Generally speaking, living in a high density city means you're less likely to get fiber. The cable ISPs already have mature, complete HFC plants in most cities now. Nobody is going to spend a fortune to boar and bury underground fiber when there's already coax in the ground and incumbent ISPs have a stranglehold on customers. The ROI just isn't there if you have to take on that huge capex expensive up front (i.e. millions of dollars in borrowing) and still sell the service at a loss in order to siphon customers off of Big Cable.
Meanwhile, RDOF funding has driven Charter, among others, to expand fiber to the home in many rural areas that were previously unserved by wired broadband. In my region, five fiber overbuilders split up among several smaller territories are bringing fiber to the home in places where the only option is an expensive cable option that maxes out at 940 down/35 up, or occasionally DSL from the LEC.
Several counties and cities in the region have also taken on the initiative themselves and built fiber to the premises networks that offer better speeds (symmetric gigabit or higher, instead of a lopsided 10-40 Mbps upstream speed) and lower latency for 33-50% lower price than the cable company -- assuming you can get cable internet in many of these areas at all.