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.
Downtown DC is packed during the day, but at night you need to go just a couple blocks north, starting around P Street, to see a lot of people. I think the perception of being "urban" is taken down some because of the height limitation, but living here it feels as urban as any place in the country outside Manhattan.
I too live in DC and completely disagree with you. DC feels much less urban that Chicago, Philly, SF imo
It's between Philly, SF, and Boston. Numbers 3-5 after NYC and Chicago. I voted for Boston of course, because like Danny said, polls are based on everyone voting for their hometown. That being said I don't think putting Boston behind SF and Philly would be totally crazy. It's a toss-up between those 3 in my mind.
I know LA, SF, Philly and Boston all have streetcars and light rail lines and D.C. doesn't, but that doesn't mean anything, its metro system is #2 in the country and anyone who compares it with SEPTA regional rail or NYC MTA Metro North can go **** themselves. I sick and tired of putting D.C. down.
I actually agree with most of your points, but this is just silly. DC Metro is definitely a hybrid-type system, and isn't really directly comparable to something like NYC MTA subway.
The vast bulk of DC ridership, stations, and track length is in MD and VA. It would be like if the NYC subway went to Connecticut or something.
Wrong again! More than half of the stations are in DC proper! If DC was the size of Chicago, all of the stations would fit neatly inside of the city limits. BTW: It's a subway not a hybrid.
1. Philly
2. Boston
3. San Fran
4. Los Angeles
5. DC
This is kinda weird for me because you rank Philly's downtown the best but you give it a lower walkability score.
Having walked all over D.C. and also Philly and Boston and San Fran (not so much LA), I would have to say that Philly is far more walkable than is given credit for and I would rate it second on the list if not first.
Walkability to me requires:
1) flat surface
2) built environment with wide sidewalks and a visually dense and appealing media (sights, sounds, etc.)
3) relatively short blocks
4) mix of uses and thus mix of users...kind of goes back to #2
Philly has all of that in its downtown and beyond. The city is mostly flat, and it is laid out in a grid such that you can't get lost. The grid is also built up such that there is a fine-grained development...the blocks are not long and each blocks has multiple uses, generally. There are not only offices but apartments and condos and museums, government buildings, malls, side walk cafes, fine shopping and cheap shopping, street vendors for all sorts of foods, high schools and school kids walking about, theaters and other cultural venues, bicycle peddlers, etc etc. All this makes for not only an easy walk but also a fun and varied walk and in fact Center City is best explored by walking rather than by any other means.
D.C., due to height restrictions and a monotony of built environment, is seriously pretty lame on the eyes after the first feeling of awe looking at all the monuments and seats of government. The buildings are short so they are necessarily long, thus blocks are very long too. And it is not a fun walk there in summer since the city is practically built on a swamp.
SF is built like Philly and has all those things I describe Philly by, except that its hills can make walking really a bear after a short while. And walking along the Embarcadero-- you have to layer up almost any time of the year because it's cold, those breezes off the Bay...brrr. Not that Philly doesn't get cold in winter time, but several months out of the year, a walk in Philly doesn't take much more than shoes and one layer of clothing to enjoy.
Boston is built like Philly too, and perhaps its downtown area is even more compact compared to Philly's, but it has streets built like spaghetti and one could easily get lost in there! lol
LA...don't know I'd put LA in the same level of walkability as the above cities.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,987,215 times
Reputation: 7328
Quote:
Originally Posted by a75206
This is kinda weird for me because you rank Philly's downtown the best but you give it a lower walkability score.
Having walked all over D.C. and also Philly and Boston and San Fran (not so much LA), I would have to say that Philly is far more walkable than is given credit for and I would rate it second on the list if not first.
Walkability to me requires:
1) flat surface
2) built environment with wide sidewalks and a visually dense and appealing media (sights, sounds, etc.)
3) relatively short blocks
4) mix of uses and thus mix of users...kind of goes back to #2
Philly has all of that in its downtown and beyond. The city is mostly flat, and it is laid out in a grid such that you can't get lost. The grid is also built up such that there is a fine-grained development...the blocks are not long and each blocks has multiple uses, generally. There are not only offices but apartments and condos and museums, government buildings, malls, side walk cafes, fine shopping and cheap shopping, street vendors for all sorts of foods, high schools and school kids walking about, theaters and other cultural venues, bicycle peddlers, etc etc. All this makes for not only an easy walk but also a fun and varied walk and in fact Center City is best explored by walking rather than by any other means.
D.C., due to height restrictions and a monotony of built environment, is seriously pretty lame on the eyes after the first feeling of awe looking at all the monuments and seats of government. The buildings are short so they are necessarily long, thus blocks are very long too. And it is not a fun walk there in summer since the city is practically built on a swamp.
SF is built like Philly and has all those things I describe Philly by, except that its hills can make walking really a bear after a short while. And walking along the Embarcadero-- you have to layer up almost any time of the year because it's cold, those breezes off the Bay...brrr. Not that Philly doesn't get cold in winter time, but several months out of the year, a walk in Philly doesn't take much more than shoes and one layer of clothing to enjoy.
Boston is built like Philly too, and perhaps its downtown area is even more compact compared to Philly's, but it has streets built like spaghetti and one could easily get lost in there! lol
LA...don't know I'd put LA in the same level of walkability as the above cities.
Well, you've made a few assumptions as to how I ranked them that would have made it confusing for you.
SF, Boston, DC and Philly are probably all fairly equal in walkability. Why I would place SF, Boston and DC higher than Philly is due to size and scope. Philadelphia is several times larger than all of them, thus on a city wide scale, makes it inherently less walkable in my book. That's not to say Philly is just un-walkable, but to me walkability is 90% about being able to get to point a and b the fast and to run errands and such by foot. In my unscientific ranking, a smaller city land wise would be able to facilitate that much easier.
As for SF and it's hills, to me they are not a hinderance to its walkability. I suppose it's because I am an avid jogger and hiker and I grew up in a hilly city, so hills don't intimidate me when walking. I actually prefer it to walking on flat terrain. Guess Im just weird like that. As for Los Angeles's walkability in comparison to the other cities on this thread....it was asked to be judged so it had to go somewhere on the list. I left off any mention of how walkable it is or isn't because it's probably pretty clear to most people what the situation on the ground is like there. I will say though that LA does not get enough praise for how walkable it is and how much work they've put in to their public transportation infrastructure the last few decades.
I also see this as a separate measure from what makes a "Downtown" great. Obviously, "Downtowns" in most cities will be walkable (contrary to popular C-D belief). What sets them apart are the things you can do there. Since I see the term "Downtown" to be literal to how a city defines it as a neighborhood, not figuratively to describe the entire central city, I think Philly's downtown is a cut above the rest on this list.
Last edited by waronxmas; 12-23-2010 at 11:13 AM..
I walk practically everyday from one side of Center City to another, albeit not quite end to end. It's only about half hour walk and if I wanted to run errands or go shopping, practically every daily necessity is on the way. I have also walked north to south, from say Old City to Italian Market and further south along Passyunk Ave, and that's also pretty easy to do and doesn't take very long. Philly's built downtown and nearby neighborhoods are probably more compact than SF's. I can't see myself walking from Goldengate Park to financial district in SF, for example not only because of the hills but also just the distance seems further... may be my mind is playing tricks, I don't know.
I also see this as a separate measure from what makes a "Downtown" great. Obviously, "Downtowns" in most cities will be walkable (contrary to popular C-D belief). What sets them apart are the things you can do there.
See, that's the thing. Consider Washington DC with sites like the White House, U.S. Capitol Building, U.S. Supreme Court, The Library of Congress, The Washington Monument, The Vietnam Memorial, The Lincoln Memorial and scores of other great museums and historic sites of all kinds. For what I like in a city, that's kind of a hard act to follow - if you know what I mean.
Last edited by BigCityDreamer; 12-23-2010 at 11:28 AM..
See, that's the thing. Consider Washington DC with sites like the White House, U.S. Capitol Building, U.S. Supreme Court, The Library of Congress, The Washington Monument, The Vietnam Memorial, The Lincoln Memorial and scores of other great museums and historic sites of all kinds. For what I like in a city, that's kind of a hard act to follow - if you know what I mean.
Great thing about Philly's setup is that it has its own treasure trove of sites and tourist attractions, but its built environment accomodates not just the tourism trade but local residents, businesses, and other needs of a large city's downtown core. Where Philly has tried to go the D.C. route in monumental architecture and roadway design, it feels a bit empty or not quite as urban (I refer to the Ben Franklin Parkway and the Parkway Museums district). D.C. with its National Mall, to me, has that feel. It is in the middle of an urban core but it feels like a tourist trap park/attraction and not a real city.
LA, SF, DC, Philly, and Boston which ones are the most urban from most to least? Density, mass transit, walkable, downtowns
Overall: Philly, SF, Boston, LA, DC
I should explain that I'm choosing based on the ability to live in a very urban environment in these cities. It's obvious that we can just look at the stats and find out about density, but it's not very useful given the vastly different legal physical boundaries between cities. Philly and LA are both quite a bit larger in size than the other two and it skews the comparison quite a bit.
Philly I ranked first because it is not only dense, but densely built with many narrow streets and a good deal of rowhouses along with some highrise living. It has serviceable mass transit (though certainly not the best and a bit disappointing for a large, northeastern city) and its flatness makes it quite walkable (and bikeable). Its downtown is fantastic as are many of the surrounding neighborhoods.
SF gets much of what Philly has, but I find mass transit slightly better though it's a much harder haul walking around here. I also feel like the densest parts of SF are far denser than that of Philly, but it doesn't seem to feel as big or extensive as Philly.
Boston is along the same lines as Philly, but with better mass transit. Pretty awful as a walkable city over the summer though, and the downtown isn't really that prominent.
Los Angeles is a wild card and this comparison really only works if you start throwing away chunks like the mountains and stuff. There's a swath around and to the west and southwest of downtown that is a livable, good city--neighborhoods where mass transit is accessible and useful, neighborhoods are walkable (and made more walkable throughout the year due to the weather), and with a good degree of denseness. If we're limiting ourselves to these areas, which is actually a very large and populous mass overall, then Los Angeles does actually get a favorable comparison. Blocks are often way too damn long though and downtown is still in need of a good bit of work.
DC feels smaller than the rest to me for some reason. I like the neighborhoods, but they seem really disconnected and downtown almost seems like an interruption of the urban fabric of the city. I should find a way to word this better.
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.
As for Los Angeles's walkability in comparison to the other cities on this thread....it was asked to be judged so it had to go somewhere on the list. I left off any mention of how walkable it is or isn't because it's probably pretty clear to most people what the situation on the ground is like there. I will say though that LA does not get enough praise for how walkable it is and how much work they've put in to their public transportation infrastructure the last few decades.
