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 think that is the other misconception people have when I discuss development in the suburbs. I'm talking about suburban development in comparison to other suburban development. The city is the city. The suburbs are the suburbs. They have nothing in common regardless of built scale. The point I was making is suburbs in other metro areas will not be building 30 story towers way out in the suburbs like D.C. is doing. I think when I begin to talk about DC suburban development, people automatically assume I'm saying it will be like living in D.C. Lol...hardly! Most sunbelt cities even in their downtowns will never be like living in D.C. or any other N.E. city. I'm just saying the suburbs around the nation won't be able to offer a high rise lifestyle like D.C. with premium subway access to boot. Just saying D.C. is building things in the suburbs other cities can't and it's all because of metro. Without it, our suburbs would be like everywhere else.
I'm not sure how the above follows what you were originally talking about:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDAllstar
The premise of the discussion we were having had to do with Manhattan having an area people can spread too like Brooklyn because it's so expensive that is also very urban and acts as an alternative. D.C. doesn't have that. It's just going to be built up and only rich people will be able to afford to live there other than the inclusionary zoning units.
See. You were talking about how Manhattan can spread into Brooklyn. DC's development can spread outside of its physical boundaries to adjacent parts in Virginia and Maryland and it certainly does that. I'm not sure how those two responses are supposed to logically follow each other.
Anyhow, regardless of that discussion, DC probably doesn't really have much of an argument for being the most urban city even when excluding NYC. It'll probably take a couple decades for that to be possible, but it's also not as if there isn't a nationwide trend towards development in and around city centers/downtowns so DC's placing up there isn't a given.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
Agree mostly. Eastern Queens in particular has really infrequent rail access, despite being as dense as most of the area covered by the DC metro outside near the center. The Brooklyn line in particular also has use as a city super-express though the A partially covers the same route. In transit fantasy-land, I'd want the LIRR to continue to Lower Manhattan. Then even better, somehow join the PATH system, providing a one-seat ride from the NJ path station to Brooklyn or Queens. Not sure how much demand there'd be for through running commuter trains through Manhattan from Long Island to Jersey — besides not being a trip many would take transit for, most would have to switch anyway to the specific destination they want.
Why just mostly? Why not agree completely? That would be awesome!
If we're playing transit fantasy time, then yea, I want:
- NJ Transit, LIRR, Metro-North to be compatible
- the LIRR going from Atlantic Terminal going out to Lower Manhattan
- Metro-North going down from Grand Central to Lower Manhattan to connect with the above LIRR extension so Metro-North and LIRR are now through-running
- ARC Tunnel revived and connecting LIRR to NJ Transit with also that connection being through-running
- Greater frequencies for all of these because through-running would allow for it since it gets rid of major bottlenecks at high traffic terminal stations
- Standardize payment systems among these
If we go really crazy, then maybe fit PATH in there somewhere. Then maybe go completely out of reason and expect there to be a SEPTA connection and commuter rail all the way from the Hudson Valley or the tips of Long Island through Manhattan and all the way to Philadelphia and beyond into Philadelphia's suburbs.
This isn't really for the one seat ride from one end to another (which is ridiculous to do, but if it existed, I would definitely try it) as it is for a whole lot of new transit patterns possible while taking advantage of a lot of existing infrastructure, the ability to be rid of bottlenecks at major terminals so there can be higher frequencies which would be better use of existing infrastructure, and the ability to achieve huge economies of scale in future purchase orders by having such a large network using the same rolling stock and configurations.
I'm not sure how the above follows what you were originally talking about:
See. You were talking about how Manhattan can spread into Brooklyn. DC's development can spread outside of its physical boundaries to adjacent parts in Virginia and Maryland and it certainly does that. I'm not sure how those two responses are supposed to logically follow each other.
Anyhow, regardless of that discussion, DC probably doesn't really have much of an argument for being the most urban city even when excluding NYC. It'll probably take a couple decades for that to be possible, but it's also not as if there isn't a nationwide trend towards development in and around city centers/downtowns so DC's placing up there isn't a given.
Why just mostly? Why not agree completely? That would be awesome!
If we're playing transit fantasy time, then yea, I want:
- NJ Transit, LIRR, Metro-North to be compatible
- the LIRR going from Atlantic Terminal going out to Lower Manhattan
- Metro-North going down from Grand Central to Lower Manhattan to connect with the above LIRR extension so Metro-North and LIRR are now through-running
- ARC Tunnel revived and connecting LIRR to NJ Transit with also that connection being through-running
- Greater frequencies for all of these because through-running would allow for it since it gets rid of major bottlenecks at high traffic terminal stations
- Standardize payment systems among these
If we go really crazy, then maybe fit PATH in there somewhere. Then maybe go completely out of reason and expect there to be a SEPTA connection and commuter rail all the way from the Hudson Valley or the tips of Long Island through Manhattan and all the way to Philadelphia and beyond into Philadelphia's suburbs.
This isn't really for the one seat ride from one end to another (which is ridiculous to do, but if it existed, I would definitely try it) as it is for a whole lot of new transit patterns possible while taking advantage of a lot of existing infrastructure, the ability to be rid of bottlenecks at major terminals so there can be higher frequencies which would be better use of existing infrastructure, and the ability to achieve huge economies of scale in future purchase orders by having such a large network using the same rolling stock and configurations.
There were two different discussion taking place in this thread that I participated in. The first was about density being mapped around DC's metro system in a 1/2 mile to mile buffer zone to see what the density of that would be using 2010 census data. I then said it would be nice to compare that data with 2020 census data to see how much development took place over the decade. People then preceded to try to tear down DC which is to be expected by saying our TOD isn't urban and can't compare to the city which nobody claimed it would. It is only supposed to be compared to suburbs in other metro areas which makes it very unique.
The second discussion started when people started saying we aren't developing our city center so our suburban TOD isn't that great because it should really be in the core of DC. This is how we got on DC and it's development and then it's future development blah blah blah.....
I really just wanted to know what the density around our transit was so we can compare it to data from the next census. O well...
There were two different discussion taking place in this thread that I participated in. The first was about density being mapped around DC's metro system in a 1/2 mile to mile buffer zone to see what the density of that would be using 2010 census data. I then said it would be nice to compare that data with 2020 census data to see how much development took place over the decade. People then preceded to try to tear down DC which is to be expected by saying our TOD isn't urban and can't compare to the city which nobody claimed it would. It is only supposed to be compared to suburbs in other metro areas which makes it very unique.
The second discussion started when people started saying we aren't developing our city center so our suburban TOD isn't that great because it should really be in the core of DC. This is how we got on DC and it's development and then it's future development blah blah blah.....
I really just wanted to know what the density around our transit was so we can compare it to data from the next census. O well...
Sorry, I'm not a participant in the discussion about TOD out in far flung suburbia. I was in the one about the silliness of a comparison between Manhattan and DC and the idea that Manhattan could spread to Brooklyn as if DC didn't have its own equivalent.
Regardless, in the general topic at hand, it doesn't seem like DC today has a particularly strong case for most urban US city even when NYC is taken out of the running. That seems like a general statement that most can agree with, no?
Sorry, I'm not a participant in the discussion about TOD out in far flung suburbia. I was in the one about the silliness of a comparison between Manhattan and DC and the idea that Manhattan could spread to Brooklyn as if DC didn't have its own equivalent.
Regardless, in the general topic at hand, it doesn't seem like DC today has a particularly strong case for most urban US city even when NYC is taken out of the running. That seems like a general statement that most can agree with, no?
Yeah, I don't really know who said D.C. could compete for most urban? Did someone say it could? I may have missed that debate. I really wasn't talking about D.C. from a competition standpoint. I just wondered what the density would be around the metro system.
^^^Well this thread is about "most urban", so it's about making a case or stating your opinion on most urban. It's not really about discussing development, new urbanism, TOD, etc etc.
The thread is certainly not supposed to be about a general discussion about DC by itself. If you want to make a case that DC is in x hierarchy for urbanity, perhaps behind NYC, perhaps tied with Boston, etc, and state your reasons why, we can go from there.
Yeah, I don't really know who said D.C. could compete for most urban? Did someone say it could? I may have missed that debate. I really wasn't talking about D.C. from a competition standpoint. I just wondered what the density would be around the metro system.
Then what is your point in this topic? How did you shoehorn your posts on developments and development patterns in DC into a topic about most urban cities when you yourself don't see it as competitive?
^^^Well this thread is about "most urban", so it's about making a case or stating your opinion on most urban. It's not really about discussing development, new urbanism, TOD, etc etc.
The thread is certainly not supposed to be about a general discussion about DC by itself. If you want to make a case that DC is in x hierarchy for urbanity, perhaps behind NYC, perhaps tied with Boston, etc, and state your reasons why, we can go from there.
Well, I just said the density numbers were intriguing and I wondered if there were numbers out there for the transit systems. Problem is, just like clock work, if you mention DC in a thread, this is what happens every time. People swarm like a hornets nest. I guess I shouldn't have answered them and responded to their posts. I do tend to defend DC when people start to attack so I can take some blame for going on the defensive. I've been on this board long enough to know DC is a sensitive subject on here. Especially during and after the recession.
Then what is your point in this topic? How did you shoehorn your posts on developments and development patterns in DC into a topic about most urban cities when you yourself don't see it as competitive?
The first post I made was in response to this post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonelitist
Using your numbers from the 2010 Census, here is variability in density:
Jurisdiction / Density / % Change from Baseline of SF Radius / Density Change from Baseline
NYC Radius / 72,887 / 146% / 43,292
SF City Limits / 29,908 / 1% / 313
SF Radius / 29,595 / 0% / 0
BTW, what's your cutoff for lower density Census Tracts (i.e. do you exclude land area taken up by tracts with less than 1,000, or 3,000, or 5,000 ppsm)? Or do you calculate wtd density by finding a certain % of the population and calculating the density based off of the tracts they live in (i.e. 90% of population as threshold, the area of the tracts this "densest" 90% live in is x sq mi).
Contiguous LA density goes on for miles, but it's really only that Wilshire corridor (eg Koreatown area) that's very high density. LA overall is kind of in another league, but it's hard to argue for its "urbanity" when it somehow packs that much density in while still maintaining an amazing autocentric nature (similar to Miami, just on a much grander scale).
Taking that out for residential population (not factoring in office/retail/hotel uses and daytime population) - Boston's core is 14-16% less dense than SF's, Chicago's is either 3 or 17% (huge swing), Philly's is 16-22%, and DC is considerably less dense than any of these cities.
Here is my response to that post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDAllstar
I wonder what the numbers are if we use density around these cities subway and commutes lines. It would be interesting to get maybe a 1/2 mile or 1 mile radius around the lines for every city and compare them. I know D.C.'s development runs along metro for the most part so radius figures always hurt D.C. I personally prefer that our density continue to grow around metro region wide so we can continue to lead in TOD. It still would be interesting to get that kind of comparison. D.C.'s growth around metro region wide is staggering. It would be a very interesting point of view from an urban planning perspective.
After I made that post, here is the response I received:
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonelitist
^^^DC has great new urbanist TOD, but it sounds like you haven't gotten out to explore much. Even DC's "nodes" would be hard-pressed to stack up with what you find in metro NYC, LA, or the Bay Area. There is actually a lot of inefficient space in between these 5-20 floor high-rises that line the nodes that follow the Metro. This inefficient space is much more of a hit on density than you would believe.
Does DC > Atlanta? YES. And Atlanta's waking up, slowly. But it's not as highly unique, or as intensely developed as you think when compared to a few other cities.
And then I said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDAllstar
Not saying it would, I just said it would be nice to see that comparison. The other cities mentioned have tons of high density with no rail transit. I never said they didn't. I just said D.C. doesn't build density without metro access.
After that post, it was free for all. Every single post started to talk about D.C. by representatives from cities across the nation coast to coast. What I should have done at that point is exited stage right. I blame myself for not doing that. This always happens. 7 pages of posts all about D.C. just because I asked about the density data....smh....
The first post I made was in response to this post:
Here is my response to that post:
After I made that post, here is the response I received:
And then I said:
After that post, it was free for all. Every single post started to talk about D.C. by representatives from cities across the nation coast to coast. What I should have done at that point is exited stage right. I blame myself for not doing that. This always happens.
Yea, because you always try to shoehorn a bunch of posts about DC when it seems barely applicable. Do exit, I encourage it.
Yea, because you always try to shoehorn a bunch of posts about DC when it seems barely applicable. Do exit, I encourage it.
No, if someone brings up D.C. even has green grass. People are going to find a patch of brown grass. That's what actually happens and the board is full of it. Let's not pretend like that doesn't go on. What other city on city-data.com can go for 7+ pages completely taking over a thread just at the mention of the cities name? In fact, you all started having a conversation about D.C.'s metro system all by yourself actually just from the mentioning of D.C.'s name. GO BACK AND READ!
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.
