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.
No not really. You have missed the point completely. Your one points is arguing that because Chicago's downtown area has larger buildings, it's more urban than DC's lowrise downtown therefore making it bigger even though DC's lowrise downtown footprint is about twice the size of Chicago's. That is flawed logic.
Is it though? What do you consider the boundaries for "downtown DC" and "downtown Chicago"?
We are talking about downtown development. Unless you are walking around looking up all day or sitting on a hill away from from the city gazing at the skyline, skyscrapers serve no purpose for street level urban form that a 10-15 story building can't do. Zero lot development and street retail is the only thing that matter in relation to urban form. Skyscrapers are nice in pictures but do little to build urban form. See Atlanta, Dallas, Houston for examples of skyscrapers that serve no purpose at street level. Downtown DC's critical mass of dense development covers a larger footprint than Chicago in a much more efficient shape which is where Chicago's development has failed. It's like taking The skin of an apple and peeling it into a long strand of skin. It was a huge mass until you peeled it and spread it out. Chicago goes vertical in height yes. Chicago goes vertical in build up the coast yeah. Chicago does not however create the critical mass needed in depth. That is why when walking away from the coast, there is a major drop off. It's also why it can't compete with Manhattan. If all those buildings were build going away from the core, Chicago would definetly be neck and neck with Manahattan. But they don't.
Listen up son and listen close. Put your ears next to the screen so you don't miss out on this crucial information.
D.C. in its current form has nothing compared to Chicago's downtown and D.C. never will. Your off your grandmas rockers kid if you think D.C. has any chance of besting out Chicago. As far as I'm concerned you aren't even on SF's radar yet.
That's a pretty condescending post. And frankly, his argument seems a bit more cogent than yours. No one's really going to buy the premise that Washington DC has a bigger downtown than Chicago-- by any measurable criteria except perhaps number of white columns per sq. inch or number of boring, monosyllabic politicans per hectare. Chicago goes up higher than DC, and goes out wider and farther than DC, and does so with greater character and aplomb and with more interesting neighborhoods. Having traveled to DC frequently (though not as much any more), Washington always seemed to be a mid-sized city, albeit a fairly grand one. In comparison to Chicago, it simply seemed meh mid-sized and compact. Try walking from Dupont Circle to the central business district of DC. Then try walking from Wrigley Field in Lakeview or the Coyote Building in Wicker Park to the Loop. Basically the same idea. That will give you a sense of scope of Chicago versus DC. What are you parameters for the downtown area of DC?
You do realize that DC's downtown is way more blocks than Chicago's right? Also, a city could have the same building duplicated over and over and over again and it would still be bigger than another area if we are measuring which one is larger.
The notion of size is not subjective. In fact, the only thing subjective is what you guys are talking about. Your points are measured by feel which can only be subjective. My points are by fact meaning measurable facts. You can't measure how high buildings are when comparing downtown's because people only stand between 5 feet to 7 feet tall. Nobody notices a buildings 20th floor unless you look up at it walking on the street. Once a building reaches a certain height, anything above that height can't be seen in the peripheral vision of the human eye. I am talking about the size of downtown meaning blocks. Wow factor doesn't play into the size of a downtown area. Go stand next to a 200 floor building. You will be wowed at it's height, but if you walk 3 miles away, what will you see then?
If I pave a 10 by 10 block area and build 80 to 100 story buildings on it. Then I build a 50 by 50 block area and build 10-15 story buildings on it. Which area is larger? That is the only point of a thread with a title "Biggest Downtowns".
Listen up son and listen close. Put your ears next to the screen so you don't miss out on this crucial information.
D.C. in its current form has nothing compared to Chicago's downtown and D.C. never will. Your off your grandmas rockers kid if you think D.C. has any chance of besting out Chicago. As far as I'm concerned you aren't even on SF's radar yet.
Once again, you are measuring better. Never said DC was better or that it ever will be better. This thread is about how large the downtown area is.
Is it though? What do you consider the boundaries for "downtown DC" and "downtown Chicago"?
I'm strictly talking about downtown "looking development" if you read back to my original post. Downtown DC has an advantage of having lowrise buildings because it has allowed the boundaries of downtown to expand for miles without breaks. This would not be possible if we had 50 story towers. The step down would be abrupt like it is in most cities creating an instant defined border for downtown.
These are the edges of the core of Downtown D.C. when the building heights change signaling a border in development. Like I have said before, the "traditional downtown" for Washington D.C. has no structural breaks meaning the buildings are still the same height for a much larger area than the "traditional downtown DC area"
I'm strictly talking about downtown "looking development" if you read back to my original post. Downtown DC has an advantage of having lowrise buildings because it has allowed the boundaries of downtown to expand for miles without breaks. This would not be possible if we had 50 story towers. The step down would be abrupt like it is in most cities creating an instant defined border for downtown.
These are the edges of the core of Downtown D.C. when the building heights change signaling a border in development. Like I have said before, the "traditional downtown" for Washington D.C. has no structural breaks meaning the buildings are still the same height for a much larger area than the "traditional downtown DC area"
I'm strictly talking about downtown "looking development" if you read back to my original post. Downtown DC has an advantage of having lowrise buildings because it has allowed the boundaries of downtown to expand for miles without breaks. This would not be possible if we had 50 story towers. The step down would be abrupt like it is in most cities creating an instant defined border for downtown.
These are the edges of the core of Downtown D.C. when the building heights change signaling a border in development. Like I have said before, the "traditional downtown" for Washington D.C. has no structural breaks meaning the buildings are still the same height for a much larger area than the "traditional downtown DC area"
This seems fair except for the northwest border which looks generous to me (though i am not a DC expert).
Although, as you say, the contrast in DC is not as stark as what would be experienced in a skyscraper-dominated downtown, you could stlll very clearly see from Google satellite view the change in urban character roughly north of Massachusetts and east of Union Station. Based on that, I would say downtown DC is anywhere from 2 to 2.5 miles east to west and 1 to 1.5 miles north to south.
There is no way in hell that for North on Connecticut avenue can be called "downtown". Dupont Circlt (that actual Circle) isn't even "downtown". There are areas in Chicago 7 miles from downtown Chicago that are more built up than that Northwest Downtown border you linked.
There is no way in hell that for North on Connecticut avenue can be called "downtown". Dupont Circlt (that actual Circle) isn't even "downtown". There are areas in Chicago 7 miles from downtown Chicago that are more built up than that Northwest Downtown border you linked.
Drive down Connecticut ave from the spot south all the way to the national mall, it looks the same the whole way basically being the same height and all. Called downtown and "looking like downtown" are two different things. If you go back and read, I said DC has an advantage because of height limits that all the downtown development looks the same.
And Honestly, I cut downtown much more than the naked eye would be able to cut downtown. This is well above Massachusetts Ave. and looks exactly like downtown DC.
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.
