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.
I love the high rise argument from DC boosters. Is Rossyln really an exciting place? If you think it is, that's pretty sad. Get out and travel more. Something.
I love the high rise argument from DC boosters. Is Rossyln really an exciting place? If you think it is, that's pretty sad. Get out and travel more. Something.
I guess Paris or Rome are boring places. These places need more ugly 80's highrises, like Tysons Corner. More parking lots and giant highways. Then Rome will truly be a happening place of historical note.
You dismissed Stamford, New Rochelle, and White Plains as "ghetto", which is absurd, then turned around and ignored the fact that many of these DC transit-oriented suburbs are more "ghetto" and not nearly as nice. In other words, any highrise suburb I mention in the NYC area will be "ghetto" no matter how upscale, because big highrise cities will have more of a mix. If White Plains is "ghetto" then so is Manhattan.
Then, when I along with your criteria for for only "non-ghetto" suburbs (which appears by your calculation to be mega-rich, non-diverse areas), I named all these places, but you dismissed them as not having highrises (even though you never mentioned highrises as a necessary condition and even though highrises have nothing to do with urbanity).
The fact is you're only making a "point" by having an impossible standard. If I mention a place like White Plains, you will call it "ghetto" even though there's nothing remotely ghetto about the place. Obviously an urban place will be somewhat more economically mixed (which is also true in DC and which you conveniently ignore).
Then, if I mention a less diverse but still very urban place like Greenwich, you will say "not enough highrises" even though Greenwich has better urbanity than anywhere in DC area, and has lots of multifamily, and some midrises, just not towers.
Sure you can think it's an impossible standard. Actually in NYC it does seem almost impossible. If I don't want (or can't afford) to live in the city, but still want to enjoy the convenience of a modern highrise apt building with a doorman, a view and other amenities as well as quick access into the city... where in NY should I go? Sure there are a few options here and there (White Plains is one and you can make an argument for JC and Hoboken, though it's not quite on point) but they are not as plentiful as in DC. That's the point,
And you can think that downtown Greenwich and Montclair are more urban than downtown Bethesda. I don't.
Sure you can think it's an impossible standard. Actually in NYC it does seem almost impossible. If I don't want (or can't afford) to live in the city, but still want to enjoy the convenience of a modern highrise apt building with a doorman, a view and other amenities as well as quick access into the city... where in NY should I go? Sure there are a few options here and there (White Plains is one and you can make an argument for JC and Hoboken, though it's not quite on point) but they are not as plentiful as in DC. That's the point,
But the point is incorrect. They are far more plentiful in the NYC area than in the DC area. There are far more "modern highrise apt building with a doorman, a view and other amenities as well as quick access into the city...", as you say, in the NYC area.
Again using your chosen criteria- lots of modern highrises, with doormen, view and amenities and access to central city (I don't agree that this criteria has anything to do with urbanity, but I will follow your standards)-
NYC area-
Fort Lee
Cliffside Park
North Bergen
Edgewater
West NY
Union City
Weehawken
Jersey City
Hoboken
Newark
Morristown
New Brunswick
Long Beach
White Plains
Yonkers
New Rochelle
Stamford
DC area-
Bethesda
Silver Spring
Arlington
Alexandria
Rockville
But the point is incorrect. They are far more plentiful in the NYC area than in the DC area. There are far more "modern highrise apt building with a doorman, a view and other amenities as well as quick access into the city...", as you say, in the NYC area.
Again using your chosen criteria- lots of modern highrises, with doormen, view and amenities and access to central city (I don't agree that this criteria has anything to do with urbanity, but I will follow your standards)-
NYC area-
Fort Lee
Cliffside Park
North Bergen
Edgewater
West NY
Union City
Weehawken
Jersey City
Hoboken
Newark
Morristown
New Brunswick
Long Beach
White Plains
Yonkers
New Rochelle
Stamford
DC area-
Bethesda
Silver Spring
Arlington
Alexandria
Rockville
And I have explained to you painstakingly why almost none of your nominations meet the parameters that I had in mind (with the possible exception of White Plains, JC and Hoboken - though the latter two are not really suburbs in the traditional sense). Most of those downtowns' multi-unit housing stock consists primarily of depressing 1930-1950 era apartment buildings or suburban style complexes. If you'd ever ventured to a place like Long Beach you would know this.
Some of the communities along the Gold Coast of New Jersey do have a plethora of nice highrises and could qualify, but they don't have quick rail access into the city. It can take you a good part of an hour to get from Fort Lee to Midtown on a bus.
And I have explained to you painstakingly why almost none of your nominations meet the parameters that I had in mind (with the possible exception of White Plains, JC and Hoboken - though the latter two are not really suburbs in the traditional sense). Most of those downtowns' multi-unit housing stock consists primarily of depressing 1930-1950 era apartment buildings or suburban style complexes. If you'd ever ventured to a place like Long Beach you would know this.
.
Oh boy. Now Long Beach is "ghetto" because not only does it have modern upscale stuff (like in DC suburbs) it also has older upscale stuff. Geez. $400 a night hotels on the beach and Long Beach is "ghetto"
What about Great Neck? Is that ghetto too? Or because the buildings are only 10 floors and not 12 floors like in Silver Spring, they don't count?
You just don't like older stuff, do you? Every city I mention is "ghetto" because the NYC area is older, and all urban areas in the NYC area will have old apartment buildings along with the new, while suburban DC was basically farmland back then, so no old buildings. Is Park Ave. in Manhattan "ghetto"? Mostly older buildings. Is Scarsdale "ghetto"? Coops are mostly older.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzrovian
The communities along the Gold Coast of New Jersey could qualify but they don't have quick rail access into the city. It can take you a good part of an hour to get from Fort Lee to Midtown on a bus.
And even more "oh boy" here. Fort Lee is 10 minutes into Manhattan via express bus, and has extremely heavy transit into Manhattan, yet doesn't count, because on tires instead of track. Twin 50 floor luxury towers are being built right now, 800 feet above the Hudson in Fort Lee, right across from Manhattan, along with a half-million square feet of upscale retail, but you're trying to tell me that Silver Spring of all places is more urban.
And I'm sure Edgewater and Weehawken don't count, because they have rail and ferry, but not heavy rail Metro, so not allowed to be compared. Jersey City doesn't count because it's "too urban". Greenwich "not enough highrises". Montclair "not urban enough". Stamford "ghetto". What about Yonkers? "Too many Italians" or "Don't like how it's pronounced" or "Bugs Bunny once mentioned it"? What about New Brunswick? "Don't like Rutgers?" What about Morristown "George Washington slept there, doesn't count"?
How about we turn things around and stop using this "DC standard" where we need to have highrises, but not any old ones, we need to have transit, but only rail, we need to have density, but no "ghetto people", we need to have proximity, but not too close (still not getting why a place like Hoboken doesn't count), we need to have stuff, but not too much stuff, we need to have exactly the same mediocre feel as Silver Spring or it "doesn't count". No shopping allowed or it is "ghetto" No outsiders, please.
The fact is that every metro is unique. No, you will not get another metro with exactly the same mix as in DC, just like you won't get another metro with exactly the same mix as NYC, SF, LA, Chicago, etc. The fact is that NYC has tons more urban options in its suburbs than in the DC suburbs, no matter how you try and twist it.
Oh boy. Now Long Beach is "ghetto" because not only does it have modern upscale stuff (like in DC suburbs) it also has older upscale stuff. Geez. $400 a night hotels on the beach and Long Beach is "ghetto"
What about Great Neck? Is that ghetto too? Or because the buildings are only 10 floors and not 12 floors like in Silver Spring, they don't count?
You just don't like older stuff, do you? Every city I mention is "ghetto" because the NYC area is older, and all urban areas in the NYC area will have old apartment buildings along with the new, while suburban DC was basically farmland back then, so no old buildings. Is Park Ave. in Manhattan "ghetto"? Mostly older buildings. Is Scarsdale "ghetto"? Coops are mostly older.
And even more "oh boy" here. Fort Lee is 10 minutes into Manhattan via express bus, and has extremely heavy transit into Manhattan, yet doesn't count, because on tires instead of track. Twin 50 floor luxury towers are being built right now, 800 feet above the Hudson in Fort Lee, right across from Manhattan, along with a half-million square feet of upscale retail, but you're trying to tell me that Silver Spring of all places is more urban.
And I'm sure Edgewater and Weehawken don't count, because they have rail and ferry, but not heavy rail Metro, so not allowed to be compared. Jersey City doesn't count because it's "too urban". Greenwich "not enough highrises". Montclair "not urban enough". Stamford "ghetto". What about Yonkers? "Too many Italians" or "Don't like how it's pronounced" or "Bugs Bunny once mentioned it"? What about New Brunswick? "Don't like Rutgers?" What about Morristown "George Washington slept there, doesn't count"?
How about we turn things around and stop using this "DC standard" where we need to have highrises, but not any old ones, we need to have transit, but only rail, we need to have density, but no "ghetto people", we need to have proximity, but not too close (still not getting why a place like Hoboken doesn't count), we need to have stuff, but not too much stuff, we need to have exactly the same mediocre feel as Silver Spring or it "doesn't count". No shopping allowed or it is "ghetto" No outsiders, please.
You've lost the plot pal. Nowhere did I say that Long Beach was ghetto or that Fort Lee was not urban because it didn't have rail (though unquestionably neither one is as nice as a place like Bethesda). Nor did I say that like or dislike any of these places. I like living in the city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichiVegas
The fact is that every metro is unique. No, you will not get another metro with exactly the same mix as in DC, just like you won't get another metro with exactly the same mix as NYC, SF, LA, Chicago, etc. The fact is that NYC has tons more urban options in its suburbs than in the DC suburbs, no matter how you try and twist it.
Now you are on to something. That is unquestionably true and is the reason why different metros develop differently. All I was saying was that the particular mix offered in some of the DC suburbs could appeal to a certain demographic and is not available to the same degree in NYC, or really anywhere else in the US. You can say - "sure but NY suburbs offer something slightly different which IMO is just as good, if not better" - and you are entitled to your opinion. But no reason to jump down my throat with insults.
I am done here. You can go jerk around someone else.
You've lost the plot pal. Nowhere did I say that Long Beach was ghetto or that Fort Lee was not urban because it didn't have rail (though unquestionably neither one is as nice as a place like Bethesda). Nor did I say that like or dislike any of these places. I like living in the city.
Yeah, you wrote both those things. You keep making up reasons for whatever city I mention. You won't accept any city I mention, because you know you've been proven wrong. It's always "too urban", "not urban enough", "too many highrises", "not enough highrises", etc. There is no correct answer.
Fort Lee is much more desirable than Bethesda. Long Beach is tough to compare, because of the beach appeal. I would say it's at least as desirable. Both are more urban than Bethesda, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzrovian
Now you are on to something. That is unquestionably true and is the reason why different metros develop differently. All I was saying was that the particular mix offered in some of the DC suburbs could appeal to a certain demographic and is not available to the same degree in NYC, or really anywhere else in the US.
And, again, this is not true. I have mentioned dozens of cities where this "particular mix" exists in the NYC area, and you have dismissed them all for arbitrary reasons ("buildings are 10 floors, not 12") that have nothing to do with your claimed point. The fact is that there are far more in the NYC area.
What is the reason for not including Morristown? New Brunswick? Yonkers? Norwalk? Great Neck? Mamaroneck? Hackensack? Mineola?
The L is lacking in areas for sure, although it definitely allows a large chunk of the city to live car free, especially along the denest areas of the city, and for those who work downtown. I wouldn't say Chicago isn't unique as far as getting around on buses, if anything buses are probably Chicago's strongest point in the realm of public transit. Almost the entire population of the city is living within 1/2 mile of a bus line, and a majority of bus lines have decent headways along with a decent 24 hour network. There are over 150 bus routes running on the main north/south and east/west streets that run every 1/2 mile apart in the city's grid, along with a detailed network of express buses that run the lakeshore areas. About a million passengers a day on the buses.
The commuter system is up there after NYC's as a strong point in the country for commuter rail. Boston and Philly have decent systems, but I always see Metra noted as a strong second. I assume maybe you're just meaning "less so for the commuter trains" in the city? There are a few stations on the north side, with the majority of the commuer trains within the city limits being located in the south side of the city.
There are 70 metra stations located within the city itself.
METRA is great to commute downtown as is the L; but not so much to live in Glen Elyn car free however. Buses are Chicago's dominate means of mass transit. The question related to living car free. Can one survive in most larger cities car free? Yes. Easier in some cities like Chicago? Yes.
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.
