There's a great deal that can be said on this topic, but I have a great thread open in another tab and thought I'd share to give you some reading material while you wait. It's not exactly what your after, but its a great example.

Check out this answer from /u/Reedstilt in One of the most impressive cities in the medieval world was smack in the middle of America! But Cahokia was abandoned in the 14th century. Where did its builders migrate?

So this is an interesting question because I think a lot of people would be suprised at the history of cities in North America. I also like how you included outisde Mesoamerica, that is a big distinction in North American archaeology for reasons you are probably aware off! That is not to say that they did not interact with groups north of them, but instead that Mesoamerica is a different animal entirely.

So what is an urban setting? I think we can say that is a community that is densely populated, probably with a larger number of people as well when compared to neighboring communities. Basically you have a lot of people living in a small area in numbers that are different than other nearby communities. I think a lot of people forget that cities are far from the standard living situation for much of human history. Most people throughout history would have lived in less permanent fashion or in a more a more rural setting, a blend of hunting, gathering, and later, farming. Many forget that this more 'rural' way of life is still common until fairly recently, you would farm a small number of crops for your own consumption and hunt/gatherer what you could not produce on your own.

This leads to the reason why urbanization was not as common in North America, and also to how you have to imagine most people lived when Columbus arrived. An example would be the Eastern Woodlands of the United States, a region that is great to be in if you are a hunter and gatherer. You have forests, lakes, and rivers to use to gather and hunt in, and you may even be close enough to the coasts to gather marine resources. You probably have some form of a garden in your community for a few crops, maybe some fields for maize as well; but they are not as heavily relied on as in an urban setting. An example is the Oneota of Western Wisconsin, they had farm fields that were quite successful, but also would hunt and fish locally as well as travel onto the plains to hunt bison at certain points in the year. They lived primarily in one location, but would leave in the winter due to the lack of resources available during that time of year. And being familiar with Wisconsin winters, probably to just escape the cold too.

This is to say that urbanization in North America was maybe not as directly tied to some of the Old World models of urbanization. It may have been tied to agriculture, but I think farming may have helped boost the populations of cities as opposed to serve as a catalyst for population growth that resulted in cities. Urbanized locations in North America are odd in that we often see a clear intiation to them, a great example of this would be Cahokia near present day St. Louis. By AD 600 we see some communities forming in the areas that would become Cahokia, however these are small and really not unique compared to other communities at the time. However, around AD 1050 we see the previous communities removed and relaligned to form what we today call Cahokia. From the archaeological record we can see that they destroyed their own communities to realign there structures with the larger Cahokia layout that would form. They were not conquered, but appear to have been convinced to become part of a newly formed community. From 1050-1250 we see an increase in social hierarchy, monumental projects being completed, tens of thousands of people moving into the region, as well the usage of existing trade networks in a way that seems to have benefited the elites at Cahokia. It was a city in every sense of the world, and in fact would be the largest city in terms of population north of Mexico until 1803. However, around 1250 we see that Cahokia begins to decline, and by the time of European arrival it is compeltely abandoned. The fact that this was clearly a planned city, and one with such a pull on the region, but just faded into nothing is very perplexing. A rapid buildup in a short time, domination of power in the Eastern Woodlands for 200 years or so, and then another 200 years later it is forgotten?

I think this highlights how urban centers may have functioned differently in North America, or at least the urban centers we see formed. The inhabitants of North America had no reason to live in dense cities because they lived pretty well in smaller communities living off what they could grow and what they could obtain from nature. If we look at the Mississippian communities (including Cahokia) that resemble a city, we see that a lot of it seems to be culturally driven in that cultural beliefs seem to be the glue that held the cities together. In fact, after Cahokia declines we see evidence of people bringing elements of Cahokia's specific practices to other communities in the area. We also see a continuation of Mississippian-like practice in many Southeastern groups, groups we have accounts of from early Spanish explorers.

An analogy could be in how people react to parties or other social gatherings. Maybe you recieve an invitation in the mail along with a few other friends, so you all are excited and begin planning what you will bring/do/etc. The hosts are also planning, and they are getting things ready for you all to arrive. You get there and it really is a great time for most at the party, but as the hours go on you kind of begin to lose the desire to be at the party and realize that you could do the same stuff at home. So you decide to grab a few friends and go home to just hangout there instead. Eventually the party disolves due to everyone else doing this, and as quickly as it began the party is over. The party did not collapse as much as it disolved over time, which is similar to how we think Cahokia declined.

So urbanization north of Mexico really seems to be situationally based, people are more than content with living in smaller communities for most of the history of North America; choosing to live in larger cities for reasons we may not entirely know today. Cities like Cahokia begin to feel very planned and controlled, it is not hard to imagine a few individuals dictating the planning and construction of the city and subsequently reaping the benefits that being in power entail. Why these cities did not stick around to European contact is still a bit of a mystery, but it really does feel like that when the inhabitants had enough they simply packed up and left. I may have rambled a bit here, but I really want to stress how 'weird' urbanization was north of Mexico. We have these urban areas form and develop unique identities, they control large areas of trade and seem to have power over other communties they interact with in some way, but then a few centuries later we have 0 account of them from ANY oral traditions of the communites in this region. These urban centers without a doubt had lasting impacts on life in North America that we can still see today in a milllion different ways, but also seem to have been completely forgotten.