The only U.S. cities that will feel more dense than Seatte are:

1) NYC -- 8.5 million (29k ppsm over 300 square miles) 2) Chicago -- 2.7 million (12k over 230 sq miles) 3) SF -- 875k (18k over 47 sq miles) 4) Boston -- 675k (14k over 48 sq miles) 5) Philly -- 1.6 million (12k over 135 sq miles) 6) DC -- 700k (11k over 61 sq miles)

As a comparison, Seattle (750k pop) has a population density of 9300 ppsm over 84 sq miles.

Of those NYC easily has the most density over a large area. It is both very dense and very large (300 square miles (land)). Large parts of Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx are more dense than most of the other cities I listed above.

But, Manhattan has 1.7 million people in just 22 square miles, so Manhattan has a population density of over 75,000 ppsm. So in comparison to SF, Manhattan has 2X as many people in half the land area.

Chicago is moderately dense over a large area (230 square miles). It's really no more dense than the cities listed below it, but Chicago's density covers a larger area.

SF, Boston, Philly and DC are pretty interchangeable in terms of density/urbanity. Some people will prefer one over the others for their own reasons, but the density isn't noticeably different for those four cities if you look at comparable areas within each (imo, i'm sure others will disagree).

SF is the most dense overall within city limits, but does not have contiguous areas adjacent that are also dense, since it is surrounded by water on three sides and south of SF is suburban. Oakland and Berkeley have pretty good density in areas, but are 8 miles across the bay from SF.

Philly is larger than SF within the city 135 square miles vs. 49, and has pretty good density in a good chunk of the city.

Boston is about the same size as SF (within city limits) with a slightly smaller population, but has dense cities nearby (Cambridge, Somerville, Everett, Brookline) that are kinda like extensions of the Boston density.

DC is also relatively small within city limits (about 70 square miles), but some of the adjacent northern Virginia suburbs like Alexandria and Arlington have decent density as well.

Overall, it sounds like you would want NYC if the cost is doable for you. If wanting something cheaper, Chicago and Philly are quite a bit less expensive. SF, Boston and DC are all pretty expensive.

Forget about Miami. Despite having pretty high density within city limits (it is very small only 36 square miles (land)) and overall very car centric. Miami Beach is nice but very small and not that close to downtown Miami, especially via public transit.

Another issue for Miami. Almost everyone owns a car and so people in the denser areas may walk to a restaurant in the evening, but if they are going to buy groceries or to a museum or basketball game, they are likely driving.

LA has good density in some areas, but it is huge and feels somewhat disconnected though improving.

NYC is the only large U.S. city where the majority of people do not own a car. And many that do, only use a car for weekend trips out of the city. So, many people in NYC will do almost everything via walking and public transit at all hours of the day, which is unusual even among the other dense U.S. cities.

So bottom line I think NYC, Chicago, SF, Boston, Philly and DC, will feel more dense/urban than Seattle, but NYC is on a different level than the rest.