stop.

no other US city is currently anywhere remotely close to touching that tier.



# of zip codes over 20,000 ppsm:

NYC - 155

chicago - 17
SF - 14
LA - 14
boston - 14
philly - 11
DC - 7

seattle - 2
miami - 2




that's it.

NYC alone has 66% of all US zip codes above 20,000 ppsm.

then the "second six" (CHI, SF, LA, BOS, PHL & DC), round out the rest, with a couple each in miami and seattle.

JManc Feb 28, 2020 3:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by park123 (Post 8845410)
Implicit in your post is the supposition that Americans can't build pedestrian-friendly urbanity from scratch anymore. That is probably a fair supposition. But it does seem like Americans can densify existing cities.

But given contemporary building codes and requirements plus modern demands, we can never reproduce the organic density of the pre-war era. We can come close.

park123 Feb 28, 2020 3:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan (Post 8845427)
if we're talking about the scale of walkable urbanism, then NYC is alone in its own tier, full stop. with no US city currently anywhere remotely close to touching that tier.



# of zip codes over 20,000 ppsm:

NYC - 155

chicago - 17
SF - 14
LA - 14
boston - 14
philly - 11
DC - 7

seattle - 2
miami - 2




that's it.

NYC alone has 66% of all US zip codes above 20,000 ppsm.

then the "second six" (CHI, SF, LA, BOS, PHL & DC), round out the rest, with a couple each in miami and seattle.

Doesn't northern NJ have quite a few? Or are they already included in your NYC number?

Steely Dan Feb 28, 2020 3:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by park123 (Post 8845433)
Doesn't northern NJ have quite a few? Or are they already included in your NYC number?

the list is by metro area, so yeah, jersey's zip codes are in that NYC number.

my apologies for not clarifying.

park123 Feb 28, 2020 3:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JManc (Post 8845431)
But given contemporary building codes and requirements plus modern demands, we can never reproduce the organic density of the pre-war era. We can come close.

Yeah the central areas of Vancouver aren't the North End of Boston, but they're not too bad. I presume that sort of thing can happen for example in Seattle (and has been happening).


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:08 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.