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.
[quote=DMV;17194505]Actually he specifically asked "Between LA, SF, DC, Philly, and Boston which ones are the most urban from most to least? Density, mass transit, walkable, downtowns, etc?"
Density= Boston and Philly beats DC
Mass Transit= DC beats all of the above hands down
Walkable= A toss up
Downtowns= DC wins because it the most Developed and more built than the others...[/quote]
How hte F is it more built? Seriously - it is the least densly developed downtown out of DC/SF/Philly/Boston
LA 12.2 Million
Philly 5.2 Million
DC 4.2 Million
Boston 4.1 Million
SF 3.2 Million
Now arguments can be made for SF (to include SJ), DC (to include Baltimore), LA (to include SD), Boston (to include Providence) or Philly (to include NYC) as all have continuously developed UA between the next metro in which case Philly is part of the largest continuous UA in the US.
On walkability SF/Boston/Philly are a slight notch above DC, at least the downtown according to Walkscores
Actually he specifically asked "Between LA, SF, DC, Philly, and Boston which ones are the most urban from most to least? Density, mass transit, walkable, downtowns, etc?"
Density= Boston and Philly beats DC
Mass Transit= DC beats all of the above hands down
Walkable= A toss up
Downtowns= DC wins because it the most Developed and more built than the others...[/quote]
How hte F is it more built? Seriously - it is the least densly developed downtown out of DC/SF/Philly/Boston
LA 12.2 Million
Philly 5.2 Million
DC 4.2 Million
Boston 4.1 Million
SF 3.2 Million
Now arguments can be made for SF (to include SJ), DC (to include Baltimore), LA (to include SD), Boston (to include Providence) or Philly (to include NYC) as all have continuously developed UA between the next metro in which case Philly is part of the largest continuous UA in the US.
On walkability SF/Boston/Philly are a slight notch above DC, at least the downtown according to Walkscores
Downtown Philly and Boston are about half the size of D.C.'s downtown by sq. miles and sheer blocks. People walk down street's in downtown not up sky staircases. Nobody is flying up and seeing highrises. In fact, nobody walks around downtown looking up but tourists. So.....
DC with an extremely large downtown with buildings tall enough for eye level > tiny Boston and Philly downtown that rises into the sky.
How hte F is it more built? Seriously - it is the least densly developed downtown out of DC/SF/Philly/Boston
Yea but you have to understand that Density only refers to population size... that only mean how many people live within the area in which I already admitted that both Philly and Boston has more of... it has nothing to do with development or Built upness of a City and DC's Downtown is the most Developed which equals more built upness as well
LA 12.2 Million
Philly 5.2 Million
DC 4.2 Million
Boston 4.1 Million
SF 3.2 Million
Yea, but all of this info is only on DENSITY, which only shows and refers to population size and thats it... nothing more or less.. its all about how many people they have that lives in that area...
Quote:
Now arguments can be made for SF (to include SJ), DC (to include Baltimore), LA (to include SD), Boston (to include Providence) or Philly (to include NYC) as all have continuously developed UA between the next metro in which case Philly is part of the largest continuous UA in the US.
Yea, but the arguments that your proposing has already been squared about 5 times.... DC is a smaller city, so chances are is that it will be less Dense than the others...
Density= Population size and thats it!!!!! What about Development???? what about Built up and outness??? those are the other 2 in which I already mentioned where DC wins!!!
Quote:
On walkability SF/Boston/Philly are a slight notch above DC, at least the downtown according to Walkscores
is this an opinion or a fact, because if you say that its a fact then I would like for you to show me some proof!!!
On walkability SF/Boston/Philly are a slight notch above DC, at least the downtown according to Walkscores[/quote]
My bad, you were actually right about the walkability thing.... I just viewed the scores and DC was like you said slightly below SF, Boston, and Philly but not by much though.... Thanks for the info
Actually he specifically asked "Between LA, SF, DC, Philly, and Boston which ones are the most urban from most to least? Density, mass transit, walkable, downtowns, etc?"
Density= Boston and Philly beats DC
Mass Transit= DC beats all of the above hands down
Walkable= A toss up
Downtowns= DC wins because it the most Developed and more built than the others...
I'll mention that I'm taking LA to be specific swaths of the city that include mostly the areas around and west and south of where downtown is so as to not include the mountain the cuts through the city or the SFV as Los Angeles is physically much larger than the other cities (to some extent, this should be done with Philly, too, since Philly is also physically much larger than Boston/DC/SF proper). I'd change it to be:
Density= Boston, Philly, SF, and LA all beat DC in density.
Mass Transit= DC, then Boston, SF, Philly and LA. Again though, LA's system starts stacking up a lot better once you start restricting it to a specific swath of Los Angeles.
Walkable= Boston, Philly, SF, and DC then LA. All the cities are pretty comparable for the most part save for LA (really wide streets, drivers that generally lack familiarity with pedestrians, pretty strict enforcement of jaywalking laws, and large parking lots that set stores away from the sidewalks) with some small nuances such as SF having fairly walkable weather year-round, but a lot of elevation changes.
Downtowns= Philly wins this one easily as its downtown is very built-out and also of a fairly impressive size.
Downtown Philly and Boston are about half the size of D.C.'s downtown by sq. miles and sheer blocks. People walk down street's in downtown not up sky staircases. Nobody is flying up and seeing highrises. In fact, nobody walks around downtown looking up but tourists. So.....
DC with an extremely large downtown with buildings tall enough for eye level > tiny Boston and Philly downtown that rises into the sky.
OyCrumbler;17195241]I'll mention that I'm taking LA to be specific swaths of the city that include mostly the areas around and west and south of where downtown is so as to not include the mountain the cuts through the city or the SFV as Los Angeles is physically much larger than the other cities (to some extent, this should be done with Philly, too, since Philly is also physically much larger than Boston/DC/SF proper). I'd change it to be:
Density= Boston, Philly, SF, and LA all beat DC in density.
Mass Transit= DC, then Boston, SF, Philly and LA. Again though, LA's system starts stacking up a lot better once you start restricting it to a specific swath of Los Angeles.
Walkable= Boston, Philly, SF, and DC then LA. All the cities are pretty comparable for the most part save for LA (really wide streets, drivers that generally lack familiarity with pedestrians, pretty strict enforcement of jaywalking laws, and large parking lots that set stores away from the sidewalks) with some small nuances such as SF having fairly walkable weather year-round, but a lot of elevation changes.
I agree with this 100%
Quote:
Downtowns= Philly wins this one easily as its downtown is very built-out and also of a fairly impressive size.
Yeah Philly is Built up, but I gave the edge to DC because not only is it Built up and out, but its also more Developed than the Philly's Downtown , but I can understand why you picked Philly though !!!
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,032,687 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainrock
How many sq mi is Washington Dc's downtown?
I couldn't get the information on San Francisco's Downtown individually without the data including the area for Downtown's San Jose & Oakland.
Largest Central Business Districts by Land Area:
Washington DC: 2.30 Square Miles
Philadelphia: 1.71 Square Miles
Los Angeles: 1.25 Square Miles
Boston: 1.23 Square Miles
And I guess just for this thread, here it is for the Bay Area. But note its the combined land areas for San Francisco, San Jose, & Oakland's downtowns.
I couldn't get the information on San Francisco's Downtown individually without the data including the area for Downtown's San Jose & Oakland.
Largest Central Business Districts by Land Area:
Washington DC: 2.30 Square Miles
Philadelphia: 1.71 Square Miles
Los Angeles: 1.25 Square Miles
Boston: 1.23 Square Miles
And I guess just for this thread, here it is for the Bay Area. But note its the combined land areas for San Francisco, San Jose, & Oakland's downtowns.
Bay Area: 2.34 Square Miles
Thanks I was skeptical of the MD Allstars claim that DC was 2x the size of Boston and Phillys downtown area wise. It appears my doubts were justified.
I get it. These threads are all about my boat is bigger than your boat. Thats not what I am trying to do here but Philadephias downtown reallys does spill over and encaptures University City.The only things seperates the 2 districts is the Schuylkill River which is about 50 feet wide.
You could easily make the argument that downtown Philly is 3.5 sq. mi. if you added University Citys 1.75 sq mi. not to mention 60,000 jobs,50,000 residents,and 40,000 college students.
This is from University City looking east toward Center City.
I couldn't get the information on San Francisco's Downtown individually without the data including the area for Downtown's San Jose & Oakland.
Largest Central Business Districts by Land Area:
Washington DC: 2.30 Square Miles
Philadelphia: 1.71 Square Miles
Los Angeles: 1.25 Square Miles
Boston: 1.23 Square Miles
And I guess just for this thread, here it is for the Bay Area. But note its the combined land areas for San Francisco, San Jose, & Oakland's downtowns.
Bay Area: 2.34 Square Miles
Thanks I was skeptical of the MD Allstars claim that DC was 2x the size of Boston and Phillys downtown area wise. It appears my doubts were justified.
I get it. These threads are all about my boat is bigger than your boat. Thats not what I am trying to do here but Philadephias downtown reallys does spill over and encaptures University City.The only thing which seperates the 2 districts is the Schuylkill River which is about 50 feet wide.
You could easily make the argument that downtown Philly is 3.5 sq. mi. if you added University Citys 1.75 sq mi.
This is from University City looking east toward Center City
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.
