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.
HUH? Are you sure about that? When was the last time you came to D.C. These neighborhoods below are all apartment only neighborhoods. Have you been to these neighborhoods before?
2 years ago. And like I said I'll believe Dc is an apartment it's as dense as at lease Brooklyn. And all these neighborhoods are not even 1 sm there all about 0.80 sm.
Being compact is the same as being structurally dense, in my book.
We all can form an opinion, but you will never learn that in an urban design class. Midtown Manhattan is about as urban as it gets. It's too urban for most people.
2 years ago. And like I said I'll believe Dc is an apartment it's as dense as at lease Brooklyn. And all these neighborhoods are not even 1 sm there all about 0.80 sm.
An Philly has JUST as much.
The core of D.C. will be close to as dense as Brooklyn by the next census. The city will not be close, but the core by itself will be. Most tracts will be between 50,000-70,000 people per square mile. Even the rowhouses in the core for the most part are being converted to condo's. Seriously, there are about multiple condo conversion building permits a day. One person got so mad about it they e-mailed the Washington Business Journal.
Last edited by MDAllstar; 04-11-2013 at 03:00 PM..
Philadelphia for sure. Washington DC and NOVA is the king of sprawl.
^ Yup. DC, NoVA, and the MD suburbs of DC aren't rural at all, but they're more suburban than anything, whereas the area immediately around Philly is quite urban, I'd say.
This isn't exactly a comparison between Manhattan and DC, but I think it's fair to give Philadelphia the edge here. I say this as someone with extensive experience in both areas.
The main reason is that DC does not have a comparable core to Philadelphia's Center City. While there are a plethora of high-rise areas in the DC suburbs, the city is exclusively low-rise due to height restrictions. This limits the extent to which density is concentrated in the city.
Aside from the low-rise core, DC is definitely a dense, largely rowhouse-based city. However, Philly is also a predominately rowhouse city, and its urban footprint is obviously much larger. It expands even into some highly dense inner-suburbs, particularly in Delaware County.
Finally, the nature of the neighborhoods also add to a sense of greater density in Philly. The roads tend to be much more narrow, which makes its residences closer together.
I acknowledge that DC is definitely densifying, likely at a faster rate than Philly (which is also densifying with residential conversions/redevelopment in and around Center City) -- but Philly just has an inherent layout that seems slightly more conducive to density.
We all can form an opinion, but you will never learn that in an urban design class. Midtown Manhattan is about as urban as it gets. It's too urban for most people.
As are portions of Philly, Baltimore, and Boston. My stance is on compactness, other posters are arguing other aspects. Nothing really wrong with any of it, though.
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.
