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.
Washington, DC population: 601,723
Boston population: 617,594
Washington, DC land area: 61.4 sq. miles
Boston land area: 48.4 sq. miles
Washington, DC population density: 9,800
Boston population density: 12,752
1. Boston is teritorially smaller than Washington, DC, but yet has more people.
2. Boston is denser than Washington, DC by nearly 3,000 people per square mile. That's significantly larger than the gap between Washington, DC and Los Angeles. Density-wise, DC is actually far closer to L.A. (9,800 vs. 8,000) than it is to Boston (12,752 vs. 9,800).
What else could be argued here? Seriously? If a city has more people AND it's denser by about more than 3,000 people per square mile, how could it not be more urban?
You are not taking into account the miles of unobstructed monotonous canyons
Washington, DC population: 601,723
Boston population: 617,594
Washington, DC land area: 61.4 sq. miles
Boston land area: 48.4 sq. miles
Washington, DC population density: 9,800
Boston population density: 12,752
1. Boston is teritorially smaller than Washington, DC, but yet has more people.
2. Boston is denser than Washington, DC by nearly 3,000 people per square mile. That's significantly larger than the gap between Washington, DC and Los Angeles. Density-wise, DC is actually far closer to L.A. (9,800 vs. 8,000) than it is to Boston (12,752 vs. 9,800).
What else could be argued here? Seriously? If a city has more people AND it's denser by about more than 3,000 people per square mile,how could it not be more urban?
Because nobody is arguing about people. Im talking about buildings. Where have you been the last 25 pages of this thread? If I constantly talk about buildings and construction and you constantly talk about people, it's obvious we are talking about two different things. I judge urbanity by structural build out.
-How much grass and open space is there
-How close are buildings to the street
-How many trees are there not counting urban sidewalk trees which is fine in my opinion.
-How long a distance is the height of buildings maintained (urban canyons)
-How big is the area
-How much infill the area requires
-etc.
-etc.
-etc.
One of the problems for an area like Tyson's Corner is even though it's going to get a ton of highrises and a huge population, it will never have urban canyons because it's not on a grid. Urban canyons are the benchmark for urbanity in my opinion.
Because nobody is arguing about people. Im talking about buildings. Where have you been the last 25 pages of this thread? If I constantly talk about buildings and construction and you constantly talk about people, it's obvious we are talking about two different things. I judge urbanity by structural build out.
-How much grass and open space is there - Probably more in DC from what I can tell, but I do like trees, especially when they can be integrated into urban areas
-How close are buildings to the street -Bostons are far closer
-How many trees are there not counting urban sidewalk trees which is fine in my opinion. - Stopped counting at three in both cities
-How long is the height of buildings maintained - Boston has diversity in architecture - so now urbanity has to be all one height?
-How big is the area - Both feel pretty large
-How much infill the area requires - Neither needs significant infill, hell they even bury whole highways in Boston
-etc.
-etc.
-etc.
Because nobody is arguing about people. Im talking about buildings. Where have you been the last 25 pages of this thread? If I constantly talk about buildings and construction and you constantly talk about people, it's obvious we are talking about two different things. I judge urbanity by structural build out.
-How much grass and open space is there
-How close are buildings to the street
-How many trees are there not counting urban sidewalk trees which is fine in my opinion.
-How long a distance is the height of buildings maintained (urban canyons)
-How big is the area
-How much infill the area requires
-etc.
-etc.
-etc.
One of the problems for an area like Tyson's Corner is even though it's going to get a ton of highrises and a huge population, it will never have urban canyons because it's not on a grid. Urban canyons are the benchmark for urbanity in my opinion.
I never said they need to be the same height. Just uniform at street level. Breaks in uniformity takes away from the urban feel. Example, 50 story skyscraper next to a two story building. Nothing urban about that. Eight 50 story skyscrapers in a row, extremely urban if they are next two each other with out space between them.
Because nobody is arguing about people. Im talking about buildings. Where have you been the last 25 pages of this thread? If I constantly talk about buildings and construction and you constantly talk about people, it's obvious we are talking about two different things. I judge urbanity by structural build out.
-How much grass and open space is there
-How close are buildings to the street
-How many trees are there not counting urban sidewalk trees which is fine in my opinion.
-How long a distance is the height of buildings maintained (urban canyons)
-How big is the area
-How much infill the area requires
-etc.
-etc.
-etc.
You keep changing your standard. Just earlier today, you said that you judged urbanity by the number of "highrises." Then you provided a link that was questionable because it provided the most recent data for Washington, DC but provided data for Boston from eleven years ago. Even if we were to go by this most recent standard of yours, Boston would still come out ahead because (1) there are no huge open spaces akin to the Mall; (2) the streets are tighter than DC's and the buildings are closer to the street; and (3) Boston has "urban canyons" extending from the Financial District (which is the "downtown") all the way through Back Bay and the South End (which are more or less the residential sections of downtown). Your only counter to the Back Bay's highrises were (1) they are not made out of concrete and (2) they are not office buildings. That's a pretty weak counter.
One of the problems for an area like Tyson's Corner is even though it's going to get a ton of highrises and a huge population, it will never have urban canyons because it's not on a grid. Urban canyons are the benchmark for urbanity in my opinion.
Who says urban canyons have to be on a grid? Boston has plenty and it's not on a grid. Btownboss mentioned London, which also has many. So does Paris and many other low-rise cities.
I never said they need to be the same height. Just uniform at street level. Breaks in uniformity takes away from the urban feel. Example, 50 story skyscraper next to a two story building. Nothing urban about that. Eight 50 story skyscrapers in a row, extremely urban if they are next two each other with out space between them.
but without breaks, the two story structure is likely connected to the next. So what is the threshold, 4 stories, 6 stories
You make rules for the benefit of DC, we get it you like (actually I like DC too) but there aspects of urbanity beyond some form fittig rules. From that perspective places without skyscrapers could be a rule, why not (silly to me but hey why not))
So is this block not urban? it has two story structures
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.
