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.
Sorry DC. You have too much Sunbelt/South in you, and it shows. You're also too political.
Boston has a very dense and important financial district, a built environment that once supported densities that approached a citywide average of 16,550 ppsm (and it was nearly what it is today in terms of population back in 1900). DC peaked at 13,000 ppsm and only had 278,000 people in 1900 (50% of what Boston had in 50% more land area).
I really love Boston, but its biggest knock for me is its nightlife, or lack thereof. It doesn't have an edge, like anywhere, and bars/nightlife are existent but lame and shut down. Gay scene? Pretty small and fairly conservative/boring. DC has a better gay scene, at least. And better nightlife. But that doesn't excuse its mishaps in my mind.
This post reeked of epic failure when I got to the second sentence
The key word(s) in all of that was "I like." Which is fine, liking is subjective, but more people are moving to DC than Boston to live and that's a fact. DC has plenty of architecture in the city that are not 10 story office buildings, so stop cherry picking the neighborhoods u like. I could argue about the looks of buildings all day but I'm not.
Plus if you want your mix of more modern condos complimented with nice looking apartments (most especially the giant elegantly historic ones along much of Connecticut and Wisconsin Avenues) and a larger stock of diverse rowhouses, DC got you covered. And besides, Downtown DC has some nice architectural gems as well. So it's not all glass box sterility and somewhat bland Brutalism.
Sorry DC. You have too much Sunbelt/South in you, and it shows. You're also too political.
Boston has a very dense and important financial district, a built environment that once supported densities that approached a citywide average of 16,550 ppsm (and it was nearly what it is today in terms of population back in 1900). DC peaked at 13,000 ppsm and only had 278,000 people in 1900 (50% of what Boston had in 50% more land area).
I really love Boston, but its biggest knock for me is its nightlife, or lack thereof. It doesn't have an edge, like anywhere, and bars/nightlife are existent but lame and shut down. Gay scene? Pretty small and fairly conservative/boring. DC has a better gay scene, at least. And better nightlife. But that doesn't excuse its mishaps in my mind.
You realize that Washington is the larger metropolis? Washington is the larger Urban Area (both the United States and Demographia one), it's the larger Urban Agglomeration (via Demographia), it's the larger Metropolitan Statistical Area (by a really sweet amount too), and to add insult to injury it's the larger Combined Statistical Area too, Boston's is massive (8 million inhabitants) but going from MSA to CSA, Washington stays a cool step ahead of Boston even then.
It's literally the larger metropolis at practically every measure, it's suburbs are on average much much much more dense than those in Greater Boston and the city has a sturdy and noticeable leisure population at all times of the year; making it feel a step or two more dynamic than it's arch New England rival.
The actual city of Boston is larger than Washington, although even that, is not by much nor even feels like much, certain parts of Washington can put away certain parts of Boston and vice versa, Boston of Washington. However, because it dominates Boston at nearly every size measure with the one very close and notable exception of the city proper, it's easy to assume that it's the larger place.
Your points are valid but your taking such small areas and pitting them against one another. Washington city is poised to surpass Boston by the next census, by doing such, it'll put away Boston in the last measurement where Boston held any sort of advantage on Washington. The density gap, by the way, is narrowing. Boston has more than just the edge there, but Washington's on a strong trajectory (stronger than Boston currently), and it remains to be seen of what it will look like just a few years from now.
Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 08-16-2014 at 06:36 PM..
Why not somewhere else?LA? San Francisco? Philly? Chicago? Seattle?
DC and Boston seem really small for what you are looking for. I know Seattle isn't all that big either, but it is booming.
You realize that Washington is the larger metropolis? Washington is the larger Urban Area (both the United States and Demographia one), it's the larger Urban Agglomeration (via Demographia), it's the larger Metropolitan Statistical Area (by a really sweet amount too), and to add insult to injury it's the larger Combined Statistical Area too, Boston's is massive (8 million inhabitants) but going from MSA to CSA, Washington stays a cool step ahead of Boston even then.
It's literally the larger metropolis at practically every measure, it's suburbs are on average much much much more dense than those in Greater Boston and the city has a sturdy and noticeable leisure population at all times of the year; making it feel a step or two more dynamic than it's arch New England rival.
The actual city of Boston is larger than Washington, although even that, is not by much nor even feels like much, certain parts of Washington can put away certain parts of Boston and vice versa, Boston of Washington. However, because it dominates Boston at nearly every size measure with the one very close and notable exception of the city proper, it's easy to assume that it's the larger place.
Your points are valid but your taking such small areas and pitting them against one another. Washington city is poised to surpass Boston by the next census, by doing such, it'll put away Boston in the last measurement where Boston held any sort of advantage on Washington. The density gap, by the way, is narrowing. Boston has more than just the edge there, but Washington's on a strong trajectory (stronger than Boston currently), and it remains to be seen of what it will look like just a few years from now.
Did you read the OP?
Quote:
Originally Posted by davtrap
I'm currently 28 and I'm looking for a change of pace from my current suburban lifestyle.
I want to experience stereotypical "big city" living as shown on TV. Dense urban Apartment living, interesting architecture, corner markets, delis, cafes, public squares, retail and street life, pub transit, and so forth.
I have narrowed my choices down to DC or Boston. Basically, for lack of a better description, I'm looking for a NYC lite experience. I think NYC would be a bit too much for me.
Which of those two cities best matches what I'm looking for?
Why not somewhere else?LA? San Francisco? Philly? Chicago? Seattle? DC and Boston seem really small for what you are looking for. I know Seattle isn't all that big either, but it is booming.
Isn't small kind of what the OP wants here?
And regardless, Boston is the third densest city in the country after NYC and SF.
If the OP is looking for a big urban city, but would be overwhelmed by a city the size of NYC then I think Boston would be a good option. It's big enough to feel like a 'big city' but small enough to be managed easily by someone who isn't used to big cities.
And it's close enough to NYC for the OP to take trips there and experience the intensely mammoth 'big city' before retreating back to the nicer smaller one.
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.
