Good examples of dense, vibrant cities without skyscrapers? (metro, suburban, Boston)

[OyCrumbler]

I'm not too keen on the Manhattanization of every city in order to become livable (which is why I'm not so keen on all the skyline comparisons that go on in these forums), so I'd like to know some examples of great, dense cities that have almost no skyscrapers whatsoever. The best example I can think of is D.C.

Any other good contenders?

[noid_1985]

Maybe Milwaukee

[john_starks]

Tijuana, Mexico?

[Synopsis]

Scranton, PA?

[lrfox]

It's funny you mention "Manhattanization." It's worth noting that many of the best and most vibrant neighborhoods on Manhattan are mid and low rise neighborhoods. Brooklyn has some vibrant sections without high-rises as well.

Boston's most vibrant AND dense neighborhoods (North End, Back Bay, Beacon Hill, South End, Fenway, etc) are all low rise and Cambridge and Somerville have density and vibrancy without high rise buildings (with the exception of Kendall Square in Cambridge which has some moderate high rises. In fact, aside from workers during the weekdays, very few people spend much time among the high-rises. The activity is mostly in the low-rise, mixed use areas.

Washington D.C. is an excellent example. Like many European cities, the "skylines" are in suburban areas (Roslin, etc).

Providence RI has a small skyline for a "vibrant" metropolitan area of nearly 1.6 Million people and its best neighborhoods are away from the cluster of skyscrapers in the city center.

There's no reason a vibrant city can't have a good blend of both. In fact, I think "skylines" have very little to do with what makes a city great. This is true in Europe as great cities like Paris, Rome, London, Prague, etc have few "high-rises" or skylines in suburban areas. On the other hand, many cities (most of which I won't name to prevent a war from starting) have a plethora towers and very little urbanity. Dubai is a prime example. I spent two weeks there and while the city has a ton of towers, there's little in the way of urbanity outside a small portion of the old city which is absolutely tiny (but it's still the best part of the city). But cities like Boston, New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Chicago, etc have a good mix of both and it works perfectly.

[Hoarfrost]

Yeah, Chicago has a very high skyline but a lot of neighborhoods without skyscrapers. LA is a huge, dense city that you wouldn't notice just by looking at its skyline.

But I don't really have a problem with high rises anyway. I don't see how anyone could be anything worse than apathetic about them, but to each his own.

[EastSideMKE]

Originally Posted by noid_1985

Maybe Milwaukee

I second Milwaukee.

[LASam]

Other than Canary Wharf, London is a great example of low to mid-rise density. I'd imagine a lot of other European cities fit this mold as well. As far as the US goes... I think DC would be a clear winner. Los Angeles has many non-manhattanized areas that are quite dense as well.

[middle-of-nowhere]

DC should be an exception. The entire city has a maximum height restriction on buildings, so obviously, they can't build upwards.

[ckhthankgod]

Maybe many college towns like Ithaca, Ann Arbor, Madison, Berkeley, etc......