Any American cities moving up a tier?

[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)?

[SFBruin]

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]

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

[Handro]

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.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by Handro

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.

[Steely Dan]

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.

[park123]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

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?

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

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.

Pound for pound, Seattle is pretty damn impressive.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by uaarkson

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]

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

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by JManc

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.

New urbanity isn't as good as old urbanity, but it's still good. A newer city like Seattle supplemented by increased high-density development & transit is both functionally & aesthetically a lot more urban than a place like Baltimore that was once very urban but has since declined & suburbanized.

Originally Posted by thoughtcriminal

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

Yeah, not sure how Philly is any less healthy than Chicago. Both have large areas of blight and crime, but also have growing cores and substantial tracts of high quality intact urbanity.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Yeah, not sure how Philly is any less healthy than Chicago. Both have large areas of blight and crime, but also have growing cores and substantial tracts of high quality intact urbanity.

Yeah, Philly isn't SF-Seattle level healthy (i.e. hitting on all economic/desirability cylinders) but I fail to see how Philly is objectively less healthy than Chicago. Both have very strong urban/metropolitan environments, but both have legacy issues.

[goat314]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

New urbanity isn't as good as old urbanity, but it's still good. A newer city like Seattle supplemented by increased high-density development & transit is both functionally & aesthetically a lot more urban than a place like Baltimore that was once very urban but has since declined & suburbanized.

Yeah, not sure how Philly is any less healthy than Chicago. Both have large areas of blight and crime, but also have growing cores and substantial tracts of high quality intact urbanity.

Seattle has a more bustling downtown core, but the average intact residential block in Baltimore, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, or Cincinnati will always be more urban for obvious reasons. If any of these cities experience the infill boom seen in places like Seattle or Denver they would become more functionally urban than all of the newer boom towns over much wider area.

[summersm343]

Originally Posted by thoughtcriminal

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

LOL, yeah, for real. What exactly does that mean? Philly is slow growing, but still growing. Is that what he means? I'm not sure.

I mean, there's some areas of blight in the city (parts of North and West Philly), but aside from that, it has to be one of the most pound for pound urban cities after NYC and MAYBE Chi-town. I think if Philly was entirely built out with no urban blight and no empty lots in North and West Philly, many may consider it the second or third most urban in the country. Philly's urbanity extends for much longer than Boston or San Francisco, but with Boston and San Fran more gentrified and redeveloped at this point, I would say they stay more consistent longer than Philly currently does.

[JManc]

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

[Chef]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by liat91

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.

[Shawn]

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.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Shawn

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.

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.