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.
From living in both Chicago and DC, I find DC faster in pace than Chicago. I don't find it extremely fast paced at all.
I think it totally depends on where you live in both cities. Anecdotally, I've heard people say they find DC faster-paced, but I've heard just as many say they find Chicago faster-paced. In my experience visiting DC, I found it slower-paced than the busiest parts of Chicago, but faster-paced than my own neighborhood in Chicago.
Yeah, except Woodbridge isn't exurban, you obviously don't know what you're talking about.
Woodbridge is 24 miles from Downtown DC. That is "almost exurban" in my book.
Quote:
Originally Posted by murksiderock
Maybe your suppositions are right for someone, but I'd gather wrong for many. Certainly doesn't match my description. My father is from DC, it's a bus or train ride away, or a car if you feel like dealing with the traffic, so it's not like it's some distant city. Woodbridge isn't exurban by any definition, and I've been in The City far too many times to count. It's not an experience like coming from a backwater to Times Square, so great job with the thinly veiled insult....
Whether it's exurban or not isn't of great importance to me. The point is that it's low-density, SFH-dominated, auto-dependent suburbia. There is nothing "fast-paced" about that whatsoever. You would have to be from a town of about 40 people in the Mississippi Delta to consider that area "fast paced."
Quote:
Originally Posted by murksiderock
I think the point is, some people consider DC fast, others don't, and I don't think the other side is wrong. What I've been saying this whole time is you'd be hard pressed to find another city that is faster to a measurable extent, unless you cite NY....
OK.
I don't consider DC fast, but okay. SF, Boston, Chicago and Philly all have nearly twice as many people in their densest 47 square miles and all have more pedestrian traffic in their urban cores. We've already done the numbers on this. You would think that having a lot of people, particularly foot traffic, would be one criteria for being "fast." I guess you could argue that DC has a higher transit share than these other cities, but they are all fairly comparable in their densest areas.
The other argument, I suppose, is the "Type A aggressive personality." To that I say "Okay."
Quote:
Originally Posted by murksiderock
DC is fast. DC suburbs are faster than comparative suburbs of other cities. Not New York, but certainly not "slow"..
I don't know why you think New York's suburbs are fast. Jersey City and other places aren't "suburbs" in a usual sense. New Jersey, Long Island and Connecticut are also full of dull, slow and boring suburbia that I would never want to live in. They aren't any faster or slower than any other suburban neighborhoods.
I do agree with Bajan Yankee that NYC is not as fast paced outside of Manhattan, my grandparents used to live in Forest Hills near Forest Hills Gardens it was pretty laid back and slow paced. Some parts of Queens and Brooklyn feel suburban in nature and same with Staten Island.
Agreed. I mean, obviously DC isn't as fast paced as NYC or even Chicago, that kind of goes without saying... but in MY experience, DC/DC suburbs are generally more fast-paced. But that's just my opinion.
Fast-paced compared to the Miami/Atlanta/San Francisco/Chicago/Houston/Los Angeles suburbs? How? You could at least offer one fact even if this is largely a subjective evaluation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOVA_guy
And BajanYankee, literally no one in the DC area refers to Woodbridge as exurban... so I find it interesting you would call it that... since you lived in the DC for so many years. And to call Woodbridge sleepy is a joke. Old Bridge Road and Minnieville Road, the two busiest roads in Woodbridge some days are more backed up than 95... it's obviously not an Arlington 2.0, overly urban suburb but it's far from sleepy or quiet.
I said it's "almost exurban" as in it's not on the radar for DC residents. Silver Spring? Yes. Fort Washington? Yes. Wheaton? Yes. Laurel? Yes. Once you get out to far flung places like Manassas, Reston, Gaithersburg, and Woodbridge, you're getting out there. Yeah, you might think it's close because you live there, but a lot of people in DC don't even know where those places are and will likely never go there.
By the Census definition, they are within the MSA, but city people think of those areas as being out in the sticks.
My definition of "sleepy and quiet."
Dominated by SFHs? Check.
Low population density? Check.
Very low walk score? Check.
Close to non-existent foot traffic? Check.
Completely auto-centric? Check.
Woodbridge is the epitome of the suburbia that's so frequently complained about in these forums. It would be slow, boring and quiet to someone coming from any halfway decent neighborhood within Atlanta's I-285 perimeter.
I think it totally depends on where you live in both cities. Anecdotally, I've heard people say they find DC faster-paced, but I've heard just as many say they find Chicago faster-paced. In my experience visiting DC, I found it slower-paced than the busiest parts of Chicago, but faster-paced than my own neighborhood in Chicago.
Can you guys show us a Youtube video or something that shows this unattainable East Coast pace that makes the rest of us seem like slow pokes?
This typical downtown SF vid is like 15 years old and shows a bustling city. I dont recall people in DC or Philly er, walking faster. Lol https://youtu.be/ldnLxTablA8
I would say the 2 cities that feel the 'fastest' overall based on mt experience are NY and LA.
The "fastness" of the East Coast is basically just New York. I would say the East Coast cities feel faster than LA because they have decidedly busier downtown cores with more pedestrian volume and more transit commuting. However, I don't see a major difference between San Francisco and, say, Boston here. DC has the least pedestrian volume and the lowest density of all the legacy transit cities so I don't see much of an objective basis for saying it's faster.
From living in both Chicago and DC, I find DC faster in pace than Chicago. I don't find it extremely fast paced at all.
Grew up in the DC area, and I live in Chicago now. In the Loop area during rush hour, I definitely find Chicago faster-paced than DC. It has more of a hustle-and-bustle feel than DC to me. With Chicago's large downtown with so many people working in the skyscrapers you just have more people in the area, and there are a lot of commercial business around, so you get the hustle-and-bustle feel to it, moreso than DC. Weather plays a part in the pace I think because in the winter, you don't have people taking their time. Everyone is on the move.
I will say that it thins out outside the Loop, so if you consider River North downtown (which some people do), I would find places like K Street or areas around Metro Center in DC to be busier to River North. If you go outside their core downtown areas, they are hard to compare. I find the Loop to be more fast-paced than any place in DC.
Besides NYC (obviously), I personally find Center City Philly to be slightly faster-paced than Chicago and maybe Boston too. I would put Chicago after the Northeast's Big 3 (for cities I'm most familiar with).
Grew up in the DC area, and I live in Chicago now. In the Loop area during rush hour, I definitely find Chicago faster-paced than DC. It has more of a hustle-and-bustle feel than DC to me. With Chicago's large downtown with so many people working in the skyscrapers you just have more people in the area, and there are a lot of commercial business around, so you get the hustle-and-bustle feel to it, moreso than DC. Weather plays a part in the pace I think because in the winter, you don't have people taking their time. Everyone is on the move.
I will say that it thins out outside the Loop, so if you consider River North downtown (which some people do), I would find places like K Street or areas around Metro Center in DC to be busier to River North. If you go outside their core downtown areas, they are hard to compare. I find the Loop to be more fast-paced than any place in DC.
Besides NYC (obviously), I personally find Center City Philly to be slightly faster-paced than Chicago and maybe Boston too. I would put Chicago after the Northeast's Big 3.
I agree with that.
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.
