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)? |
I don't think that Seattle is quite there yet. It is nowhere near as dense as the other six cities in your list.
|
In the last decade Detroit moved into its own tier; the very bottom.
|
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.
|
Not exactly pedestrian friendly but DFW and Houston are growing fast and denser. Dallas a little further along.
|
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.
|
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Philly "relatively unhealthy"-? WTF does that mean?
|
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. |
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
|
La for sure.
People don't realize the impact the purple line will have. And that's just one thing. Seattle is after that. |
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
my apologies for not clarifying. |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 4:08 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.