Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin
Good list JP, and the recommendations are certainly agreeable. Same general idea here, but I'd expand that idea a bit to divide the US & Canada's major cities into 5 defined tiers & sub-tiers.
1. New York. It's really in a league of its own - whether in size, in density, transit usage, housing types, pedestrian traffic, or vibrancy. An urban lifestyle is not only common, its the norm here. It's the only city comparable in form & function to the cities of the Old World.
2. Urban cities. Here, living in an urban format is effortless and normal, with a significant portion of the population of all types (but not the majority) doing so. In these cities, most people are apartment dwellers, transit service is extensive & widely used, urban amenities are plentiful, streets are vibrant, density is moderately high, and downtowns still function as the economic & cultural core of the region. Some reached their urban peak in the mid 20th century while others have more urban stock now than ever, but all have seen continued development and are still desirable, prosperous places.
3. New Urban cities. Having seen most of their development in the 20th century, they don't have as much of a legacy urban core to draw upon as the second tier cities (nor have they been as intensely developed as some of the others in recent years), but have nonetheless managed to avoid having their cores hollowed and have made great strides in recent decades to build up. Suburban living still dominates, but the urban cores and TODs are substantial - and growing.
4. Rustbelt. These cities benefit from a legacy urban core that peaked in the prewar era, many of them with more solid bones than third tier and even some second tier cities, but have since declined with most growth not only occurring in the suburbs, but happening at the expense of the city - which now suffer from high crime, low growth, low desirability, and poor economies, and in turn, struggle to attract development and the ability to re-urbanize. Those in the 4A category prominently feature things like rowhouses & apartments on the cityscape, and along with rapid transit systems make an urban lifestyle possible, but not as many people are doing so as could be, especially compared to what once was. Those in the 4B category however have always been a bit less intensely urban in form, which coupled with the post-war decline, make urban living unlikely or at least difficult today.
5. Sprawlers. These cities are defined by their post-war suburban sprawl, but those in the 5A category at least have seen a fair bit of modern infill and rapid transit development, and now generally offer greater urban amenities than the 4B cities - and may eventually eclipse even the 4A cities. Urban living is a bit niche and doesn't hold widespread appeal, but is still possible, and the downtowns at least are still major employment centres. The 5B cities however are little more than monolithic suburbs and show little sign of being able to change that. A bit of an outlier, but I would also include Detroit in this category, despite being quintessentially "rust belt", as its urban core is just so far gone that most of what exists is firmly suburban in form & use.
A list of all metro areas over 1 million would come out looking something like this, to the best of my knowledge:
1. New York
2. Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Boston, DC, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver
3A. Portland, Seattle, Los Angeles, Miami, San Diego, Ottawa
3B. Minneapolis, Denver, Calgary
4A. Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Baltimore, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Providence, Milwaukee, Louisville, New Orleans, Richmond
4B. Indianapolis, Memphis, Buffalo, Rochester, Hartford, Columbus, Grand Rapids, Birmingham
5A. Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Charlotte, San Antonio, Nashville, Virginia Beach, Raleigh, Salt Lake City, Edmonton
5B. Phoenix, Riverside, Orlando, Las Vegas, Oklahoma City, Detroit
|