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.
San Francisco's daytime population density is higher than both DC and Boston.
It's not a matter of opinion.
And I also take CashApp...btw
No, I just used your "logic" and applied in a way that proved my point.
I made all 3 roughly the same area size and by that metric, Boston is the most dense (if you remove it's airport)... it's no less statistically definitive then you using city proper metrics.
You used one measurement that proves your point, I used another measurement (that is just as factually accurate/true) to rebuff it. Two metrics that are both true, get over it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
Idk why you try to include downtown Boston in your argument as Boston is in my top tier of downtowns along with NY, Chicago and SF.
DC is not because it's not on the same level as the others, quite frankly.
I myself nor anyone else I know would honestly place Boston in the same caliber as downtown Chicago let alone NYC.. I've been to all 3.. multiple times (and thats not a slight to Boston)
...and again thats your opinion... I'll stand by the city that has 2.5x the amount of people commuting to it for work, has more iconic landmarks, substantially better nightlife and is the more economically important city to the country.
QUOTE:
Originally Posted by Joakim3 View Post
If we are "tiering" them
Tier 1++
NYC
Tier 1+
Chicago
DC
Not in particular order from here on out
Tier 1
SF
Philly
Boston
Seattle
LA
Tier 2
Atlanta
Miami
Dallas
Houston
Tier 2b
Baltimore
Denver
Minneapolis/St. Paul
Pittsburgh
Detroit
Tier 3
San Diego
Charlotte
Austin
Nashville
St. Louis
Portland
etc.. /QUOTE
Based on the above^, I think the biggest Tiers that need separating are the Tier 2a's and 2b's from the Tier 3s, and even below. There are a lot of cities with pretty busy downtowns and districts that are much smaller population-wise. Off top of my head, Jersey City, for example....
No, I just used your "logic" and applied in a way that proved my point.
If all 3 are made roughly the same size Boston is the most dense (if you remove it's airport)... it's no more statistically incorrect then you using city proper metrics.
You used one measurement the proves your point, I used another measurement (that is just as factually accurate/true) to rebuff it.
Haha the difference is I used the actual boundary recognized by law, data gathering entities, etc, you just made up one to suit your argument which is your prerogative but its gibberish to me.
Quote:
I myself nor anyone else I know would place Boston in the same caliber as downtown Chicago let alone NYC.. I've been to all 3.. multiple times.
That's because you put things in the incorrect context.
My criteria is far more realistic and is based on the actual experience a person has in a downtown.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
My ranking in order:
Tier I
1 Manhattan
2 Chicago
3 San Francisco
4 Boston These 4 are the best downtowns in my opinion because they have the total package when it comes to the QUALITY of amenities, vibrancy, prestige as a destination for work, visiting, shopping, dining, entertainment etc.Pound for pound I would actually rank San Francisco 2nd but Chicago is just so darn big and extremely vibrant and has that incredible skyline that I cant deny it 2nd place.
Tier II
5-tied Seattle
5-tied Philadelphia
7 Washington DC
8 Los Angeles This group has vibrant downtowns that meet most of the criteria that matter to me. Seattle and Philadelphia I think are closer to having that total package I mentioned above when it comes to quality amenities. Seattle tops Philadelphia when it comes to downtown shopping, but Philadelphia tops Seattle when it comes to vibrancy, cultural and entertainment amenities imo. Both have excellent tourism offerings, different from each other,but great.
Tier III is in alphabetical order(list is a work in progress)
Atlanta, Austin, Cincinnati, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Miami, Minneapolis, New Orleans, Pittsburgh, Portland, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, San Diego Places that I have personally visited in times past and more recently and I feel like there is a visible major emphasis on improving the quality of amenities and cultural and entertainment offerings. No ranking cause I can't make up my mind that these places are so varied.
That's what I have so far.
Downtown Boston has the total package regardless as to how much bigger Manhattan is. They are in the same tier because neither is lacking in anything. Same goes for Chicago, same goes for SF.
Haha the difference is I used the actual boundary recognized by law, data gathering entities, etc, you just made up one to suit your argument which is your prerogative but its gibberish to me.
Because adding census tracks together to get "x" population over "x" area isn't exactly what the United States Census Bureau does for its Urban Area calculations every decade?....
I wan't you to keep that same single minded energy the next time someone says Jacksonville, Columbus & St. Antonio are larger than San Francisco because you know "actual boundary recognized by law, data gathering entities, etc" ....because thats just as gibberish
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
That's because you put things in the incorrect context.
My criteria is far more realistic and is based on the actual experience a person has in a downtown.
Downtown Boston has the total package regardless as to how much bigger Manhattan is. They are in the same tier because neither is lacking in anything. Same goes for Chicago, same goes for SF.
Again.... coming from someone who's experienced all those downtowns multiple times (baring SF), 99% of every major downtown in the US lacks virtually anything now a days. What breaks them apart is how much of those things they offer, the ease of access to those things and the "x" factors that are relatively unique to said downtown.
Again what does SF/Boston/NYC/Chicago (from a pedestrian experience level) have that places like DC, Atlanta, San Diego, Miami, LA, Vegas, Baltimore, Philly, Seattle, etc.. lack if thats the sole "metric" your basing things off of.
Again what does SF/Boston/NYC/Chicago (from a pedestrian experience level) have that places like DC, Atlanta, San Diego, Miami, LA, Vegas, Baltimore, Philly, Seattle, etc.. lack if thats the sole "metric" your basing things off of.
He's being facetious... he isnt saying all downtown's are the same. If you read up he's saying there are quite a few ways that show that certain downtown's are better. Quit bending the story without reading to suit your narrative (LA propoganda).
Yeah and Boston has an Airport in City limits, and the Boston Harbor Islands And believe it or not parks too. That’s not unique to DC.
Also the difference in tourism would be a negligible number maybe 15,000/day or something
D.C. has an air force base on the banks of the Potomac and has a higher percentage of park space.
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.
