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.
It's clear that Cambridge has much more urbanity than Silver Spring. It's clear that Cambridge is more walkable than Silver Spring. And it's clear that Cambridge is denser than Silver Spring.
DT DC is definitely more urban (built up) and vibrant (more people on the streets) than anything in Boston. Metro is definitely more busier (more riders) than the T. Nightlife in DC is definitely more upscale (better clubs and lounges) and diverse (go-go, r&b, hip hop, rock). DC also has more restaurant options, more of a cosmopolitan feel and better representation from many more ethnicities. Boston has better sports but none of their sports teams are worth more than the Redskins. ROTFLLS.
DT DC is definitely more urban (built up) and vibrant (more people on the streets) than anything in Boston. Metro is definitely more busier (more riders) than the T. Nightlife in DC is definitely more upscale (better clubs and lounges) and diverse (go-go, r&b, hip hop, rock). DC also has more restaurant options, more of a cosmopolitan feel and better representation from many more ethnicities. Boston has better sports but none of their sports teams are worth more than the Redskins. ROTFLLS.
I see you make this statement a lot. DT Boston has more activity at night and if anything at par during the day (remember that that the DC DT which may have more people in it is over a larger footprint, so even the DT densisties are likely very similar and at night they are not. In terms of built up density, there are few places in the US with greater developed density than DT Boston
On nightlife it is subjective and on the whole these tow are more similar from my perspective (including restaurants) but again this is subjective.
Fairly representative examples of developed density in the two DTs
I see you make this statement a lot. DT Boston has more activity at night and if anything at par during the day (remember that that the DC DT which may have more people in it is over a larger footprint, so even the DT densisties are likely very similar and at night they are not. In terms of built up density, there are few places in the US with greater developed density than DT Boston
On nightlife it is subjective and on the whole these tow are more similar from my perspective (including restaurants) but again this is subjective.
Fairly representative examples of developed density in the two DTs
So you are penalizing DC because it has a larger footprint. Your bias is rearing its ugly mug today. Guess what genius, the Loop has a larger footprint too but do you ever put a disclaimer on it? Are you saying that DT Boston is structually denser than DT DC? I know you are not claiming that one because it's ridiculous. I can easily pull some commercial office space numbers to prove you wrong times two. Plus your on par statement is a joke. Show me some numbers where Boston grows as much as DC during the day or the T averages 800,000 riders and then I will agree with your par statement.
So you are penalizing DC because it has a larger footprint. Your bias is rearing its ugly mug today. Guess what genius, the Loop has a larger footprint too but do you ever put a disclaimer on it? Are you saying that DT Boston is structually denser than DT DC? I know you are not claiming that one because it's ridiculous. I can easily pull some commercial office space numbers to prove you wrong times two. Plus your on par statement is a joke. Show me some numbers where Boston grows as much as DC during the day or the T averages 800,000 riders and then I will agree with your par statement.
KEY word Commercial - there are are other facets of a DT than just commercial. DC has a ton of office space (so does Boston) but AGAIN there is more to developed density than purely office space.
And no am not not penalizing, I am normalizing
And what bias, I think DC is extremely urban, dense, and vibrant, especially relative to most US cities, so my bias is what, having a belief that DT Boston feels more urban makes me biased? Well In that sense I would assume you are equally biased based on your definition, correct?
And on the T - add the regional rail etc. and it is over a million I believe
Yes we all know there are more jobs in DC, but Boston is no sloutch
And yes on structual density DT Boston Absolutely looks and feel more dense, so yes I am saying that.
And again, review these links, which looks more densly developed (does retail and residential somwhow now not translate to developed?)
So you are penalizing DC because it has a larger footprint. Your bias is rearing its ugly mug today. Guess what genius, the Loop has a larger footprint too but do you ever put a disclaimer on it? Are you saying that DT Boston is structually denser than DT DC? I know you are not claiming that one because it's ridiculous. I can easily pull some commercial office space numbers to prove you wrong times two. Plus your on par statement is a joke. Show me some numbers where Boston grows as much as DC during the day or the T averages 800,000 riders and then I will agree with your par statement.
Sorry man but kidphilly is right on the money. Financial District Boston does feel more urban and structurally denser than downtown DC. I also believe that Boston has a stronger built core than DC but the further out you go DC becomes much more urban than Boston. City slightly belongs to Boston but metro belongs to DC by a good amount
KEY word Commercial - there are are other facets of a DT than just commercial. DC has a ton of office space (so does Boston) but AGAIN there is more to developed density than purely office space.
And no am not not penalizing, I am normalizing
And what bias, I think DC is extremely urban, dense, and vibrant, especially relative to most US cities, so my bias is what, having a belief that DT Boston feels more urban makes me biased? Well In that sense I would assume you are equally biased based on your definition, correct?
And on the T - add the regional rail etc. and it is over a million I believe
Yes we all know there are more jobs in DC, but Boston is no sloutch
And yes on structual density DT Boston Absolutely looks and feel more dense, so yes I am saying that.
And again, review these links, which looks more densly developed (does retail and residential somwhow now not translate to developed?)
What does commercial versus residential have to do with structural density. Given DT DC's land mass and it's built up environment, there is no way that DT Boston is even remotely more built up as much as DC. Fact: DT DC has way more office space with every building being uniformly in 12 to 14 story range. Fact: Boston has much taller buildings with much less office space. Based on these two facts and if my math serves me correctly, DT DC would have more structures.
Sorry man but kidphilly is right on the money. Financial District Boston does feel more urban and structurally denser than downtown DC. I also believe that Boston has a stronger built core than DC but the further out you go DC becomes much more urban than Boston. City slightly belongs to Boston but metro belongs to DC by a good amount
I have a hard time understanding what he is saying because DT Boston has significantly less office space than DT DC (city not metro). DC does not have any tall structures taking up 3 million square feet of space like a 90 story skyscraper. But what DC does have is miles of mid rise office buildings ranging from 12 to 14 stories tall. DC has many more DT structures than Boston.
I have a hard time understanding what he is saying because DT Boston has significantly less office space than DT DC (city not metro). DC does not have any tall structures taking up 3 million square feet of space like a 90 story skyscraper. But what DC does have is miles of mid rise office buildings ranging from 12 to 14 stories tall. DC has many more DT structures than Boston.
Of my 30 years, spent 24 in DC and 6 in Boston. Have no bias for Boston over DC but just an observation. I see exactly what he's saying, on paper DC may look larger, busier, denser, more urban, better built but in real life Boston feels very claustrophobically condensed. Boston epitomizes the definition of 'micro', small condensed area flooded over hundreds of thousands of people. 50,000 workers in DC would be the equivalent of 12,500 workers in Boston to give the same type of setting.
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.
Well In that sense I would assume you are equally biased based on your definition, correct?
