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.
In Washington D.C., I hate to say, you walk past block and block of closed government buildings at 8 PM. In order to get something, you have to know exactly where you are going in many areas. This is similar in Los Angeles in most areas.
What you're comparing would be similar to Lower Manhattan or Chicago's Loop, which aren't exactly bastions of activity once the business day concludes, either. DC's active neighborhoods, with the exception of Penn Quarter, are around the periphery of downtown. Georgetown, Dupont, Adams-Morgan, Logan, Shaw/U Street, Capitol Hill...all dense, urban neighborhoods, but none of them "downtown".
If you stumbled around Dupont and only located a McDonalds, you were either too drunk to notice what you were walking by, or had tremendously bad luck in terms of the streets you walked along. Dupont isn't a 24 hour neighborhood, but it's close. Ditto Adams-Morgan.
What you're comparing would be similar to Lower Manhattan or Chicago's Loop, which aren't exactly bastions of activity once the business day concludes, either. DC's active neighborhoods, with the exception of Penn Quarter, are around the periphery of downtown. Georgetown, Dupont, Adams-Morgan, Logan, Shaw/U Street, Capitol Hill...all dense, urban neighborhoods, but none of them "downtown".
If you stumbled around Dupont and only located a McDonalds, you were either too drunk to notice what you were walking by, or had tremendously bad luck in terms of the streets you walked along. Dupont isn't a 24 hour neighborhood, but it's close. Ditto Adams-Morgan.
In Lower Manhattan, you can still get things quite easily at night, even in the financial district. I must have had horrible luck, as I walked up and down several streets - cold, sterile, sleepy streets. Yes - the occasional yuppie or hipster would walk down their stoop down the street, but, to be such a premiere area of Washington D.C. on a Saturday night at 8ish o'clock, it was a letdown.
In Philadelphia and New York, for example, in the hip parts of town, people are like cockroaches coming in and out of stores, bars, subways, with traffic roaring by - I just don't see that in D.C... sorry (or LA (other than Hollywood.))
EDIT:
I don't want it to seem that I'm saying that D.C. is not urban...it is, but just not in the same league as a Philadelphia, or a Chicago.
I have not been to San Francisco, so I can't comment on it.
Take DuPont Circle for example - I wanted pizza one night, and I had to walk around for 30 minutes - I settled on Mcdonald's as it was the ONLY FOOD JOINT OPEN. In Philadelphia, I would have walked past numerous Pizza places, cafes, chains, ice cream shops, etc. I would have had more luck walking around a suburb.
The reason I pick on Washington in this example is because of the fact that it's an east coast city, and the Capitol of our nation at that. There's no reason not to have a better street level retail situation in that town. It's un-urban. Cold white masonry doesn't make a place urban - it's the people, mom and pop shops, little cafes, etc.
You just lost all credibility with a comment like that! All you could find open in Dupont was Mcdonald's?!?! LOL!
On occasion I make a$$nine comments because I've had too much to drink. I assume you were in the same situation.
I'm kind of torn on this. I could see either SF or Philly being number 1.
Philly is the bigger city and has a little more of that "big city feel". That being said, much of Philly is dense by the standards of American cities, but not really "virbant" in the way than many close in SF areas areas are.
SF has a larger, more vibrant core. DT SF has more office space. Nowhere in Philly can rival the density of Tenderloin or Nobb Hill. Plus, SF has lots of vibrant neighborhood strips (Mission, North Beach, Marina, Haight).
Boston is pretty easily 3. DC is 4. It's urban by the standards of US cities. But, as has been pointed out, doesn't have the traditional urban feel of a the other 3. The city is skewed more toward office space. It doesn't have the density and population of the others.
LA is such a wild card. Its has very dense areas, but its not really urban in a traditional sense. The DT is smaller and transit and walkability isn't as good.
I guess I'm not so sure about "urbanity" anymore. I wasn't exactly looking for it, but I didn't notice Philly, Boston and San Francisco were noticeably more urban than parts of DC like DuPont Circle and blocks to the south, Adams Morgan, Penn Quarter, etc. DC also has a more developed and used subway system than these other cities.
Maybe it's because I worked in DC for a number of years and was constantly around the downtown office crowd. ( I used to work at 18th and M Northwest. DC's downtown population during the work week is larger than any of the other cities in this poll.) Anyway, since so many people are stating otherwise, maybe there's something to DC being less urban than these other cities for now. I'd have to see more convincing data.
Last edited by BigCityDreamer; 12-27-2010 at 09:32 PM..
the top 4 aren't separated by much at all. they all have certain neighborhoods that could rival anywhere in the country in terms of urbanity. Boston's north end is the most urban place i have ever been. nonetheless, i'd still give the edge to phila on account of its size and i feel like there's a certain level of 'grit' there that captures the essence of urbanity and is much more pronounced here than any where else (aside from neighborhoods in nyc and maybe chi town or sometihng).
I guess I'm not so sure about "urbanity" anymore. I wasn't exactly looking for it, but I didn't notice Philly, Boston and San Francisco were noticeably more urban than parts of DC like DuPont Circle and blocks to the south, Adams Morgan, Penn Quarter, etc. DC also has a more developed and used subway system than these other cities.
Maybe it's because I worked in DC for a number of years and was constantly around the downtown office crowd. ( I used to work at 18th and M Northwest. DC's downtown population during the work week is larger than any of the other cities in this poll.) Anyway, since so many people are stating otherwise, maybe there's something to DC being less urban than these other cities for now. I'd have to see more convincing data.
IMO, DC is slightly less urban than Bos, SF, and Philly for 3 or 4 basic reasons:
1) DC has several active areas, but it doesn't really have one big downtown "big city" civic area like Walnut Street/Union Square.
2) DC has a lower density than the other 3.
(DC would have to grow by 1/3rd to equal Boston's density).
3) DC doesn't have the super dense areas like the North End or Tenderloin (Densities +50k/psm plus).
4) DC has wide streets and houses tend to be setback from the street. You don't get that same dense urban feel.
It is also a little subjective, but DC doesn't have the gritty and urban feel.
As you point out, there are some mitigating factors (office space, transit). At the end of the day, all are basically in the same range. But, most would probably agree DC is a little behind the others.
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.
