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 addition to what was already said (that Boston does have a lot if empty space), Boston (and SF) can build upwards, whereas DC can't.
To say that will not be the case soon would be an understatement. D.C.'s height act is probably about to be lifted outside of the core which means growth will be unlimited. This is especially true in SE D.C. that could hold hundreds of thousands of residents with redevelopment that will most likely take place there. There are so many low rise public housing complexes there that the mixed use development potential is unlimited. A skyline dotting the Anacostia River in S.E. DC like a Miami or Chicago style is the most likely possibility.
There is plenty of space to develop in Boston. But most of it resides outside of the core. In neighborhoods like Jamaica Plain, Roslindale, Hyde Park and Dorchester. The amount of development that has either been built in the last 5 years, is currently under construction, or is planned is pretty impressive. If anything, I think Boston has a lot more undeveloped space than San Francisco.
As far as height is concerned in Boston, you will never see massive super tall towers on an NYC, or Moscow scale. A Boston super tall would be on the 800-1,000, imo. And even then, I personally would not want to see more than 1 or 2 of those towers built. I like height and development, but on Boston's scale, 1,500 and 1,600 feet towers are wayyyyy out of place.
Yup. You've got a year to break ground on the Trans National, better get hopping!
They pulled the plug on Transnational back in 2008.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric
I know, I know, it's tough not having anything over 600 feet built since the 1970 whereas San Francisco has four built over 600 feet since then plus another under construction and another about to break ground.
Buildings that do exist though like John Hancock and the like are quite beautiful. Boston's not a city like Dubai, there's no reason to go that tall there and most in the city are content with it. It works for their image.
One important thing to look at is not just population decline, but change in households. After all, families have shrunk since 1950, and the same house which once housed two parents and five kids probably isn't considered a good pick to house seven single young professionals.
1. Population bottomed out in 1980, and has since slowly recovered
2. The number of housing units in Boston has risen since 1950 in all but two decades.
3. The average household size, despite recent increases, continues to fall. In 1950, it was 3.39, and it's now 2.26.
I can't find the actual number of households from 1950 anywhere, but dividing 801,444 by 3.39, the number of households in 1950 was 236,414. In 2010 the number of households was...247,621! The number of households in Boston has grown by over 11,000 since 1950!
Still, this isn't a perfect measure. I found another citation that Boston had 220,000 households in 1950. The lower number isn't given accurate citation with the census, but this is probably more accurate, as some people are counted by the census but aren't in households (prisoners, soldiers on base, students in dorms, those in nursing homes, etc). Assuming 220,000, Boston has gained around 27,600 households! This is especially impressive, because comparing household numbers to household numbers entirely discounts the massive growth in college enrollment in Boston.
San Francisco seems to have gained more households than Boston, which makes sense due to the crazy real estate prices there. DC probably has less households in absolute numbers than in 1950, so it still has more room to grow before it's essentially full.
These are just major development projects. This doesn't even begin to highlight the infill taking place and future potential around the city. To compare Boston and D.C.'s development potential is not a fair comparison since Boston was not ravaged and destroyed by the Martin Luther King riots that left D.C. to rot for 50 years. D.C. was a barren waste land for decades and is just now beginning to rebuild the city.
And as for Cambridge, there is no land to develop anything on the scale of Potomac Yards in Alexandria. That development is the same size as Boston's Seaport Square and Fan Pier put together. Potomac Yard Development | City of Alexandria, VA
Boston definitely doesn't have as much room to expand as DC...but there's stil plenty of room. That was my point. Those two projects I mentioned were only two individual projects. There's already about 10M square feet of office space in the waterfront at the moment, and those two other projects will bring a few million more. In the model I showed in my previous post, these two projects only covered about 1/3 of what was in the model. There's also other infill projects of significance.
While there's no individual project as large as the Potomac Yards, Cambridge already has over 20M square feet and several million more under construction. Also, though it's a campus, Harvard has quite large plans for Allston.
Even then, my point wasn't to say Boston/Cambridge have as much room to expand as DC. Just that there's plenty of room to expand.
Regarding the riots...let's relax a little. It's not like poor old Washington has been sitting around in its own filth for the past 50 years. There are some parts that were affected worse than others, but in the areas that matter, DC has been doing just fine.
Boston definitely doesn't have as much room to expand as DC...but there's stil plenty of room. That was my point. Those two projects I mentioned were only two individual projects. There's already about 10M square feet of office space in the waterfront at the moment, and those two other projects will bring a few million more. In the model I showed in my previous post, these two projects only covered about 1/3 of what was in the model. There's also other infill projects of significance.
While there's no individual project as large as the Potomac Yards, Cambridge already has over 20M square feet and several million more under construction. Also, though it's a campus, Harvard has quite large plans for Allston.
Even then, my point wasn't to say Boston/Cambridge have as much room to expand as DC. Just that there's plenty of room to expand.
Regarding the riots...let's relax a little. It's not like poor old Washington has been sitting around in its own filth for the past 50 years. There are some parts that were affected worse than others, but in the areas that matter, DC has been doing just fine.
I agree, Boston has room to grow. I was just saying it doesn't have nearly as much room to grow as D.C. I was just responding to the question saying Boston will not pass D.C. again. Also, as for the bolded above, do you have any idea what D.C. looked like just 10-20 years ago? This was our nation's capitol. This is what people saw when they visited America:
I agree, Boston has room to grow. I was just saying it doesn't have nearly as much room to grow as D.C. I was just responding to the question saying Boston will not pass D.C. again. Also, as for the bolded above, do you have any idea what D.C. looked like just 10-20 years ago? This was our nation's capitol. This is what people saw when they visited America:
Like I said before, the parts that mattered were still fine. The title of that gallery is "Hidden Washington DC", with the description: "These images depict the hidden parts of Washington DC rarely if ever traversed by tourists. Here are the places and some of the people trapped in their own world while the rich and powerful swirl around in a seemingly separate world a mile away."
All cities in the 70s-80s had some really horrible parts--and DC was quite bad, I'm not denying that. But the government areas have always been extremely well funded, which is paving the way for the giant boom DC is experiencing right now.
Like I said before, the parts that mattered were still fine. The title of that gallery is "Hidden Washington DC", with the description: "These images depict the hidden parts of Washington DC rarely if ever traversed by tourists. Here are the places and some of the people trapped in their own world while the rich and powerful swirl around in a seemingly separate world a mile away."
All cities in the 70s-80s had some really horrible parts--and DC was quite bad, I'm not denying that. But the government areas have always been extremely well funded, which is paving the way for the giant boom DC is experiencing right now.
Almost all of those images are in downtown D.C. The other's are in the core like Shaw, Mid City, and Logan Circle. It's crazy that it looks so different you couldn't even recognize it. The area around the current Gallery Place where the Verizon Center is located is also in those pictures. Pretty surprising isn't it. By the way, that is 1990's D.C. Scroll through the pictures again so you can see exactly where these images are. Many of the area's where places such as the current Spy Museum, Newseum, and Crime and Punishment Museum are pictures. Also, Ford's theater where Lincoln was shot and the museum is located is right where these pictures are. You can't downplay what D.C. went through.
The only area's that were nice would be west of Rock Creek Park which is such a tiny part of the city and population. How can you discount all of downtown DC?
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.
