I've lived in Amsterdam for a decade, which I affectionately call the largest village I've ever lived. The Netherlands has no cities of 1M+, yet is one of the densest countries in the world. How? Its quite multi centered. There's a lot of 50-500k towns in close vicinity, each with their own facilities and economies. Because of proximity they're of course not independent, but they're definitely not suburbs. There are towns you could say are suburbs, where people usually commute by car, but somehow they're not nearly as car exclusive of American suburbs. Maybe its worth a closer look at this.
How is Amsterdam different from LA? They have almost identical population densities in their metro areas (~1000/ sq km).
Amsterdam made for people(walkable, cyclable). LA made for cars(wide, multilane roads)
Look around a random street in both places. Those are so different its almost misleading use that single term for both.
I think your points are good, but not everyplace needs to be a high functioning mega city. Better design can make better places, even in the surburbs. It doesn't even have to be new design. I'm reminded of places like Reston, Virginia which was designed specifically for most of the things you mention, but is also decidedly suburban. There's an urban core, but most homes are reasonably walkable to some local shopping or some other major amenity. It was also designed as an enclosed area, to contain substantial commercial and office areas, and a mix of densities and housing types so that it might be possible to both live and work within the same environment.
I don't think it's "hard" but it has to be purposeful. Too many areas in the U.S. are built by developers who dump the development once the human units are moved in and have no stake in long-term governance of the area.
Yes, I'm not advocating to turn every place into a city. I just try to note that bona fide "city experience" is not very widely available in the US, and many places that people consider "cities" are dubiously so.
This is why I avoid cities in the USA. Having lived in "real" cities before (some huge like Shanghai, some small like Bordeaux, all without a car), living in a typical US city would be such a painful daily reminder of the downgrade that I went straight for the suburbs instead. I would love to live in NYC for a few years, but it's the only one I'd consider so far. I hope to visit the other ones you mentioned some day.
Boston is great, I could imagine myself living there. I grow up in Budapest and now I live in London.
I lived in Boston for 2 months due to work. I commuted from Alewife to the city center with the T. The CBD is walkable, and when you have to go further public transportation is good enough. Last time I was there I saw a lot of new cycle lanes, now that's an option too.
> Seattle. Maybe a few others with some reservations, like Washington DC or SF.
Out of curiosity, what makes Seattle fit this description and not SF?
They both sort of fit, but NIMBYism in SF hampers its development more than Seattle. Seattle appears more functional to me. (No city is perfect; for each one I mentioned I could list a number of problems, except maybe Amsterdam which I know rather poorly.)
What are these cities? NYC (not only Manhattan but everywhere the subway + buses reach), Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago, Seattle. Maybe a few others with some reservations, like Washington DC or SF.
I have hard time seeing places like Houston or LA as "cities" in the same sense; they have small downtowns and huge suburb-like agglomerations around them, where you are either inside your house, or inside a car. Silicon Valley seems to largely lack cities, except the ailing SF.
If you want to see what a functioning large city looks like, visit NYC, or London, or Amsterdam, or Moscow, or Shanghai, or Singapore.
[Edited: spelling]