View Full Version : Opinions on which are the best urban cities in the US and the world



Pages : [1] 2

Rover
12-19-2010, 07:44 PM
There seems to be a pretty diverse group of opinions on what really is the ideal urban area. So, I am wondering which city in the US you think is the BEST urban area and why, and which is the best in the world, and why. Also, note if you have actually been there and experienced it or only have an opinion after reading about it or seeing pictures.

earlywinegareth
12-19-2010, 07:50 PM
NYC. Isn't that what every other city would like to be?

Platemaker
12-19-2010, 07:56 PM
USA: (in no particular order)
San Francisco
New York City
Boston
Chicago
Philadelphia
Seattle
Washington
LA
Portland
New Orleans

onthestrip
12-19-2010, 08:03 PM
My idea of a good urban city is a city that you are able to take a quick walk, bike ride, or public transit to everything you need. Close distances between attractions, entertainment, shopping, hotels and living spaces and work places is what makes good urban areas imo. Having said that, as far as US cities go San Francisco and New York are the obvious choices for me.

As for world I think you could pick a number of European cities. Amsterdam, Barcelona, Florence, and Munich are all great urban cities. You can practically walk anywhere you need to go to in these cities. These cities were built on a human scale, not designed for a car and parking lot culture.

Pete
12-19-2010, 08:05 PM
These are places I've all spent a decent amount of time and have great urban neighborhoods, an abundance of cultural amenities, excellent public transportation and lots of parks and recreation.

Big U.S. Cities: San Francisco, New York, Chicago, Boston
Medium U.S. Cities: Denver, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, Portland, Seattle, San Diego, Minneapolis, Atlanta
Small U.S. Cities: Des Moines, Madison
International: Paris -- in a class by itself. More modern: Munich and Sydney.

PennyQuilts
12-19-2010, 08:17 PM
It's not my cup of tea but NYC is a great town. I think if you are young and childless, it's fun and exciting. It is a dog friendly town (so many people are childless so dogs fill that gap) and that makes it nice. Odd as this sounds, I like the weather in some seasons. And NYC is one of those places that is very congested but it doesn't take any time at all to be in beautiful, rural areas. The problem is that so many people don't have cars to drive to them.

I also like Chicago. It is a big city but is still midwestern and the people are nice.

San Antonio used to be nice but haven't been there, recently. I used to love the weather, the food, the proximity to the Hill country.

Tucson is fantastic. Love the climate and the wide open, free wheeling western atmosphere and attitude. It is not really urban the way Chicago or NYC are (nor is San Antonio, I guess).

What I learned about myself after living near DC is that the climate and being in the sun belt is very important to me. I personally don't want to live in a humid area like Houston, NO, DC, Atlanta, etc., or a place up north with shorter days. For me, even a little shorter is more than I want and I don't like long winters. Not everyone feels that way, of course.

Spartan
12-19-2010, 08:23 PM
These are places I've all spent a decent amount of time and have great urban neighborhoods, an abundance of cultural amenities, excellent public transportation and lots of parks and recreation.

Big U.S. Cities: San Francisco, New York, Chicago, Boston
Medium U.S. Cities: Denver, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, Portland, Seattle, San Diego, Minneapolis
Small U.S. Cities: Des Moines, Madison
International: Paris -- in a class by itself. More modern: Munich and Sydney.

I love this. Great idea about breaking it down. I have been doing an insane amount of traveling the last few years for school, for OU road games, seeing family, and so on. I'm not an expert, but I have the frequent flier miles to back up some of my perceptions, and of course done case studies on some environmental design from other places I've never been.

As far as New York goes, I really don't like NYC that much. Don't get me wrong, I love it as a place and as an experience, but from an urban design viewpoint, NYC's density doesn't mean it has the best urban design. It's streets are a nightmare. They've been very reluctant to adopt things like bump-outs and ped crossings and other things that their local urban activists argue for. One thing NY has going for it that nowhere else does is the sheer density and sheer volume of different modes of traffic means that good things will happen on the streets regardless of the streetscape quality. So I'm not just going to name the biggest cities, and I'm not doing this just to be original either..

A bold will mean an exclamation mark.

Best Tier 1: DC, Chicago, Seattle, San Fran, Boston, Philly
Most-improving Tier 1: Houston, LA, Dallas
Best Tier 2: Portland!!!, Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, New Orleans, Kansas City, Denver, Cincinnati, Indy
Best Tier 3: Louisville, Des Moines, Birmingham, Buffalo, Tulsa

I think the concept of the college towns is kind of overrated, but the individual college towns themselves are extremely underrated. I think there are a lot of college towns that urbanists should worship as much as Chicago and San Fran: Lawrence!!!, Iowa City, Missoula, Eugene!, Tuscaloosa, Fayetteville, Madison, Ann Arbor, Bloomington, Georgetown TX, and Athens are some really good ones.

Some European cities you might not have thought to definitely check out: Copenhagen, Aarhus, Manchester, Newcastle, Edinburgh, Malmo, Goteborg, Oslo, Tallinn, Riga, St. Petersburg, Bratislava, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Zagreb, Dusseldorf, Warsaw, Bilbao, Thessaloniki

PennyQuilts
12-19-2010, 08:28 PM
Spartan, I know this sort of thing is interesting to you. I'm curious what it is about DC that you believe makes it an exceptional Tier 1 urban area.

Rover
12-19-2010, 08:32 PM
IMHO, Paris #1 in the world, by a big margin. Strangely, it has wide streets and boulevards, lots of parks and green spaces, big plazas, rivers and boulevards as barriers, etc. which many on here say can't work. Same goes for Barcelona, also a favorite of mine.

In South America, Santiago Chile is pretty good.

Vancouver is my favorite in Canada

Sydney my favorite in Australia

Singapore in Asia

Beirut in the Middle East

In the US, Chicago is a great city (except for the weather). In my opinion, much nicer than New York City. Most livable downtown urban area.

Pete
12-19-2010, 08:39 PM
Houston, Dallas and LA have to be most improving because they are the worst examples of sprawl on the entire planet. I live in L.A. and go out of my way to take commuter rail and the light rail but we are a long, long, long, long way from most the other cities being mentioned here. Same -- even more so -- with Houston & Dallas.

I love NYC and have spent a ton of time there. I actually find the people to be great -- most are from somewhere else anyway, much like L.A. It's so easy to navigate and something interesting around every corner.

I am not a fan at all of DC and New Orleans. DC has way too much crime and poverty per capita and New Orleans was slimy even before the flood.

Never been to Philly or Cincy but Cleveland impressed me, perhaps because my expectations were so low. But that sure didn't work for Detroit, which is just a terrible, terrible place.

Milwaukee is my favorite, underrated city. I go every summer for a family reunion and do a walking tour starting just south of downtown (in their fantastic historic 3rd Ward) and proceed all the way through downtown and up to the UW-Milwaukee campus. Tons of great old neighborhoods that went largely untouched during the 50', 60's and 70's, as people never left there in the first place. Lots of college in and near downtown, so tons of young people have moved in and kept those areas interesting and vibrant. Since very little was ever torn down and because it's an older city (by U.S. standards) there is a fantastic mix of cool historical stuff and infill development. Love that town.

PennyQuilts
12-19-2010, 08:41 PM
Milwaukee is my favorite, underrated city. I go every summer for a family reunion and do a walking tour starting just south of downtown (in their fantastic historic 3rd Ward) and proceed all the way through downtown and up to the UW-Milwaukee campus. Tons of great old neighborhoods that went largely untouched during the 50', 60's and 70's, as people never left there in the first place. Lots of college in and near downtown, so tons of young people have moved in and kept those areas interesting and vibrant.

That sounds lovely.

Pete
12-19-2010, 08:47 PM
Milwaukee also has a fantastic lakefront with beaches, tons of trails, a lagoon, thousands of acres of parks, huge marinas on Lake Michigan and a bunch of museums adjacent to downtown.

Just north from the CBD there are some gorgeous old neighborhoods where the old robber barrons built mansions during the industrial age. And lots of the old factories along the river have been renovated.

It's very similar to the older neighborhoods of Chicago, with Taverns and other little retail places embedded on neighborhood streets -- all dating back 100+ years. And to be fair, Chicago is a fantastic place as well. I had a friend that lived within walking distance of Wrigley Field and it was an amazing area of parks, restaurants and millions of things to do. All for a lot less money than most big cities and with a much friendlier vibe.

Kerry
12-19-2010, 08:52 PM
I think London and Montreal are the two greatest urban areas I have been to.

Unlike many of the cities listed above (especially the American ones), you can live your entire life in London and never need to own a car, never. Every inch of the city accessible by rail or bus. Even London's urban sprawl is high density. NYC doesn't even come close to that level of service.

I love Montreal because of the Underground City. It allows every facet of the urban life to be enjoyed even when there is 5 feet of snow on the ground above.

Chicago, San Fransicso, Portland, etc... those place are nice but the true walkable portions are small in comparison to the metro area. While parts are truely urban, vast portions require car ownership.

http://www.aviewoncities.com/montreal/reso.htm


As the years passed, more underground segments were added to RÉSO. The underground city now stretches for 32 kilometers (20 miles) and covers 4 million square meters. According to official statistics, its corridors link up with 10 metro stations, 2 bus terminals, 1,200 offices, about 2,000 stores including 2 major department stores, approximately 1,600 housing units, 200 restaurants, 40 banks, 40 movie theatres and other entertainment venues, 7 major hotels, the University of Quebec at Montreal campus and the University of Montreal, Olympic Park, Place des Arts, a cathedral, the Bell Centre (home of the Montreal Canadiens), and 3 exhibition halls: the Place Bonaventure, the Convention Centre (Palais des Congrès de Montréal) and the Olympic Centre.


Incidentally, street level retail development came to a halt after the advent of the underground city in 1964.

Pete
12-19-2010, 08:54 PM
Rover, I agree about Paris. It's absolutely beautiful and clean and everything else you could ever want in a city.

The wide boulevards came well after the city was developed, however. Saw a documentary on this that was very interesting... The central government basically pulled down huge areas of apartments to put in the wide streets then built new housing. Not sure if this concept would work when trying to develop a city that isn't already built up around it.

Rover
12-19-2010, 09:07 PM
Rover, I agree about Paris. It's absolutely beautiful and clean and everything else you could ever want in a city.

The wide boulevards came well after the city was developed, however. Saw a documentary on this that was very interesting... The central government basically pulled down huge areas of apartments to put in the wide streets then built new housing. Not sure if this concept would work when trying to develop a city that isn't already built up around it.

Wasn't that re-development of Paris in the mid 1800s done by Hauseman? The boulevards that were built are great contributors to the beauty of the city, in my humble opinion.

In Paris, you can go to different parts of the city and see development from many different eras, accounting, of course, for the destructions of war.

Rover
12-19-2010, 09:18 PM
Rover, I agree about Paris. It's absolutely beautiful and clean and everything else you could ever want in a city.

The wide boulevards came well after the city was developed, however. Saw a documentary on this that was very interesting... The central government basically pulled down huge areas of apartments to put in the wide streets then built new housing. Not sure if this concept would work when trying to develop a city that isn't already built up around it.

I can think of many great cities I've been to with great wide boulevards that are vibrant....Paris, Bangkok, Singapore, Mexico City, Seoul, Brussels, Vienna, Berlin, Buenos Aires, Florence, Barcelona, Riyahd, and more. It might not work here in OKC, but I have seen it work quite nicely in other places.

soonerguru
12-19-2010, 10:20 PM
New York City to me is the ultimate urban city. But I've been to many others that have a great urban quality. Madrid and Barcelona in Spain; Paris, Berlin, Amsterdam (which is actually somewhat small but very urban), Prague.

soonerguru
12-19-2010, 10:26 PM
NYC doesn't even come close to that level of service

Say wha? You can get everywhere in NYC via public transit. EVERYWHERE. I guess there are some places in the outer boroughs that aren't covered as well but you always have multiple transportation options to get anywhere in NYC and you most certainly NEVER need a car. I do agree that Montreal is a very nice city.

Spartan
12-19-2010, 10:54 PM
Oh man, Amsterdam is my favorite city in the world, for a million reasons. The women there are beautiful, especially by W. Europe standards. It was so much fun riding an old clunky bicycle all over that city. In Canada, I find it interesting that Montreal gets so much praise. I've never been but I go to school with a lot of people from Quebec and many of them say Montreal is as European as it gets in N. America, but it's also a very gritty city in some parts. At OU I knew a guy from Maine, and whenever he goes home he rarely goes out or parties during the summer unless they go up to Quebec because of the festive atmosphere and the drinking age.

Been to Vancouver, and I thought it was very similar to Calgary. I say that knowing Calgary extremely well, and probably having an inflated opinion of Calgary. When you are entrenched in a place for a long time it grows on you and you just focus on the things that interest you, but IMO the urban development in Calgary is very comparable to the urban development in Vancouver, it just lacks an oceanfront and snow-capped mountain peaks behind the skyline. Although I would argue that the Bow River in Calgary is very scenic, and actually, you can see snow-capped mountain peaks from Calgary, they're just further away than from Vancouver. I don't think they have free LRT like Calgary does, either.

____________

Penny, as for DC, the western half of the District is the best overall urban area in the U.S., maybe tied with Chicago. I have been in love with DC since I lived there one summer while I was still in high school, and I got to take summer classes at Georgetown. Because I was actually enrolled at GT and not a part of some summer program that monitored where I was constantly, I was 17 and had a great deal of freedom to explore the city at any hour I wanted. I have so many good memories from that summer. Some of them include this awesome coffee shop at about 35th and O, long morning walks around the shaded streets of Georgetown and nearby areas, walking over to the metro in Rosslyn and going anywhere I wanted, finding clubs in Shaw that would let a mature looking HS kid in (probably not a good idea), shopping on M Street, catching movie flicks at the movie theater on the Potomac, paying $10 to get into Nats games and moving down to the 5th row (cheapest I've ever paid to see my 'Stros play!), and so on. It really is a great city, and while I was there I really just wanted nothing more than to be able to afford a home in Georgetown, Foggy Bottom, Dupont Circle, Adams Morgan, or any of the other famous DC neighborhoods. I also have a really good friend who is currently attending GWU in downtown DC and she also loves that area, brags about all the things she is always doing. Also, DC is doing some good things with redevelopment. In the adjacent inner burbs, which are quite urban, there is a ton of urban development, and the district itself has a lot of projects, such as the National Harbor down by Chinatown, and other big developments which are transforming some of the areas that used to be kind of bad. Northern VA isn't world-class but Arlington County is very nice, too. I also just like the lifestyle and the style of DC and the rest of the Mid-Atlantic region..it's east-coast, slightly elite but manageable, people dress much classier than in OK/TX, most people are fit and play sports, go to private school, and really know how to appreciate weather that's good. I also love the mix of kooky liberals--case in point, the license tags that all say "Taxation Without Representation."

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQdT5c8I-Q75sW44tOVY_Fb0fdmB2WMDRjJcLhfpOaoeFHQSg43
Wisconsin Ave in Georgetown

http://cdn1.mobilemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/image_48382_largeimagefile.jpg
Dupont Circle

This is just a very European city.

PennyQuilts
12-20-2010, 05:43 AM
DC weather in the summer varies from year to year and occasionally it is nice. One of my girls went to Georgetown. What summer were you there? 98 and 2000 had nice summers. I first moved there in 2000 and loved the summer but most of the time it is pretty awful. My favorite season is the fall when the humidity drops. I love the tourist and federal part near the mall and close in west and north. When I first moved thre, the big marble buildings and classical architecture just amazed me. You get to where you take it for granted pretty quickly and I know I did but you reminded me in your post of how it was to see it with new eyes. Thanks.

Kerry
12-20-2010, 06:21 AM
Say wha? You can get everywhere in NYC via public transit. EVERYWHERE. I guess there are some places in the outer boroughs that aren't covered as well but you always have multiple transportation options to get anywhere in NYC and you most certainly NEVER need a car. I do agree that Montreal is a very nice city.

What I am saying about NYC is that like every other metro area in the US, it tappers off into rural areas. The further out you go the more rural it becomes. There is no definitive urban/rural line and once you leave the five borrows, public transportation becomes even more spotty. Greater London however doesn't tapper off at all. You go from high density urban to farm field in one block and everything is within a short walk to a metro station.

Even rural communities in England are high density. Take a look at North Weald Bassett; it is a rural area just outside London but the town itself is high density. They only have a population of about 4,461 but they have a population density of 4695.8 ppl/sq km (that is 12,162 ppl/ sq mile). The local golf course is 50% the whole towns land area. Compare it to something like Mustang and you will see what I am talking about. If North Weald Bassett doesn't do it for you then go a little further out to Chipping Ongar.

For medium sized cities, check out Birmingham, UK (3X the population of metro OKC in an area about 1/5 the size).

Rover
12-20-2010, 06:51 AM
For a great mid-sized city try Lyon, France. Great intimate urban settings, classic architecture, large public space, good public transportation, very walkable, and integrates historic areas well. (Not to mention it is a gastronomic center of Europe).

I agree with Spartan...Amsterdam is a nice urban surprise with with walkability and easy public transport, whether by rail or by canal. However, the weather is bad much of the year.

Chicken In The Rough
12-20-2010, 08:19 AM
DC is my favorite in the US as well. It is dense but does not seem overly crowded. The transit system is clean and seemingly efficient, but a little limited. The new line being built to Dulles will help. The city offers incredible cultural diversity and the best selection of museums in the world (and most have no admission charge). I love the eclectic architecture, and I like building height restrictions even though I think they are not sustainable. I've always thought it is the people that make the difference between a good city and a great city. The people of the DC area are wonderful. There are few greater concentrations of authors, poets, artists, educators, and creative types in the world. Perhaps this is my own bias, but in DC, people seem to embrace lifelong learning to a greater extent than I have experienced in other cities.

Vancouver has many attributes of a world-class city, but I've always thought people are awed more by its natural scenery than by its civic amenities. I also like Calgary quite a lot but, no offense, it is too much of a chain-store town for me. It lacks the local vibe that I love. Montreal is overrated, and Toronto is way overrated.

Has anyone noticed the obvious correlation between great urban centers and the high cost of living? I don't have any stats, but it seems that cities that provide great urban environments come at a great cost. DC, New York, Paris, London, Tokyo, San Francisco, Vancouver, Amsterdam, etc. are among the most expensive places to live in the world. On a smaller scale, Austin & Portland are the most expensive in their regions, and Ann Arbor is probably the most expensive place in Michigan. Conversely, cities on the lists of most affordable are most often places you wouldn't want to live.

Kerry
12-20-2010, 08:52 AM
I am truely stunned that any city in the US gets listed among the great urban cities of the world. We must have vastly different definitions of urban. The D.C. area is all sprawl once you get outside the urban core.

Architect2010
12-20-2010, 08:54 AM
IMHO, Paris #1 in the world, by a big margin. Strangely, it has wide streets and boulevards, lots of parks and green spaces, big plazas, rivers and boulevards as barriers, etc. which many on here say can't work.

Yes Rover, like you've said, I don't think people on here necessarily mean that wide boulevards are a universal 'don't work'. Instead, I believe most people just recognize that OKC doesn't need boulevards of Paris' caliber in our downtown.

Architect2010
12-20-2010, 08:56 AM
I am truely stunned that any city in the US gets listed among the great urban cities of the world. We must have vastly different definitions of urban. The D.C. area is all sprawl once you get outside the urban core.

And excuse me for the double post. But NYC? Chicago? DC? Yes, they ALL have suburbs, but that doesn't mean they can't be urban. All cities of the world do. Even the European cities have had sprawl to an extent outside of urban cores. It isn't just the U.S. that is experiencing these problems, even though we're without a doubt the one with the worst addiction to suburbia.

Kerry
12-20-2010, 09:06 AM
Even the European cities have had sprawl to an extent outside of urban cores. It isn't just the U.S. that is experiencing these problems, even though we're without a doubt the one with the worst addiction to suburbia.

Not London. I thought that was the purpose of this thread. London is just as dense at its fringe as it is at the center. There are not any subdivision in Greater London with 1/2 acre lots and there sure are not any with 5 acre suburban ranches. From what I have seen of the UK you either live in town or you live in the country - there is no suburbia. Even rural communites are tightly packed into small areas. The area around Atlanta has become a little like that recently. While there is sprawl in Atlanta and large suburban yards, I found it strange that when we were looking for a home we would drive to a subdivision out in the country, miles from nowhere, and the housing would be real dense, with just a few feet between homes. It seemed weird to drive past miles of open land to a subdivison with 10 homes per acre.

soonerliberal
12-20-2010, 09:42 AM
I live just outside of Washington, DC and have spent the past two years traveling up and down the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast coast. While NYC is obviously has the most extensive urban setting, there are plenty of other cities that are urban centered. Boston and DC are the two that are most striking to me. (I would include Chicago if I wasn't talking about the NE) They seem to be the two other cities in the US that are much less reliant on cars as a mode of transportation. Both have vibrant arts and entertainment scenes and have a significant number of young professionals living, working, and spending in their cities. While there are areas of significant levels of crime in all three cities, their crime rates are plummeting overall. Each city also has significant rush hour traffic for those living in the suburban areas of those who choose to take a car to work rather than using public transportation.

I live in Arlington, VA, which has won a number of awards for smart growth. Here is an interesting article on how they have done it:
http://blog.smartgrowthamerica.org/2009/05/08/arlington-virginias-story-of-smart-growth-the-movie/
Also a video... The first 3 minutes are really descriptive of how it was done: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvtY9L5fPUU

TStheThird
12-20-2010, 09:46 AM
In my US travels, I really like Seattle and Boston.

In Europe, I really enjoyed the eight months I lived in Bologna, Italy.

Bologna Wiki Page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bologna)

It is a smaller European city, but was a great "urban" environment. It is what imagine OKC being like if the city ever gets dense from 23rd street to the river... 4-6 story mixed used buildings on every inch of land and a different pizzeria every 15 feet.

PennyQuilts
12-20-2010, 10:31 AM
I am truely stunned that any city in the US gets listed among the great urban cities of the world. We must have vastly different definitions of urban. The D.C. area is all sprawl once you get outside the urban core.

Most people can't afford to live in DC unless they are quite wealthy or are so poor they don't care if they live in shacks. Just a fact. The vast majority of people live in the suburbs. If you are on a Merto line, it works okay. We lived near the end of the Yellow line and that was fun. If you are in the suburbs and aren't on a line, sadly, it is a hellish commute. When we moved further out to get a better house, we paid by increasing our daily commute time from 30 - 45 minutes to hours. That being said, the tourist parts or near the tourist parts, are beautiful and easy to get around. They keep them clean and safe. From time to time crime spills over to those areas and they really clamp down on it because of the tourist trade. I can't agree with the idea that crime is plumeting. It isn't. It is really awful but it is in the "bad" neighborhoods and in the "good" neighborhoods, crime is quite low. When they get a line out to Dulles it will be really helpful (that particular area is ghastly in terms of traffic). Don't know when it will be completed but they've been talking about it, for years. The problem with DC really is the traffic if you aren't on a Metro line and the climate (it was built on a swamp and the humidity is typically beyond oppressive - and if there is a snowflake, the town shuts down due to the commuting traffic). But I agree that the museums and the things they have set up for tourists are top notch.

soonerguru
12-20-2010, 10:55 AM
For a great mid-sized city try Lyon, France. Great intimate urban settings, classic architecture, large public space, good public transportation, very walkable, and integrates historic areas well. (Not to mention it is a gastronomic center of Europe).

I agree with Spartan...Amsterdam is a nice urban surprise with with walkability and easy public transport, whether by rail or by canal. However, the weather is bad much of the year.

Lyon is very nice. Great food, too.

Kerry
12-20-2010, 11:10 AM
Most people can't afford to live in DC unless they are quite wealthy or are so poor they don't care if they live in shacks. Just a fact. The vast majority of people live in the suburbs. If you are on a Merto line, it works okay. We lived near the end of the Yellow line and that was fun. If you are in the suburbs and aren't on a line, sadly, it is a hellish commute. When we moved further out to get a better house, we paid by increasing our daily commute time from 30 - 45 minutes to hours.

And some people consider DC to be one of the world's great urban areas. It doesn't even make my list of Top 100. DC is sprawl looking for a city. Like I said, we must all be using different definitions of 'best' and 'urban'.

soonerliberal
12-20-2010, 02:56 PM
And some people consider DC to be one of the world's great urban areas. It doesn't even make my list of Top 100. DC is sprawl looking for a city. Like I said, we must all be using different definitions of 'best' and 'urban'.

I'm going to challenge you a little bit on that. As for sprawl... NYC has Long Island, NJ, CT, and Westchester County. Chicago and Boston has suburbs that go miles and miles out. Pretty much every city has suburban sprawl. Within the core of DC (NW DC in particular) and Arlington County, it is very urban and there has been dramatic changes and urbanization even in the past five years. Within DC, areas such as Columbia Heights, the Navy Yard area, and U-Street are completely different than they were 10 years ago. They have moved from being nearly exclusively single family housing (townhomes) and low level apartments to having many more large, expensive apartment/condo buildings. In the areas south of U-street, not having a car is pretty common nor is it necessary. Regardless of where you are, the commute from the suburbs in DC, NYC, Chicago, Boston, Philly, etc. is incredibly irritating if you do it by car.

Rover
12-20-2010, 03:44 PM
Not London. I thought that was the purpose of this thread. London is just as dense at its fringe as it is at the center. There are not any subdivision in Greater London with 1/2 acre lots and there sure are not any with 5 acre suburban ranches. From what I have seen of the UK you either live in town or you live in the country - there is no suburbia. Even rural communites are tightly packed into small areas. The area around Atlanta has become a little like that recently. While there is sprawl in Atlanta and large suburban yards, I found it strange that when we were looking for a home we would drive to a subdivision out in the country, miles from nowhere, and the housing would be real dense, with just a few feet between homes. It seemed weird to drive past miles of open land to a subdivison with 10 homes per acre.

London has suburbs too, however it is mostly row homes and not multifamily high-mid rises. The density does dimminish as you go out from London. I used to drive out my office in Basingstoke regularly and passed through lots of lower density areas. That said, the preponderance of London is totally urban.

betts
12-20-2010, 04:08 PM
Love, love, love London. The best city in the world, IMO. I love Venice too.....lots of walkability and density and certainly one of the earlier examples of urban.

Spartan
12-20-2010, 11:11 PM
And some people consider DC to be one of the world's great urban areas. It doesn't even make my list of Top 100. DC is sprawl looking for a city. Like I said, we must all be using different definitions of 'best' and 'urban'.

Well that's like judging OKC by Edmond. Even DC's suburbs, in most places, are still quite urban. Bethesda. Silver City. Gaithersburg. Frederick. Rockville. College Park. Tyson's Corner. Ballston. Rosslyn. Crystal City. Alexandria. Clarendon. All more viable urban areas outside the District than anything in Oklahoma.

And I don't think you can say that DC isn't the District and that the suburbs outweigh DC proper. The District is a big inner city. If you want to make that argument, get ready to call NYC and Boston sprawl-central as well.

Rover
12-20-2010, 11:19 PM
Dc is definitely more sprawling than NYC or Boston.

Spartan
12-20-2010, 11:35 PM
I don't know. Long Island = Northern VA. Plus Westchester County. Plus further into Jersey. Plus Connecticut.

ljbab728
12-20-2010, 11:47 PM
Love, love, love London. The best city in the world, IMO. I love Venice too.....lots of walkability and density and certainly one of the earlier examples of urban.

I definitely agree with you about Venice, Betts. It's my favorite city in Europe and the possibility of sprawl is certainly limited. LOL

Kerry
12-21-2010, 06:01 AM
Here is what I am saying. Whether it be greater New York, Boston, Chicago, or DC - their high density urban cores slowly fade to rural as you go further out. While the city proper might be at 100% buildout, the metro area suffers from the same urban sprawl as every other American city. If you drew a line from Times Square to Niagara Falls and asked 100 people where urban ends and rural begins you would probably get 150 different answers. Pick any street on Long Island and based on the density of that street you can tell how far from New York City you are; high density is closer and the bigger the yards and homes get the further from NYC you are.

This is not the case in Greater London though. The density of housing does not drop off as you go further out. It goes from high density to farm field very quickly, sometimes within 1 block. The only area that could be considered sprawl is the area mentioned by Rover - near Basingstoke. But even here it isn't American style sprawl with large yards and large homes and 100acre shopping centers. The homes are still high density row homes with small yards and the houses are pushed in close to the street. London also expands the rail network to serve the new areas so everyone is either close to a National Rail station or a London Tube station.

If the question is, what are the best urban cities in the world then my list probably has to go London, Hong Kong, Singapore, Rio de Janeiro, and Bucharest. I didn't base my list on cities I want to visit or whose food I love, or where I want to live. I based it on how fast the city goes from high density urban to rural.

David Pollard
12-21-2010, 08:38 AM
Lots of interesting opinions. Of course Amsterdam is hands-down the most urban-user-friendly city in the world. There are over 700,000 bicycles for a metropolitan population of 1.4 million; public transportation has a much greater coverage than any north American city; cultural opportunities abound as do thousands of different restaurants.

Yes, of-course I live here, but have also lived in Paris, Brussels, Frankfurt, Cologne and yes, Oklahoma City and Tulsa so know what I am talking about.

The earlier comment about the weather in Amsterdam was a bit below the belt since this blog is not about weather. Having said that, I am up to my wazoo in snow right now. Haven't fallen on the bike (YET).

Spartan
12-21-2010, 11:49 AM
Here is what I am saying. Whether it be greater New York, Boston, Chicago, or DC - their high density urban cores slowly fade to rural as you go further out. While the city proper might be at 100% buildout, the metro area suffers from the same urban sprawl as every other American city. If you drew a line from Times Square to Niagara Falls and asked 100 people where urban ends and rural begins you would probably get 150 different answers. Pick any street on Long Island and based on the density of that street you can tell how far from New York City you are; high density is closer and the bigger the yards and homes get the further from NYC you are.

This is not the case in Greater London though. The density of housing does not drop off as you go further out. It goes from high density to farm field very quickly, sometimes within 1 block. The only area that could be considered sprawl is the area mentioned by Rover - near Basingstoke. But even here it isn't American style sprawl with large yards and large homes and 100acre shopping centers. The homes are still high density row homes with small yards and the houses are pushed in close to the street. London also expands the rail network to serve the new areas so everyone is either close to a National Rail station or a London Tube station.

If the question is, what are the best urban cities in the world then my list probably has to go London, Hong Kong, Singapore, Rio de Janeiro, and Bucharest. I didn't base my list on cities I want to visit or whose food I love, or where I want to live. I based it on how fast the city goes from high density urban to rural.

Well the goal doesn't have anything to do with suburbs, they can do whatever they want. The goal just has to focus on how good and successful the urban core is. If this suburbs are doing well, great, if the suburbs are doing great, also great. I don't think it has to be so super competitive that the urbs have to hope for the burbs to fail. A lot of cities just have great suburbs and inner city. If I can do everything I want in the inner city and not really have to worry about the burbs, then it makes no difference to me. That's why suburban DC is irrelevant to me. You need it for the airport and that's it.

krisb
12-21-2010, 12:13 PM
I consider Brooklyn, NY to be the greatest center of urbanism in the U.S. High density, walkable, and built on a human scale.

http://www.travelguideofamerica.com/mainstreets/CobbleHill.jpg

Kerry
12-21-2010, 12:18 PM
Well the goal doesn't have anything to do with suburbs, they can do whatever they want. The goal just has to focus on how good and successful the urban core is.

Well, for me that is still London. They could use more trees but that is about it.

dismayed
12-21-2010, 12:20 PM
I keep hearing great things about Seoul from a friend who goes there every so often. I understand they have extremely high-speed trains that run every few minutes that can get you pretty much anywhere in the country, let alone around the city. Same friend says the city is urbanized on levels not seen in places except those like Tokyo. If the North ever settles down I wouldn't mind checking the place out one day.




http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Gangnam-gu%2C_Seoul%2C_South_Korea_-_February_2009.jpg
Gangnam-gu district in Seoul, South Korea


It's my personal opinion that a list of top urbanized cities in the world would be dominated at the top by mostly Asian cities....

Rover
12-21-2010, 02:17 PM
It's my personal opinion that a list of top urbanized cities in the world would be dominated at the top by mostly Asian cities....

Having spent time in about 30 countries, I would generally agree...at least that they are the most dense. Hong Kong, Singapore, Bangkok, Jakarta, Shanghai, Seoul, Tokyo. Now, they aren't all cities I would enjoy to live in, but they are among the most dense and urban. I generally appreciate cities like Paris, Rome, Istanbul, where there is still a fair amount of nature to go along with the cement. And where there are clusters of ethnicities that make a quilt out of the city and give you great neighborhoods and cultural interest. The Asian cities seem too homogeneous to me as generally they have grown from the inside and not through influences of influxes of foreiners (except for British colonists).

Rover
12-21-2010, 02:19 PM
I consider Brooklyn, NY to be the greatest center of urbanism in the U.S. High density, walkable, and built on a human scale.

http://www.travelguideofamerica.com/mainstreets/CobbleHill.jpg

That looks just like Chelsea where my wife and I keep an apartment. It is where we go for our "city" experience, though I still prefer Chicago.

Spartan
12-21-2010, 02:24 PM
I consider Brooklyn, NY to be the greatest center of urbanism in the U.S. High density, walkable, and built on a human scale.

http://www.travelguideofamerica.com/mainstreets/CobbleHill.jpg

Brooklyn is actually my favorite borough, but it's revisionist thinking to say Manhattan is all overrated (not putting those words in your mouth, but I know I've had that idea before). Not true, Manhattan is just so big and enormous that it contains many great underrated areas that are great human scale districts as well. Some of them even have normal people in them.

Brooklyn is such a vibrant mix of everything though. It's losing the sharpness of some of its contrasts as formerly bad neighborhoods like Bed-Stuy and Bushwick are going through gentrification, but that's a good thing. A lot of assets are being taken advantage of too, in areas like Gowanus, Red Hook, and along the west shore of Brooklyn in areas that have short commutes to Midtown. Still gotta hand it to the old urbanism of Park Slope, Brooklyn Heights (probably the picture in your post), DUMBO, Downtown Brooklyn, Williamsburg, and pretty much all of Brooklyn's good areas.

Rover
12-21-2010, 02:25 PM
The earlier comment about the weather in Amsterdam was a bit below the belt since this blog is not about weather. Having said that, I am up to my wazoo in snow right now. Haven't fallen on the bike (YET).

No low blow intended. I love Amsterdam. But it is like Chicago....but for the weather it would be a perfect city. :) I know they are walkable, but sometimes it is just too dang cold to do it. Fortunately, Amsterdam has lots of places to duck into and warm up. And lots of art museums and galleries to spend the cold dark afternoons in.

metro
12-21-2010, 02:30 PM
This is just a very European city.

Or even moreso, our first capital, Philadelphia. Considering our forefathers came from Europe, they had a great model to work from. Philly gets my vote, although DC and San Fran are some nice gems as well.

shane453
12-21-2010, 02:35 PM
There are two examples that I like for Oklahoma City to look at, because they are not megacities like NYC or Chicago, but they are desirable and attractive cities of around the same population as OKC. Oslo, Norway is one of the fastest growing cities in Europe and has pretty much equal population to OKC (about 600,000 city, 1 million metro). It is also similar to OKC because it has had several urban revitalizations that have taken place quickly. So if we want to see how large contiguous blocks of urban space can be redeveloped in a modern, urban way, we can look at Oslo's Aker Brygge (mixed use shopping/entertainment/living) and Barcode (CBD) developments. Trams, buses, walking, biking, and a subway/metro keep Oslo moving.

Aker Brygge:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1367/4730487760_d9d562b8c1_b.jpg

Barcode, downtown Oslo

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4142/4942649973_465515974f_b.jpg

Residential Grønland area

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2303/3534087841_1aeafba8f2_b.jpg

Even though it's getting cliche, the American city that all cities around our size can look to is Portland, because it has mastered the mixed-mode transportation concept and pioneered ideas like "bike boulevards" which 80% of Portlanders will live within 1/2 mile of, and 10-minute neighborhoods where people can walk to neighborhood services within 10 minutes. Portland also is a unique city in the US because it really demonstrates the importance of 3-4 story buildings that can fill in neighborhoods with people and vitality, so those have been emphasized rather than skyline-changing developments.

Spartan
12-21-2010, 02:36 PM
No low blow intended. I love Amsterdam. But it is like Chicago....but for the weather it would be a perfect city. :) I know they are walkable, but sometimes it is just too dang cold to do it. Fortunately, Amsterdam has lots of places to duck into and warm up. And lots of art museums and galleries to spend the cold dark afternoons in.

Amsterdam is probably one of the warmer cities north of the Mediterranean coast. Throw out Spain and Greece and it's pretty much par for the course.. except of course the Nordic countries.

Rover
12-21-2010, 03:05 PM
Amsterdam is probably one of the warmer cities north of the Mediterranean coast. Throw out Spain and Greece and it's pretty much par for the course.. except of course the Nordic countries.

With precious little daylight and high humidity levels it gets cold and damp for most of the winter. While it is true that it doesn't usually get all the snow of say somewhere in Austria, it certainly can't be compared to Mediterranean weather. With average daytime temps of around 40F and avg nighttimes of around 30 from about Nov to Feb or March and with little radiation from sun warmth, it gets plenty chilly. October through January winds are around 20+ mph. All together not great outdoor weather. But if you are there you dress for it. Like I say, it doesn't deter me when I need to go there, but it isn't a place to vacation for the weather in the winter.

I still love it there though.

Spartan
12-21-2010, 03:16 PM
Forgot about the wind.

Rover
12-21-2010, 03:35 PM
I always forget about Vienna...one of my favorites behind Paris. Clean, good transportation, sophisticated and cultured. Lots of parks, clean walkable streets.

PennyQuilts
12-21-2010, 04:37 PM
An earlier post reminded me at how jarring it struck me when we first moved to DC that you could be downtown, surrounded by beautiful buildings and monuments but 35 - 40 miles away, you'd be in the middle of beautiful rolling countryside. The traffic makes it a nightmare to get from one place to the other but it can be done. I don't see DC as being just urban sprawl although I may still be seeing it the way it was ten years ago.

There is urban sprawl along I-95 to the south because you have Alexandria, Lorton, Woodbridge, Dale City and Dumfries and that corridor has exploded in the past 10 years. These are not just bedroom communities. Dumfries is one of the oldest ports in the country and at one time was a center of African American business life. Alexandria is also historic. It is the same way towards the west with Vienna and Manassas. But at a certain point, like I said, 35 - 40 miles, it abuptly changes to a different world. Warrenton is like a little fairland that still has manger scenes in front of the courthouse (or did about three years ago).

When I first got there in 2000, the beltway (the interstate surrounding the city) seemed to be roughly the outer edge for most the density. If they didn't have a car, plenty of inner city kids probably didn't get out past it. That is something I notice with a lot of big cities - the inner city kids stay pretty close to home as compared to kids like me who grew up in Oklahoma and thought nothing of running down to Tulsa, Dallas, Ponca, Wichita, Amarillo, etc. But over the past ten years, that "barrier" in DC has pretty much been swallowed up. A lot of it is because the cost of housing forcied workers to buy further and further away.

I agree with what was written, above, that there are lots of private schools in this area but for most, it is because the public schools are terrible. Lots of people look for better schools further out but that has become a losing proposition. There is a partial doughnut around DC to the west, north and south that has some nice public schools but those are wealtheir neighborhoods that rapidly give way to poorer areas with worse schools. I would definitely not send any of my kids to public school around there. That may be a product of the work I did and seeing what was going on with the kids.

Kerry
12-21-2010, 06:30 PM
There are two examples that I like for Oklahoma City to look at, because they are not megacities like NYC or Chicago, but they are desirable and attractive cities of around the same population as OKC. Oslo, Norway is one of the fastest growing cities in Europe and has pretty much equal population to OKC (about 600,000 city, 1 million metro). It is also similar to OKC because it has had several urban revitalizations that have taken place quickly. So if we want to see how large contiguous blocks of urban space can be redeveloped in a modern, urban way, we can look at Oslo's Aker Brygge (mixed use shopping/entertainment/living) and Barcode (CBD) developments. Trams, buses, walking, biking, and a subway/metro keep Oslo moving

I have advocated the creation of a new Oklahoma City built in the core of modern day OKC. OKC2.0 if you will. I envision this area as being everything north of 1-240, east and south of 1-44 and west of 1-35. I would like to see this area become much more dense with quality public transportation - street cars with bus circulators. Barrier to development in this area shoud be identified and removed as much as possible. I would also like to see some kind of public education effort to entice people to move to this area, even commercials showing the quality of urban life available right now in OKC.

3 months ago my wife was dead set against even thinking about living anywhere near downtown. Over this time I have showed her many of the benefits and she has started warming to the idea (by that I mean she doesn't yell when I bring it up anymore). However, we she mentions the idea to her friends in Norman the first thing out their mouth is, "Are you crazy. It is so dirty and dangerous down there." I then have to spend the next three weeks undoing that damage. She also is not keen on the Segway idea (yet). She is not what you call an 'early adopter' or 'pioneer' and I imagine there are lot more of her type than my type. A little nudging on the part of the city and stakeholders could go a long way.

PennyQuilts
12-21-2010, 06:56 PM
I was thinking about this thread and wondering about changing population. Seems like most cities, not matter how well planned, eventually outgrow their inner core and it turns into a rodeo, assuming the city isn't landlocked by some geographical characteristic. By the same token, at a certain point, many cities, like Detroit, shrink and diminish to the ppoint where they can't afford to maintain public services. I am not saying urban planning isn't essential but seems like it is a temporary fix based on a relatively longterm snapshot in time. Am I wrong?

Kerry
12-21-2010, 07:03 PM
The key word is 'sustainability'. It doesn't matter if it is miles of new roads or social safety nets. Those types of expenses can't go on forever.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2010/12/20/budget-cut-to-darken-socal-city-street-lights/


VISTA (AP) — To trim $9 million from their budget, Vista officials say they will shut off half of the city’s residential street lights in March unless property owners agree to pay higher lighting fees.

Fees could cost residents of the north San Diego County city between $4 and $20 a year.

Rover
12-21-2010, 07:10 PM
This is off topic of the thread, but one of the major reason for San Diego's financial problems is the overcompensation of public employees and their benefits...to an almost scandalous level. It has little to do with sprawl.