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.
^^^^^^ 200,000 Ah no! DC's density is already at 10,000 psm. Philly is right in the same range at 10,999. My argument is the "not as urban as" statement.
Adding 200,000 to DC's population right now, with Boston's population staying constant would result in relatively equal density.
Washington DC + 200,000: 13,057 ppsm
Boston Currently: 13,321 ppsm
Quote:
Everytime, I see a post like this, I will throw DC's commercial office space into the argument. You don't have over 100 million square feet of office space and tell me your DT is more urban. The argument is urban not vibrant. I see that some of you are confusing the two. GTFOOH.
I think you're the one who's confused. Perhaps vibrant doesn't equal urban...but Big doesn't equal urban either. Houston and Philadelphia are almost equal in terms of CBD office space (Hou: 35.5M, Phi: 39.8M)...but I don't think there is any debate as to which downtown is more urban. Obviously DC's building style is much different than Houston's...but I think you understand what I'm saying.
Maybe we need to get a clear-cut definition of what we consider "urban". I personally think of urban as a large, dense area with a good deal of mixed-use development. Obviously not everything needs to be perfect balance of office/resi, but I think it helps a lot. In my opinion that's what hurts DC in this argument. All of the regular neighborhoods like DuPont and Georgetown, etc. are just as urban as most neighborhoods in Philadelphia and Boston...but downtown hurts it a lot.
Quote:
DC's urbanity is very different than Philly and Boston, I will admit to that. It's more uniform and less gritty. But for you to tell me Dupont Circle is less urban than any Philly neighborhood you want to put in the mix, we will argue all day and night. Like I keep harping on, most of these people are Internet travelers. They have not been to DT DC so they base their perceptions on the media. I have been to CC Philly and Boston on plenty of occasions. Both of these cities were shut down after 2:00 a.m. on a weekend.
And DC shuts down at 3. You didn't address my previous post...but for some reason you keep on trying to argue that 1 hour is some world of difference in regards to nightlife. It's not.
BTW, I thought DuPont was a great place when I went there. One thing DC does better is keeping its transit system open. The stupidest thing about Boston is that the T closes down @ 1 but the bars close @ 2. I guess there was a huge dispute with the cabbies and the local government...but whatever the reason it totally blows. Thank god I'm within walking distance of everything.
I think your Houston comparison doesn't qualify. My definition of urban is completely built out, block by block. DT Philly is like this. DT Houston is not. It resembles more of an office park type of development that you see in the suburbs ala Tysons Corner, catering to cars with surface parking lots. DC's DT is built out. block by block of 12-13 story buildings that form urban canyons. DC is not gritty like Philly or Boston since some on this board equate grit to urbanity also. I can walk 2 miles across DT DC without seeing a break in development or surface parking lots. How is that not urban. I think we all have our own definition of what urban is. Someone from Toyko who visits DC, Boston and Philly would laugh at our urban cities.
I think your Houston comparison doesn't qualify. My definition of urban is completely built out, block by block. DT Philly is like this. DT Houston is not. It resembles more of an office park type of development that you see in the suburbs ala Tysons Corner, catering to cars with surface parking lots. DC's DT is built out. block by block of 12-13 story buildings that form urban canyons. DC is not gritty like Philly or Boston since some on this board equate grit to urbanity also. I can walk 2 miles across DT DC without seeing a break in development or surface parking lots. How is that not urban. I think we all have our own definition of what urban is. Someone from Toyko who visits DC, Boston and Philly would laugh at our urban cities.
I agree with you that downtown DC is urban...downtown DC is so unique that it's hard to properly express my point. I guess the best way to put it is I believe downtown DC is urban and I believe the surrounding neighborhoods of DC are urban...but they don't feel cohesive. Philadelphia and Boston are extremely cohesive...but DC feels like two entirely different cities.
lmao! yeah i realized that after i finished and it was too late to edit the post haha; the rest are all beantown!! still though, boston is about as urban as you can get--i was shocked by its lack of mention earlier in the thread.
Because DC is just a boring government town. It's not supposed to be an exciting urban city. That's why people won't believe it even if you show it.
Also, haven't you heard that DC lacks pizza stores and flower shops? Goddamn, what a sucky ass place!
Hey I understand if thats your a opinion, but speak for yourself my friend... I can assure you that for every one person that thinks DC's a boring old Govt. town... theirs about a hundred or so of other ppl that would beg to differ... and as far as DC lacking in pizza stores isn't all that true either, although I wouldn't know about the flower shop part, so who know's.... and even if DC did lack in both of those departments it wouldn't matter, because if you Look up the term"Urban Area" it clearly defines it as a place thats Built Up/out and very Dense... it doesn't have any rules as to what kind of buildings or stores an Area my have, just as long as there's
buildings there, so where is all this pizza parla and flower shop stuff
coming from???? So according to the real definition all 3 cities would actually be tied, because DC has the biggest Downtown out of the 3, which according to the meaning, means that its more built up and out... But on the other hand Philly and Boston are both more heavily Dense than DC which draws them even ... so there you have it my CD friends
DC is very unique because it didn't grow up around a specific industry or body of water like Boston and Philly. DC's development is sort of artificial in a sense. People see that and assume that it's not urban. And it may be by their own unique definition of urbanity. I have spent years in Brooklyn and have had people tell me Brooklyn isn't as urban as Harlem and I ask them to explain and they can't.
Take Chicago for example. DT and the Loop are urban as ever. But some of neighborhoods have miles and miles upon flats with parking. I'm use to rowhomes, so I deem this as less urban. Am I right? Probably not but my view of urban residential are rowhomes and apartment buildings connected for blocks and blocks. I can see how DC is considered by some as less urban because it does not have any skyscrapers.
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.
... so there you have it my CD friends
