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've taken some long walks in LA. Compared to Boston or Philly, it's certainly not as easy or pleasant. Too many wide streets (even the small residential streets can be massive), too many curb cuts. Personally I'd add a lack of shade, but that's not what I'm talking about here.
It's part of what makes DC so special and extremely underrated by some IMO. Because you get such variance as a city rather than the uniformity you find in some others. Especially within 61 sq mi. You can find many places that give you a whole different feel across the city.
Agreed! Build most of the city to hold 1 million people and also include single family homes outside of that. How many people live in Paris? With all the office to residential conversions coming, the potential is astronomical. How many people can downtown DC hold if a lot of buildings convert?
People keep saying that LA has wider streets and I'm sure that it does compared to Boston and Philly, but compared to DC? Maybe it does, but I haven't seen any comparisons. I did a comparison between LA and Manhattan and they were very comparable.
Either way, I tend to agree that walking in LA isn't as always as pleasant as some other cities, but that gets down to preference. Lots of people own cars, even in the most urban cities. In LA it's easier to own a car and still have the ability to walk to just as many amenities as the other cities and that's unique. I'd also say that many people critical of the walk experience in LA aren't speaking from experience, although I don't mean you specifically. Just in general.
In speaking for experience. The blocks are too long in LA and individual restaurant are too wide. You don’t get to as many places as quickly in foot and there’s not really short cut or diagonal bisecting minor roads. And yes, major lack of shade.
It's part of what makes DC so special and extremely underrated by some IMO. Because you get such variance as a city rather than the uniformity you find in some others. Especially within 61 sq mi. You can find many places that give you a whole different feel across the city.
It’s why I say DC is easily the most beautiful city in the east coast and I don’t think it’s terribly close. It lessens the urbanity but it worth it to have it IMO. It’d be like if Boston had Brookline or some parts of upscale Cambridge in its city limits.
It’s why I say DC is easily the most beautiful city in the east coast and I don’t think it’s terribly close. It lessens the urbanity but it worth it to have it IMO. It’d be like if Boston had Brookline or some parts of upscale Cambridge in its city limits.
I think DC can build a zone like Paris in the inner core, but have lower density parts of the city outside of that. It will create a vibrancy and energy over a much larger distance (35-40 sq. miles) than any city outside of NYC and Chicago. One thing that makes DC different is the amount of activity centers spread throughout the city with so many other areas being developed every year. A consistent high-rise area with buildings inside that area averaging 9-15 stories.
Wait, didn’t you say it restricts development? I’m saying it increases development. A downtown area will never be able to keep up with city wide 9+ story development. I was saying you don’t see development outside of a tiny area in other cities when compared to DC which builds downtown intensity everywhere miles from the core.
You said Seattle was excepted from the cities that would be at a disadvantage relative to DC's approach.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,552,695 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade
It’s why I say DC is easily the most beautiful city in the east coast and I don’t think it’s terribly close. It lessens the urbanity but it worth it to have it IMO. It’d be like if Boston had Brookline or some parts of upscale Cambridge in its city limits.
Totally agree, and I mean that not as a boast on any level.
You said Seattle was excepted from the cities that would be at a disadvantage relative to DC's approach.
Yeah, they also have upzoned their city. I was speaking about the notion that height limits downtown will decrease the DC development capacity. I think height limits in Philadelphia, Boston, and San Fran are actually more restrictive outside of their downtowns. Looking at an aerial of these cities proves that. Believe it or not, DC is built taller across the city.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,552,695 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDAllstar
Agreed! Build most of the city to hold 1 million people and also include single family homes outside of that. How many people live in Paris? With all the office to residential conversions coming, the potential is astronomical. How many people can downtown DC hold if a lot of buildings convert?
I'd say low end around 1-1.2 million, although it may want to do a slight raise to the height limits, only about 60 feet or so just pack in that much more, but nothing drastic. The District doesn't need skyscrapers, it has the surrounding suburbs for that.
I've taken some long walks in LA. Compared to Boston or Philly, it's certainly not as easy or pleasant. Too many wide streets (even the small residential streets can be massive), too many curb cuts. Personally I'd add a lack of shade, but that's not what I'm talking about here.
Here's a post that I made yesterday. LA street widths are very comparable to Manhattan, except LA's wide streets are greater distances apart, and no one ever complains that Manhattan streets are too wide. Curb cuts I agree 100% and if you said that blocks were often too long I'd agree with that as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Easy
Interesting. I can't comment on Philadelphia and Boston, but if you mean Manhattan, I don't understand why most of C-D says that NYC has narrow streets. Maybe it's because people drive more on major streets in LA?
Using Google maps to compare here are some street widths for both. I find that LA ad NYC street widths are comparable, with the NYC avenues being closer to each other than LA's wide streets.
NYC - random sampling
Park Ave @61st - 108 ft
61st @Park Ave - 33 ft (probably representative of most streets)
5th Ave @58th - 62 ft (avenues seem to arrange from about 60 to over 100)
6th Ave @57th - 62 ft
Park Ave @47th - 110 ft
12th Ave @43rd - 124 ft
Houston St @Lafayette - 95 ft
LA
Grand Ave @2nd - 68ft (representative of avenues in DTLA)
Hill @6th - 52 ft (pretty average width for downtown)
Olympic @Grand - 82 ft (probably the widest street downtown)
Vermont @Olympic - 78 ft (probably the widest street on average in the core of LA)
Olympic @Vermont - 88 ft (wider than normal because the street curves)
Olympic @New Hampshire 75 ft (same street a block away)
New Hampshire @Olympic - 36 ft (typical of intermediate/the majority of streets)
Wiltshire @La Brea - 68ft
Hollywood @Highland - 68 ft
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.
