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.
"Outside of the office district?" Gotta disagree with you. That's DC's strength. Dupont Circle is always vibrant. Georgetown is always active. Chinatown/Penn Quarter is always vibrant. U street & Adams Morgan is always vibrant. 14th Street corridor is active.
I know they are always vibrant, those are my favorite areas in DC and typically where you'll find me on the weekends (except Adams Morgan), my point being that if you were to look at the neighborhoods in both DC and Chicago (i'll leave out SF for now since i am far less familiar with it), it is my opinion that Chicago's most vibrant neighborhoods are more vibrant than DC's. Obviously the two are closer to eachother than either is to NYC, but I do see / feel a difference.
There are plenty of suburbs whose populations double and quadruple during the day but that doesnt mean they rival Boston or San Francisco as far as being urban. lol
No, actually one doesnt really get the sense that DC is as vibrant in person as SF or Boston at all, so while numbers don't lie, sometimes they are deceiving.
Let's end this mystery about DT DC once and for all. All of this suburban talk is a little bugging. DT DC is completely built out with office buildings homey. 12-13 story rows of office buildings 2 miles by 2 miles. It completely swallows DT SF for its built environment. DT DC has 110 million square feet of office space in this area with no skyscrapers. SF has 60 million. Chicago has 120 and NYC has close to 400 million. DC has 900,000 people on its trains daily and the 3rd highest DT population in the US behind Chicago and NYC. One DC subway (RED) line has the entire BART system ridership on a given day. If that doesn't open your eyes up, nothing will.
I don't think the difference between those cities is very noticeable at all. What's noticeable is getting off at any random stop on the Paris metro and losing track of your group because there's so many people on the sidewalk. Paris, London, Tokyo and New York can be a nightmare for people with young children since you literally have to fight people for sidewalk space. I've lost (temporarily) my fair share of cousins and nieces in Midtown.
NYC is the only city in America that's like that. Chicago, Boston, SF, DC and Philly all offer a much milder, easy-going type of vibe.
I agree with this - at least for daytime. The difference between downtown DC and the other cities (except for NYC) is not very noticeable. However, there's a big jump between downtown DC and Manhattan. Weeknights I'm not so sure.
I agree with this - at least for daytime. The difference between downtown DC and the other cities (except for NYC) is not very noticeable. However, there's a big jump between downtown DC and Manhattan.
The conversation has been areas outside of downtown, but even looking out downtown, how can you not at least see a difference in built environment?
Where in downtown DC is there anything that comes even remotely close to matching this:
The conversation has been areas outside of downtown.
Even outside of downtown. I've never witnessed an absolute explosion of people in any of those other cities. I've posted this before which I think breaks down the pedestrian intensity of these cities rather nicely.
Quote:
Tier 1
A tier of its own, where you'll find obscenely crowded
sidewalks in all corners of the city.
NYC
Tier 2
Gigantic seamless walkable areas with intense, 3-Dimensional centers of commerce and residential density. Its also where you'll find generous amounts of people walking through residential side streets as part of their commute.
Geographically smaller areas of commercial intensity, sometimes resembling tier 2 (Downtown Portland, Miami Beach, French Quarter), or disjointed linear areas with noticeable commercial intensity (Los Angeles)....Vancouver I'm torn with, certainly feels like tier 2 within the downtown penninsula, but its so geographically small, and there is only a handful of areas outside of it.
Seattle, Portland, Los Angeles, Vancouver, New Orleans, Miami, Vegas (Baltimore?)
Tier 4
Similar to the previous tier, but not quite as intense, or geographically large.
You can try your best to do sub-groups for Tier 2, but that's really sort of akin to pointing out the difference in weight between a nickel and a quarter, imo. If DC were a nickel and SF/Chicago a quarter, then NYC is a coffee mug.
Last edited by BajanYankee; 09-11-2012 at 11:49 AM..
OK, I can finally log onto my computer (the Amtrak WiFi is finally working), here is what I consider to be the most vibrant areas in DC, I'll go with 3 for now (please add anything you feel is more vibrant than what I listed):
Again, I am not trying to cherry pick areas, if you think there is a better sample please add it. I think visually Chicago looks more vibrant, and in person it def feels more vibrant IMO.
You can try your best to do sub-groups for Tier 2, but that's really sort of akin to pointing out the difference in weight between a nickel and a quarter, imo. If DC were a nickel and SF/Chicago a quarter, then NYC is a coffee mug.
Yeah, pretty much.
The difference between first tier NYC and second tier Chicago/SF/DC/Boston/Philly is huge.
The difference between those individual second-tier cities isn't very large, however. Reasonable people can disagree.
Again, I am not trying to cherry pick areas, if you think there is a better sample please add it. I think visually Chicago looks more vibrant, and in person it def feels more vibrant IMO.
Nah, I don't think it's cherry-picking (unlike some people who constantly whine and moan when you don't show the right street at the right angle showing the tallest building in the hottest "core" neighborhood of the metro area). I think core Chicago is noticeably more built up than DC (even though DC has added quite a bit of verticality in recent years). However, I don't think that difference really translates into a difference in intensity. If it does, it's a very slight difference, imo. The number of people I've seen strolling through the streets in Wicker Park and Dupont Circle are comparable. It's not like SoHo where there's so many people in the streets that you're ready to throw a right cross into the face of the next person that bumps into you.
But as far as land use is concerned, I would definitely say that core Chicago is more intense than DC.
Nah, I don't think it's cherry-picking (unlike some people who constantly whine and moan when you don't show the right street at the right angle showing the tallest building in the hottest "core" neighborhood of the metro area). I think core Chicago is noticeably more built up than DC (even though DC has added quite a bit of verticality in recent years). However, I don't think that difference really translates into a difference in intensity. If it does, it's a very slight difference, imo. The number of people I've seen strolling through the streets in Wicker Park and Dupont Circle are comparable. It's not like SoHo where there's so many people in the streets that you're ready to throw a right cross into the face of the next person that bumps into you.
But as far as land use is concerned, I would definitely say that core Chicago is more intense than DC.
Let's end this mystery about DT DC once and for all. All of this suburban talk is a little bugging.
But it was you who decided that the percentage a city's population swells determines 'urban'. Remember?
I simply pointed out that Irvine and Bellevue also see massive population increases during workday hours but that doesnt make them SF or Boston. Does it?
Quote:
DT DC is completely built out with office buildings homey.
Still, homey, that doesnt equate to 'urban' and it most definitely does NOT make DC more densely populated than San Francisco, not even close to be honest, and it feels that way. Nothing wrong with that.
Quote:
12-13 story rows of office buildings 2 miles by 2 miles.
So its kind of a crowded Tyson's Corner? Er, I think Tyson's actually has taller buildings tho.
Quote:
It completely swallows DT SF for its built environment.
Actually DC is quite spacious compared to SF, a city where buildings feel on top of each other and far more crowded than DC, a place with broad boulevards and lots of open space. Im actually jealous of how uncongested downtown DC feels.
Quote:
DT DC has 110 million square feet of office space in this area with no skyscrapers. SF has 60 million.
And that makes SFs win over DC even more impressive when it comes to feeling like and actually being a hub of not just employment, but also a major hub of shopping, entertainment and nightlife.
So yeah...
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.
