Top cities in the United States that have car-free, dense, urban, pedestrian and transit friendly environs in suburbs? (living, better)

[qworldorder]

Originally Posted by MDAllstar

About its built environment, not hating that the city is building more stuff. I don't think I have seen one single poster say one thing about being upset LA is building housing downtown.

Nobody is saying people are hating on DC for saying it's not urban. I'm saying people are hating on the fact that we are building more urban development trying to increase our density and built environment which people hate!!

One more time:
And the city with the worst traffic in the U.S. is...

[Freddy K]

[quote=MDAllstar;43784003]About its built environment, not hating that the city is building more stuff. I don't think I have seen one single poster say one thing about being upset LA is building housing downtown.

Nobody is saying people are hating on DC for saying it's not urban. I'm saying people are hating on the fact that we are building more urban development trying to increase our density and built environment which people hate!![/QUOTE

That makes no sense. Shouldn't Toronto be more hated then?

It builds far more intense tods. Shouldn't NYC be hated here?

[MDAllstar]

Originally Posted by NativeOrange

^No one cares if you post about DC's projects and growth, and no one other than a select few have really said anything negative about it. You relentlessly post every single project to the point where that thread you referenced looks like a DC-specific thread. Sav858 is right, I don't know how your level of self awareness is so low, do you really think your just posting innocent links and that's it? I've seen you give backhanded compliments and straight out bash other cities mentioned on here, but it seems to be okay with you because DC doesn't get the praise you feel it deserves?

Like...what?!?

If you can find one single post where I have ever bashed another city without tha poster bashing DC first, I will stand corrected, however, I know you won't find it. I bash only when someone bashes DC first. I have no reason to say anything negative about any city for no reason. I'm still trying to figure out why the rest of you do it. In that thread, I congratulate other cities for their development.

If we post projects, you should be happy for us even if it's every single day. I would be happy for other cities. What reason would I have to not be? How is a city posting their projects hurting me? It's a thread about development.

[MDAllstar]

[quote=Freddy K;43784025]

Originally Posted by MDAllstar

About its built environment, not hating that the city is building more stuff. I don't think I have seen one single poster say one thing about being upset LA is building housing downtown.

Nobody is saying people are hating on DC for saying it's not urban. I'm saying people are hating on the fact that we are building more urban development trying to increase our density and built environment which people hate!![/QUOTE

That makes no sense. Shouldn't Toronto be more hated then?

It builds far more intense tods. Shouldn't NYC be hated here?

Why would they be hated:

To use the words of posters on here, "their boom is the product of private sector innovation and hard work, not American tax dollars."

Are you people sleep? This stuff is plain as day in threads all over this forum.

[Freddy K]

Originally Posted by MDAllstar

About its built environment, not hating that the city is building more stuff. I don't think I have seen one single poster say one thing about being upset LA is building housing downtown.

Nobody is saying people are hating on DC for saying it's not urban. I'm saying people are hating on the fact that we are building more urban development trying to increase our density and built environment which people hate!!

My comments about the DC are on the built environment. That's how this started.
YOU are the one who brings up development.

[Freddy K]

You DC guys get defensive about your tods when everyone else says at street level, they're lacking .

Nobody brings up development until you say, "well those are parking lots are gone now blah blah.".

As if that makes it more interesting.

[stanley-88888888]

for purposes of this thread, i would be ok with considering all the non-manhattan burroghs of new york city as suburbs.

[MDAllstar]

Originally Posted by Freddy K

My comments about the DC are on the built environment. That's how this started.
YOU are the one who brings up development.

This isn't about you, this is about the general tone posters on this website have towards Washington D.C. This doesn't take a lot of analysis or research to see. It's plain as day. It's on here, it's in the news, shoot, it's international. Did you hear what the American Olympic committee said about our Olympic bid?

[gladhands]

Originally Posted by stanley-88888888

for purposes of this thread, i would be ok with considering all the non-manhattan burroghs of new york city as suburbs.

That's utterly ridiculous. They ARE part of the city, and if they weren't, Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx would be the third, fourth, and ninth largest cities in the country, respectively.

[the resident09]

Originally Posted by qworldorder

Funny how you get to decide what is and isn't a suburb. Lol there's no difference between Arlington and Jersey City and Cambridge regarding their proximity and function to their respective major cities. If one doesn't operate like a "true suburb", then they all don't.

And the only thing we've had enough of is DC boosters hijacking this thread fawning over how great their "car-free" suburbs are, how much new TOD there is, how they have the best collection of suburbs in this country, when truthfully, at best, it is the number 5 city in this country (NYC, Boston, Phila., SF) per this thread's criteria.



So where are those stats for all of those other DC burbs? We'll wait. Numerous posters on here have expressed quite valid criticisms of your DC-based walkable nodes study, and you just keep deflecting them, or running back to talk all of the new development being built, which, according to you and MDAllstar, has completely changed in only 2 years. Face it, your touting of bland, cookie-cutter suburbs that were built post-WW2 in the age of the automobile, and that your own walkable study admits where no one walks, is ridiculous. Factoring in the Washington Metro's full-blown reliability crisis and DC's number one auto-oriented traffic congestion just makes your argument even more ridiculous.

Please, enjoy your status in the top 5 for this criteria (at #5), but quit playing Stretch Armstrong with the facts. If I wanted to hear endless boosting about TOD and DC, I'd head over to the Washington Forum

I know it's late but this post was so bad I had to respond. What have you been reading or should I say not reading that I have posted? I think you have me confused with other posters. I posted highest percentage transit cities in the nation DC has 3 in the top 15, highest percentage non auto cities/suburbs, and a third article with a link that rated DC Metro area number 1 overall with walkable urban nodes and specified 43 walkable nodes throughout the DC area. It amazing me how you either missed all of these statistics or just blatantly choose to disregard and continue on with your theological case that because DC's suburbs are newer they somehow now have no walk ability, transit, or urbanity. What the heck does bad traffic across the metro have to do with these specific urban nodes? NYC has some of the worst traffic I've ever seen. Arlington traffic is actually a breeze I work there so I would know.