Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
center city is very vibrant and will probably always have more people walking on the street consistently but it covers such a small area which is the reason it has more density. DC posters then say DC is improving though and we are building a lot of projects which will improve the city.
Most of the DC posts (and believe me, my post wasn't directed at you), seem to be along the lines of, "DC's DT area is bigger... here are the stats!"
I don't care if it covers a smaller area. It's more lively. As is Boston's DT area. give me a more compact DT area over a spread out, less active area any day. I love DC, but the activity of its downtown area (regardless of potential improvements) is not among my top reasons why.
Quote:
Philly posters say:
Those buildings are sterile.
They're right. Downtown, DC is not as architecturally rich as Philly/Boston. Outside of the downtown area, it certainly is.
Quote:
DC is sterile.
DC is this and DC is that.
It's not sterile. At all. DC has a lot of Character, PARTICULARLY outside of downtown. It's every bit as unique as Boston or Philly.
Quote:
DC posters get offended and call a spade a spade:
Highlighting the fact Philadelphia has about 40,000 vacant houses
Philadelphia is broke compared to DC
Philadelphia is dirty
Analysis:
This is somehow our fault for defending ourselves? You need to wake up sir!
Philly's downtown area is more active. It doesn't FEEL like it's broke or has tons of vacant homes. The DC defense is regurgitating the same stats over and over again. Regardless of the construction going on or the number of people downtown monday-friday, Downtown DC feels quieter than Center City Philly or Downtown Boston. It's fine to defend yourselves, but the defense is a bit over the top at the moment.
[/quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by btownboss4
I think Boston feels like its larger than DC, eventhough DC's built envoirment on a DT level extends further out, Boston feels larger for 4 reasons
1) the Narrower streets coupled with the Taller buildings make it seem more clausterphobic
2) with the Lack of grid you never see past Downtown into the outer areas or into a break of Development (park river ect.
3) with the lack of grid you never walk in a straight line through the City (the shortest path)
4) its more Vibrant, during most of the day.
While Boston's urban core feels, overall, more active, DC still feels like a bigger city to me. Not only is DT DC spread over a larger area, the city also has a larger subway system and it's the seat of the Federal Government. Boston, to me, feels smaller. Just my experience having lived in both.
DC out of the three, is easily the more transient city because of the Fed, and getting very commercial and cookie cutter.
All three however, are extremely dense cities and among the densest in the country. DC is probably the most European looking. Didnt they lay the city out the same as Paris? or similar?
They're right. Downtown, DC is not as architecturally rich as Philly/Boston. Outside of the downtown area, it certainly is.
So since D.C. is sterile according to most people on this site. Show me how Philadelphia isn't dirty outside Center City in most of the city especially west, south, and north of center city? It's ironic though, it seems D.C. is sterile downtown and Philadelphia is dirty and run down outside center city so they have the opposite problem I guess.
So since D.C. is sterile according to most people on this site. Show me how Philadelphia isn't dirty outside Center City in most of the city especially west, south, and north of center city? It's ironic though, it seems D.C. is sterile downtown and Philadelphia is dirty and run down outside center city so they have the opposite problem I guess.
Most of South Philly is wealthy areas or middle class areas. The only dirty slums are in Point Breeze. There are dirty/slummy areas in North Philly, West Philly and Southwest Philly. There are also plenty of nice areas in these areas as well...you could pay a couple hundred thousand for a place in UCity or Cedar Park or Clark Park which are all in West Philly. You could pay $800,000 for a place in No Libs and Farimount in North Philly. The Northeast is entirely middle class. The Northwest is entirely middle class, upper middle class, upper class.
Once again... idk how many times I have to say it. Not the ENTIRE districts of South Philly, West Philly, and North Philly are dirty and slummy like you seem to believe.
And North Philly, South Philly and West Philly are not neighborhoods. They are districts. There are 12 districts within the city of Philadelphia... much like the 5 Burroughs of New York. Within each of these districts there are dozens of neighborhoods.
ridiculous thread. I'm from Philly, spent a lot of time in DC and happen to be in Boston right now.
In terms of the 3 i'd say Philly, Boston then DC.
As far as museums, DC has the advantage for sure but Philly has its own Mall with Independnce Hall, The National Constitution Center, Museum of American Jewish History, the African-American History museum, etc
As far as art goes, Philly has the PMA, Rodin, Barnes, PAFA smaller places like Fleischer and then Callowhill area is full of artists and studio spaces. Old City north of Market St. is full of galleries. As far as art hanging on walls - it's questionable that DC has a lead. As far as places producing it - there's no doubt that Philly wins.
Philly nightlife is tops. There's really no comparison and trying to is just a waste of time.
Restaurants/Food trucks - Philly owns this. There's good food to be had in any of these places but the quality, quantity and creativity that you find in Philly just aren't matched in Boston or DC
Transit - This one goes to Boston and here's why. DC has a paltry commuter rail system and the Metro is supposed to make up the difference. Boston and Philly both have systems based on 3 subway lines with a trolley/light rail green line system. Both cities also have extensive commuter rail networks that connect with the subways. Philly has 13 lines while (i think) Boston has 14. DC has 5 and none of them run on the weekend or really have a useable schedule if you're not the doing the traditonal 9-5 commute to downtown and back. (Philly also has 4 light rail lines that connect with the subways and run out through the suburbs - similar to the Mattapan HiSpeed Line) Anyway, the metro in DC has to do the job of catering to urban subway riders and to suburban commuters and winds up being the worst of both worlds. The problem is how crowded it is, how long it takes to get anywhere and how far apart the stations are. If your destination is halfway between two stops you have to walk ridiculously far or transfer to another line to try to get closer. Outside of downtown, forgetaboutit.
ridiculous thread. I'm from Philly, spent a lot of time in DC and happen to be in Boston right now.
In terms of the 3 i'd say Philly, Boston then DC.
As far as museums, DC has the advantage for sure but Philly has its own Mall with Independnce Hall, The National Constitution Center, Museum of American Jewish History, the African-American History museum, etc
As far as art goes, Philly has the PMA, Rodin, Barnes, PAFA smaller places like Fleischer and then Callowhill area is full of artists and studio spaces. Old City north of Market St. is full of galleries. As far as art hanging on walls - it's questionable that DC has a lead. As far as places producing it - there's no doubt that Philly wins.
Philly nightlife is tops. There's really no comparison and trying to is just a waste of time.
Restaurants/Food trucks - Philly owns this. There's good food to be had in any of these places but the quality, quantity and creativity that you find in Philly just aren't matched in Boston or DC
Transit - This one goes to Boston and here's why. DC has a paltry commuter rail system and the Metro is supposed to make up the difference. Boston and Philly both have systems based on 3 subway lines with a trolley/light rail green line system. Both cities also have extensive commuter rail networks that connect with the subways. Philly has 13 lines while (i think) Boston has 14. DC has 5 and none of them run on the weekend or really have a useable schedule if you're not the doing the traditonal 9-5 commute to downtown and back. (Philly also has 4 light rail lines that connect with the subways and run out through the suburbs - similar to the Mattapan HiSpeed Line) Anyway, the metro in DC has to do the job of catering to urban subway riders and to suburban commuters and winds up being the worst of both worlds. The problem is how crowded it is, how long it takes to get anywhere and how far apart the stations are. If your destination is halfway between two stops you have to walk ridiculously far or transfer to another line to try to get closer. Outside of downtown, forgetaboutit.
Commuter Rail is the reason suburbs are car centric. You can't use it as a car free option like Metro in the suburbs. Metro is the most innovative approach to public transit for a region that will allow even our suburbs in D.C. to live car free. We are building streetcars and lightrail to fill in the gap as well as adding capital bike share everywhere from the city to the suburbs. Our suburbs have an amazing advantage on every other region except San Francisco which also has the potential to do this.
D.C.'s suburbs have 3-5 minute peak frequency. Your inner cities don't even have that frequency. This built in advantage is shaping our region for the future allowing city level intensity miles from the city core. Tyson's Corner is becoming it's own city in it's own right as we speak because of Metro which will be complete out there next year. 3-5 minute frequency allows city living everywhere. Build it and they will come.
Because D.C. is where black people come to party, not New York. Every time he has listed a nightlife spot, it has been a predominately black venue. That seems to be the major point you and many on here are missing in relation to nightlife. The list of the top 100 clubs in the nation that D.C. had three on were all black venues as well. It's just the culture of the city. U street may be one of the livest upscale black nightlife strips in the nation.
I really have a hard time believing Washington DC is a larger destination for blacks than New York City. I think you're selling NYC short in this regard (never thought I would say that). The difference between the two is NYC is far more diverse, so they don't necessarily break down their nightlife by what they offer to a particular race. You seem to be ignoring that there's a place called Harlem which is a relatively well-known AA enclave too...
On top of that, DC's Finest said "nightlife"...so the people on this site aren't "missing the point". They're just not focusing solely on nightlife for one particular race like you are.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
