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.
Not really. My point is they are not one continuously developed metro and DC and Baltimore are not. Federal parkland or lunar spacerocket, if you want to call DC and Baltimore a metro then I want to call LA and San Diego one metro because the development between the two is much denser and the only thing standing in their way is the military base, just like your federal parkland for DC. Just like DC and Baltimore, development curves through the IE into San Diego, yet no one from LA is trying to say they are a metro of 21M.
We work with what we have, sorry that they made it impossible for you folks there to continue your development but cry about it because I'm not heading off from that. I've seen the region and most likely much more of it than you have of the bay period and really even as a city DC is much less developed than San Francisco. Its less developed than Boston, Chicago, NYC, Phily, and LA and at this point I don't want to be the one to say it but I cant see how they're that far ahead of Seattle.
If you want to disagree then be sure to. If you want to continue the charades of trying to make DC out to be THAT big city when we both deep down inside know its not, then be my guest but please don't sit there trying to tell me you're a developed region or that your city can knock LA or the bay for being suburban.
LA is a huge developed area. I don't deny that. But it's like a giant suburb.
I'll just hit you with some facts. DT DC is much more developed than DT LA, DT SF, DT Oakland. Hence the 100 million square feet of office space? How much does SF, LA & Oakland have? Is that development for you? The DC region has more office space than any other region except NYC. Is that development for you? DT DC has beaten out SF & LA in walkability in recent years? DC has one subway line (Red) that has more riders than the entire BART system. The DC region has three major airports. How many does SF have? You can't make a judgement on the DC region with one visit. Plus, you entered DC from a run down area, now you are an expert. I am still laughing at the "I took 95 out of DC" post. That's like me saying, I took the Golden Gate Bridge into San Jose. LOL
DT SF is more developed than DC, seriously. SF is much more compressed
SF has three airports as well.
I dont diagree with your premis but SF feels like a bigger city and is absolutely more compressed DT, office space isnt everything
I do think he probably didnt get a feel for the whole area though, that requires lots of time (The Bay reveals itself easier because it all hugs the bay). To suggest DC and the region is not developed or does not feel large to me means it was not experienced fully
Not really. My point is they are not one continuously developed metro and DC and Baltimore are not. Federal parkland or lunar spacerocket, if you want to call DC and Baltimore a metro then I want to call LA and San Diego one metro because the development between the two is much denser and the only thing standing in their way is the military base, just like your federal parkland for DC. Just like DC and Baltimore, development curves through the IE into San Diego, yet no one from LA is trying to say they are a metro of 21M.
We work with what we have, sorry that they made it impossible for you folks there to continue your development but cry about it because I'm not heading off from that. I've seen the region and most likely much more of it than you have of the bay period and really even as a city DC is much less developed than San Francisco. Its less developed than Boston, Chicago, NYC, Phily, and LA and at this point I don't want to be the one to say it but I cant see how they're that far ahead of Seattle.
If you want to disagree then be sure to. If you want to continue the charades of trying to make DC out to be THAT big city when we both deep down inside know its not, then be my guest but please don't sit there trying to tell me you're a developed region or that your city can knock LA or the bay for being suburban.
Seattle? DC's suburb of (Tyson's Corner) in Northern Virginia has more office space than Seattle. And in a year, it will have more subway stations too. LOL
DT SF is more developed than DC, seriously. SF is much more compressed
SF has three airports as well.
I dont diagree with your premis but SF feels like a bigger city and is absolutely more compressed DT, office space isnt everything
I do think he probably didnt get a feel for the whole area though, that requires lots of time (The Bay reveals itself easier because it all hugs the bay). To suggest DC and the region is not developed or does not feel large to me means it was not experienced fully
I agree with what you said about they all feel roughly the same size. And that NY and LA are different, just in sheer size.
You need a visit to the west coast. Giant suburb, we heard that 30 years ago, please....
Been to LA like 10 times since 2007. Been to LA Live right next to the Staple's Center and the LA CC. Rode the Blue Line to Long Beach. Been to Compton and Crenshaw. Walked Hollywood Blvd (It was filthy). Been to Roscoe's Chicken & Waffles. Two locations. Been to Hermosa and Venice Beach. LA is urban but it's a different type of urbanity. It's sprawled out. I was in the suburbs and I didn't even know I left LA. I was in LA and I didn't even know i was in the burbs. SEE THE DIFFERENCE?
I never said DC is not developed, I said it feels like a smaller city much smaller city than San Francisco, Phily, Chicago, Boston, LA, NYC. It does.
I also said the area between DC and Baltimore are underdeveloped for what I would call a metro. That's pushing it, if DC-Baltimore is a metro then LA and San Diego are a metro. Ok so its a metro, sure thing, a very unimpressive and underdeveloped metro, don't forget to mention that.
I also mentioned how much more underdeveloped DC gets than San Francisco right outside of downtown, I'm not heading off of that because I know that's true. Seriously, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to feel that DC is a smaller city in every way compared to San Francisco or Phily or Boston.
Even in downtown your wide streets and lack of pedestrian life just don't compare to the development and vibrancy of downtown San Francisco.
You can throw as many office space stats you want because that's all downtown DC has going for it compared to the financial district of San Francisco, office space. San Francisco feels like a big vibrant city and DC after 6 shuts down, you see tourists walking to the white house and that's it. I stayed at the J.W. Marriott about a few blocks from the white house and near downtown DC. Outside seating areas of restaurants packed, people on the sidewalks? LOL San Francisco's least vibrant areas can compete with some of DC's most vibrant.
DC feels about 5-6 million to me; Baltimore considerably smaller. As a region it feels a little larger.
How can you really tell the difference? If you're driving to DC from Richmond, there's a considerable amount of traffic the entire way. Once you're just outside of Dumfries, the HOV lanes open up and that's when I think the DC Metro truly begins. That's 31 miles outside of DC (yes, I have driven 95 that many times).
95 from Baltimore to Philly is pretty intense traffic as well, especially with the expansion around White Marsh. Based on traffic conditions, DC may seem slightly larger, but it's tough to tell because 95 is a continuous river of traffic up the coast.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly
As cities themselves SF and Philly to me feel larger than DC on the whole not on metro though.
Eh...DC and SF are about the same. Neither one has a whole lot of "city."
Been to LA like 10 times since 2007. Been to LA Live right next to the Staple's Center and the LA CC. Rode the Blue Line to Long Beach. Been to Compton and Crenshaw. Walked Hollywood Blvd (It was filthy). Been to Roscoe's Chicken & Waffles. Two locations. Been to Hermosa and Venice Beach. LA is urban but it's a different type of urbanity. It's sprawled out. I was in the suburbs and I didn't even know I left LA. I was in LA and I didn't even know i was in the burbs. SEE THE DIFFERENCE?
You can say that about just about any city, can't you?
It probably has more to do with the fact that you are unfamiliar with the area.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,565,972 times
Reputation: 5785
San Francisco is very developed yes, the question is are we talking about the cities or the region in and around the cities. San Jose is an hour from SF but Bay boosters somehow claim this should be added as a part of SF's urbanity.
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.
