Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So if you already have a formulated opinion which you believe to be factual on which continent has more urbanized cities, why are you asking other people for input? It doesn't appear that anyone is going to change your mind anyway.
Who says this thread has to be about me and what I think? I also don't think my posts are entirely on the factual side, that's not what I'm going for either way (well I am) but I'm shooting for answers on perception more than anything else. Sure, I have my mind made up but it's definitely not the picture you have of it at least, plus I want to see what others think about this topic.
I do think one of these American cities hold their own and that's San Francisco.
My issue with Washington is that it's too small, too un-dense, and it's definitely the least vibrant of the bunch by far. Boston does a bit better, it's more active, denser, and unlike Washington, proportionately more areas of it's city are usable since it has few to no slums where as the northeast and southeast of Washington is just slums save a few areas.
There's not a whole lot of consistency compared to the cities in Europe. I mean all cities have slums but did you see how under-developed that one looked? Washington DC is the exact same story too. Go from that rough neighborhood several miles in any direction and you'll see the most bombed out looking neighborhoods there is.
You're going to be pressed to be finding large portions of Valencia and the rest looking that under-developed. Then we have Boston, which compared to Philadelphia and Washington has an all around better city in terms of those slums but compared to Philadelphia, it's noticeably less dense and "big city" feeling. It's sort of like when one American city has one thing, it lacks another thing and the cycle keeps going on and on and on.
San Francisco all around has it. It's dense, save a few bad areas it's roughly a presentable dense city, very vibrant all over the city, it's a good bit larger and or denser than Boston and Washington, and it's urban all around. So this is one that I think holds it's own personally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdAilment
I don't see what the infatuation with urbanity is.
I know New York City was not on the list, but it would win hands down over almost any other city. Boston, Philadelphia, and Baltimore would hold their own against most foreign cities. San Francisco might win out againt a few, and it's probably the most dense and urban of any west coast city, but it's on a different level from most European cities.
Los Angeles is denser over a larger area than San Francisco. Honestly, when I compare cities in America to those of the rest of the world I'm only thinking of New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, and at times Boston (and for importance, Washington DC) to do it with. They have the most consistency on a global scale.
The rest of our cities are a work in progress, in my opinion.
Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 05-10-2013 at 03:18 PM..
Location: Near Tours, France about 47°10'N 0°25'E
2,825 posts, read 5,262,092 times
Reputation: 1957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Code Lyoko
American cities
Boston
Philadelphia
San Francisco
Washington DC
World cities
Málaga
Lyon
Nice
Copenhagen
Valencia
Stockholm
I'm not asking for which ones feel the largest, frankly that has nothing to do with "most urban" or not. I'm simply asking any of you with relative experience in any of these cities to order them in a list of which ones are most urban to least and how the American cities stack up to the ones from elsewhere.
You're free to include things such as walkability, density, transit, vibrancy (pedestrian activity), large walkable and urban core area with bustling activity, so on in your analysis. I didn't want to put this in the urban planning forum since it's too broad for there and I'm not asking for only statistics but also for some personal experience from those of you that have been to any of these cities (you don't have to have experience in all, just a couple of American cities and a couple of overseas cities).
Next question, as a collective group. Do you think the American cities can hold their own or do you think they fall to the bottom of the list in comparison to some of these other European cities?
"urbanity", in the meaning of density, walkability is typically a European thing. And more precicely a more southern European thing. In the mediterranean area, even small villages are dense urban tissues (even if small in extend). The urban model of American cities is the antithesis of this definition of urbanity (American cities model can be schematized as a central cdb made of skyscrappers sourrounded by suburban sprawl connected by large highways with malls spread around.)
There are some American cities that can show some of these caracteristics of european urbanity in some part of their center; but still follow an American subrurbian model for most of it.
Actually, Stockholm is a world class city. The 2012 Global Competitiveness Index ranked Stockholm tied as the 19th most important city in the world with Seoul. The precious "put up on a pedestal" LA that is loved so much in your post was only 18th, one spot in front of Stockholm!!!
Last edited by Ice Cream Man; 05-11-2013 at 02:16 PM..
Actually, Stockholm is a world class city. The 2012 Global Competitiveness Index ranked Stocholm tied as the 19th most important city in the world with Seoul. The precious "out up on a pedestal" LA that is loved so much in your post was only 18th, one spot in front of Stockholm!!!
Well, he only said that because it isn't in America. Oneless despises Europe. lol
But...I have to post this. I don't know if I'm reading it wrong, or if it's the wrong list or what......
The Global Competitiveness and Global Cities Index are two different research tools or lists. Both look at cities in terms of importance, the OP wanted to speak about urbanity. I was just responding to one less dulusional hatred towards Europe, sounds like someone who has never left California or the U.S. for that matter.
The Global Competitiveness and Global Cities Index are two different research tools or lists. Both look at cities in terms of importance, the OP wanted to speak about urbanity. I was just responding to one less dulusional hatred towards Europe, sounds like someone who has never left California or the U.S. for that matter.
"urbanity", in the meaning of density, walkability is typically a European thing. And more precicely a more southern European thing. In the mediterranean area, even small villages are dense urban tissues (even if small in extend). The urban model of American cities is the antithesis of this definition of urbanity (American cities model can be schematized as a central cdb made of skyscrappers sourrounded by suburban sprawl connected by large highways with malls spread around.)
There are some American cities that can show some of these caracteristics of european urbanity in some part of their center; but still follow an American subrurbian model for most of it.
A fair description of many U.S. cities, though some could be said to have a genuine downtown, rather than just a glorified office park for a CBD.
If urbanity is to grow in the average U.S. city, I expect it to be on a small scale. Think village sized areas of urban tissue. I think this is what urban planners don't get, they think of turning a entire metropolitan area into a dense city, including the suburbs.
Last edited by Tim Randal Walker; 10-02-2017 at 05:15 PM..
So if you already have a formulated opinion which you believe to be factual on which continent has more urbanized cities, why are you asking other people for input? It doesn't appear that anyone is going to change your mind anyway.
I don't see what the infatuation with urbanity is. Why people would want to live packed in tight apartments and row houses tucked away like sardines is beyond me. American cities are obviously less dense, even our older east coast cities, with the exception of a few, obviously New York City, Boston, Baltimore, and a few others, but their metro areas are surprisignly more spread out than their European counterparts. We are a completely different culture over here, a country that was once, and for the most part, is still full of open unzoned land. Most Americans like their space, their land, their property. Ownership of not just a home, but of a house, unique to your making with property lines that span acres is a mark of success to most of us.
I know New York City was not on the list, but it would win hands down over almost any other city. Boston, Philadelphia, and Baltimore would hold their own against most foreign cities. San Francisco might win out againt a few, and it's probably the most dense and urban of any west coast city, but it's on a different level from most European cities.
This describes very well a lot of people I knew in suburban Lyon and the house my parents had or where I grew up. Watching American movies, it seemed life was not that different there. Of course downtowns are dense, but so is the case in Boston or NYC.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
