Rank these smaller European cities on how urban they feel compared to these American cities

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by forgotten username

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.

Boston and DC's are exceptions to most US downtowns which are usually pretty sparse compared to downtowns in most other parts of the world.

[forgotten username]

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

Boston and DC's are exceptions to most US downtowns which are usually pretty sparse compared to downtowns in most other parts of the world.

I get it, what I mean is that having a detached house with a garden is a pretty common in many parts of Europe. Not so much here because it is a pretty dense area (and yet it exists), but for instance in France suburban areas around large cities are very common (I grew up in one) and most people prefer to live in single houses which they buy on a credit. I guess in North America the houses are usually larger with more open spaces around them and further away from the city centers, but the idea is the same. I don't think the cultural difference is as important as some people make it out to be.

[That_One_Guy]

I voted for the first option. I have to agree 1000% with this statement:

Originally Posted by Facts Kill Rhetoric

Truth is, American cities punch well below their weight in an urban sense

You did pick some of our best ones for America though. With those 4 cities, along with Chicago and New York, that's really all we have.

[InDaKind]

Originally Posted by cmptrwlt

Hmm.

Boston:
City area: 232.14 km² - 625,087 people

versus

Stockholm:
City area: 188 km² - 871,952 people

I have visited San Francisco. I did not feel like a big city. I could not care less about the metro area.

SF didn't feel like a big city? I'd say it holds its own better than any US city aside from NYC.

[InDaKind]

Originally Posted by ColdAilment

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.

SF is more urban than Philly and Baltimore.

[karl77]

My rank would be based on how well connected, well designed, urban pleasant they are:

Stockholm
Nice
Copenhagen
Málaga
Lyon
San Francisco
Boston
Washington DC


Never been to Valencia nor Philadelphia.

My rank for place to live though.

1. Malaga
2. Nice
3. San Francisco
4. Boston
5. Lyon
6. DC
7. Copenhagen
8. Stockholm

I do not not like gray weather.