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.
Who cares how far away it is from the water? San Francisco is more built up than DC. That's why it has nearly 200,000 more people with 23% less land mass than DC.
San Francisco will always be more built up than DC because it has neighborhoods that are 90-95% apartment buildings only. And there are a lot of them. In DC, I can't think of one neighborhood where buildings constitute the majority of structures in the neighborhood. The best DC can do is add buildings to lots as they become available (usually along commercial strips). But that's never going to feel as urban--from a structural standpoint--as a neighborhood where nearly all of the structures are apartment buildings.
Woodley Park, Tenleytown and Cleveland Park are good examples of what I'm talking about. You have highly developed commercial corridors surrounded by low density residential. There will always be a cap on the urbanity of these neighborhoods for that reason. And this applies to core DC neighborhoods too, btw.
Who is talking about Woodley Park, Tenleytown and Cleveland Park? Those are WAY outside of the 20 mile urban core footprint for D.C. Also, I already agreed that San Fran has the more urban downtown and city as a whole. I said that our urban core will be more built up. D.C. will have 9 story apartment buildings with retail mile's after San Fran drops down to three story single family homes. Also, my comparison isn't about a neighborhood having a more urban feel, this is about urban footprint. D.C. can't match San Fran's most urban neighborhoods, however, a walk in D.C. will still be in highrise's with retail for many mile's further than San Fran after all these developments are done.
I think his point is that you can walk through a large chunk of SF and find apartment building neighborhoods that are more vibrant than Philly's rowhouse neighborhoods. If you were to walk from Center City to Manayunk, which would be difficult, you'd have to be willing to endure some non-vibrant neighborhoods on the way there. There's really nothing that interesting about rowhouse neighborhoods with a papi store every other block.
The longest distance I've walked in an American city (for leisure purposes only) was from Harlem to the Brooklyn Bridge. That's about 8-9 miles of walking. And we simply did it on a whim...we finished brunch, and it was a nice day, so we just kept walking. There's nothing that would keep me sufficiently entertained on a walk from Center City to Germantown.
San Francisco is obviously not as exciting as Manhattan. But we were willing to walk longer distances there.
I understand that. However, I don't think the "interesting walk" in San Francisco would be any larger, if much larger at all than that in Philadelphia.
Who is talking about Woodley Park, Tenleytown and Cleveland Park? Those are outside of the 20 mile urban core footprint for D.C. Also, I already agreed that San Fran has the more urban downtown and city as a whole. I said that our urban core is more built up. D.C. will have 9 story apartment buildings with retail mile's after San Fran drops down to three story single family homes. Also, my comparison isn't about a neighborhood having a more urban feel, this is about urban footprint. D.C. can't match San Fran's most urban neighborhoods, however, a walk in D.C. will still be in highrise's with retail for many mile's further than San Fran after all these developments are done.
But it's not more built up. That's my point. I don't call being more built up having a few corridors lined by buildings with rowhouses still making up the majority of structures. Unless they destroy all of the rowhouses, which ain't gonna happen, DC is never going to be as urban as SF.
I understand that. However, I don't think the "interesting walk" in San Francisco would be any larger, if much larger at all than that in Philadelphia.
I think it's quite a bit "larger" or longer. Outside of Center City, you find rowhouse neighborhoods with a restaurant there, a papi store here, a commercial strip there. In SF, it's more medium-rise walkup buildings with restaurants and stores on the ground floor. That really doesn't exist in Philly outside of Center City.
But it's not more built up. That's my point. I don't call being more built up having a few corridors lined by buildings with rowhouses still making up the majority of structures. Unless they destroy all of the rowhouses, which ain't gonna happen, DC is never going to be as urban as SF.
I agree San Fran is very urban as a whole and far more urban than D.C. will ever be as a whole, however, I don't know about the urban core. Sure, D.C. has some rowhouse's mixed into it's urban core which can only pop up to 6 story's which is happening, however, D.C. has major development closing in from every corner. More than you can even fathom I can guarantee you.
Here is a west to east 5.1 mile long corridor in D.C. below:
I think it's quite a bit "larger" or longer. Outside of Center City, you find rowhouse neighborhoods with a restaurant there, a papi store here, a commercial strip there. In SF, it's more medium-rise walkup buildings with restaurants and stores on the ground floor. That really doesn't exist in Philly outside of Center City.
Where are these apartment buildings and first floor retail 5 mile's from downtown San Fran you keep referring too?
Now, Washington D.C. at the same distance will have full blown downtown intensity high-rise's and major retail at the same distance.
Man, you "cherrypick" way too much. I hate using that word, but that's what you're doing here. I didn't even say anything about "5 miles from downtown San Francisco." I said that San Francisco has way more neighborhoods that are predominantly apartment buildings rather than rowhouses. This should be clear to everyone who has spent more than 15 minutes in both cities. This is why SF, after all, has more people than DC with less land.
Neighborhoods like Shaw, Bloomingdale, Capitol Hill, H Street, etc. are 98% rowhouses and the existing housing stock can't be cleared to make room for buildings. So what you get are tall(er) buildings on the main drag (H, U, 14th, 7th, etc.) with short rowhouses on either side. Once you turn a corner off 7th Street, you're walking by 2-story rowhouses instead of 4 or 5-story apartment buildings. That's basically the difference between DC and SF.
The only exceptions are Dupont, Logan and some of the newer neighborhoods like NoMA (former industrial land that could be cleared entirely and converted into apartments). But those areas are comparatively tiny to the entire northeastern section of San Francisco, which is mostly apartment buildings everywhere.
DC is more of an apartment building city than SF, I think. Not too many apartment buildings in SF outside the downtown core and adjacent areas (Tenderloin, Nob Hill and the like).
DC tends to have some bigger apartment buildings more in the neighborhoods, but is less dense than SF for a variety of other reasons (more parkland, far more govt. buildings, much more sprawled out single family home neighborhoods, tons of embassy and military compounds, etc.)
I honestly don't think BajanYankee realizes how many apartment buildings D.C. is in the process of building. The number is over 450 major +200 unit apartment buildings by 2030 in 61 sq. mile city. I think I should say it again for him. Over 450 major +200 unit apartment buildings in a 61 sq. mile city!!
That is more buildings than many cities have in their entire downtown.
I honestly don't think BajanYankee realizes how many apartment buildings D.C. is in the process of building. The number is over 450 major +200 unit apartment buildings by 2030 in 61 sq. mile city. I think I should say it again for him. Over 450 major +200 unit apartment buildings in a 61 sq. mile city!!
That is more buildings than many cities have in their entire downtown.
I honestly think you need to buy a plane ticket, go to some of these cities, and then realize how far DC needs to go before it can catch some of these places.
San Francisco is decisively more urban in its core than DC. Like, it's not even close.
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.
