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.
Location: Boston (for now! Will be back in NY by spring '11)
42 posts, read 129,416 times
Reputation: 62
Advertisements
So I got into a debate with a friend here in Boston last night about Boston's downtown versus New York's. Said friend insisted that New York is an anomaly as far us busy cities go (she may be right about that), and that Boston only feels slow compared to New York City.
Having lived in several cities, I disagree. I think there are a few cities in the US that, in certain parts, can feel almost as busy and active as New York.
So, I'm out to prove it! I think Chicago is an easy contender for 2nd place, but who ranks 2nd and 3rd for you?
[Note: you are welcome to argue for Boston......I just think that's stretching it, personally......]
then next would be Philly/Boston/DC all would make a case on certain aspects (so I put no order)
These plus NYC would be the the top 6 and honestly after that there is a big drop-off so
NYC
decent margin to
Chicago
decent margin to
San Fran (slightly ahead of these below)
Philly/DC/Boston
All of these though have parts to the OPs point that are as busy as just about any part in any other - the scale part really seperates these though (especially NYC and Chicago)
Last edited by kidphilly; 05-17-2010 at 08:14 AM..
I would have to say Chicago is pretty easiest the 2nd businest downtown.
After that I think it is a little less clear. Durring rush hour, DC would probably come out on top given its huge office space. But outside of rush hour, SF has more going on (assuming we are counting Union Sqaure, etc)
IMO, it would be
2) Chicago
then I could see various arguments for: DC, BOS, PHIL, SF for 3-6. Then probably SEA at 7.
Seriously how did Atlanta and Houston get votes here - nothing against these cities but for being busy and relative to the list - have people been to the others? And I hope the argument will not be based on highway traffic because many suburban areas could compete on that aspect
2. Chicago, hands down.
3. San Francisco
4. Boston
5. Seattle
6. Philadelphia
7. D.C. (I would rank it higher if there was still a Dept. Store Downtown)
I would say Chicago, just based on the sheet number of office workers, retail, and residential highrises in the area.
3rd would probably be San Fran from what I've seen, although DC could give it a run for its money. DC seems to be a little more office worker oriented, while San Fran just had a lot of random activity.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,049,308 times
Reputation: 4047
Chicago hands down, thousands of people live downtown here.
For third, San Francisco or DC. Hard to tell since San Fran is so dense and DC's city population climbs above a million during the day time...
Location: Boston (for now! Will be back in NY by spring '11)
42 posts, read 129,416 times
Reputation: 62
Kidphilly-- been to Atlanta? I was surprised myself, actually. It's quite busy -- certainly, it gets busier than Boston, but that may also be simply because it's bigger than Boston.
I'm surprised a few people here place Philly above Boston, too. I haven't seen any place in Boston that gets as busy as Center City (Broad Street during the day time, especially).
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.
