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.
I feel like I've often seen people refer to Boston as small. People also seem to refer to DC and Philadelphia as large.
I spent a small amount of time in Philly and DC over the last few days. I drove into University City for Philadelphia, and walked around there for awhile. Then drove through Center City, parked, saw the liberty bell, walked down Market street a little ways, then left. For DC, I parked at Silver Springs, took the red line to Dupont Circle, took a bus to Georgetown, walked around there a bit, crossed to Rosslyn where I got the subway to Smithsonian, saw the monuments, walked to Metro Center, and took the red line back to Silver Springs.
At no point did either city strike me as being larger than Boston, as I was expecting.
I didn't see much of the cities to really say that I know what I'm talking about, so I decided to look at google maps (all three shots are from the same distance away):
So what do other people think? Are DC and Philadelphia really larger than Boston?
And if you want (though it might overlap with the "which is more urban" threads) which city feels largest? What is the second largest city on the east coast?
I feel like I've often seen people refer to Boston as small. People also seem to refer to DC and Philadelphia as large.
I spent a small amount of time in Philly and DC over the last few days. I drove into University City for Philadelphia, and walked around there for awhile. Then drove through Center City, parked, saw the liberty bell, walked down Market street a little ways, then left. For DC, I parked at Silver Springs, took the red line to Dupont Circle, took a bus to Georgetown, walked around there a bit, crossed to Rosslyn where I got the subway to Smithsonian, saw the monuments, walked to Metro Center, and took the red line back to Silver Springs.
At no point did either city strike me as being larger than Boston, as I was expecting.
I didn't see much of the cities to really say that I know what I'm talking about, so I decided to look at google maps (all three shots are from the same distance away):
So what do other people think? Are DC and Philadelphia really larger than Boston?
And if you want (though it might overlap with the "which is more urban" threads) which city feels largest? What is the second largest city on the east coast?
Market street in Old City and the area around the Liberty Bell isn't even Philadelphia's "downtown" anymore. You probably saw a bunch of skyscrapers off to the west. Try walking around the Rittenhouse/Center City West area. Combine that with Wash West and Old City and I don't see how you'd think Boston seems bigger than Philadelphia.
I feel like I should add a bit more to my credibility with some pictures (the last one was taken with my iphone, so its not quite as clear):
DC
Philadelphia
Boston
And people have been posting the actual numerical sizes of the cities (and based on my origional post I can see why)
But what I was really trying to get at/ what I was really wondering was the level of continuity of the metro area. I'm not just wondering about the downtown, but also the entire metro area.
I was driving into Philadelphia on the Schuylkill expressway and there was practically no development until (I think it was) Germantown on the left. Then leaving to the south on I-95 (passing by the eagles stadium) there was also practically no development.
DC was more continuos, but I stil felt like there were certain areas were there were little patches of not-so-connected urban areas (I'm thinking of the view from the Fort Totten Metro stop).
Boston on the other hand has continuos sprawl in all directions Moreso to the west and north but also to the south.
Maybe I just didn't drive through the cities' suburbs?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sound of Reason
1. Philadelphia
2. Washington D.C.
3. Boston
From a development built-up area urban/suburban land mass aspect.
But that's the thing, look at the google maps. Boston looks bigger than DC, and about the same size as (maybe a bit bigger than) Philly (though differently shaped) which doesn't really make sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bridge12
Market street in Old City and the area around the Liberty Bell isn't even Philadelphia's "downtown" anymore. You probably saw a bunch of skyscrapers off to the west. Try walking around the Rittenhouse/Center City West area. Combine that with Wash West and Old City and I don't see how you'd think Boston seems bigger than Philadelphia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by john_starks
no love for south street?
This makes me sad. I could only spend a couple hours in Philadelphia because I had to rush out to Baltimore. I'll have to look around more next time.
You didn't see houses on the I-95 to the right because in FACT there was Sand/recylcling thingies Naval Ports, and boats!!! Lol.... You've saw SO little bit if Philly. Driving along the I-95 is very misleading. The way out city is set up is Philly to the right and Jersey to the right, what you saw was water, and boats. Who puts houses on water? Also the sports center you speak of wouldn't have houses next to them because that doesn't make sense, no city does that.... You really saw a little bit, that's like going to any city, staying in one spot and saying it ain't big... You could say its not as dense as you thought, but saying it wasn't big is stupidity because you staying in 1sm of the city and saw about 3sm driving and all.
You didn't see houses on the I-95 to the right because in FACT there was Sand/recylcling thingies Naval Ports, and boats!!! Lol.... You've saw SO little bit if Philly. Driving along the I-95 is very misleading. The way out city is set up is Philly to the right and Jersey to the right, what you saw was water, and boats. Who puts houses on water? Also the sports center you speak of wouldn't have houses next to them because that doesn't make sense, no city does that.... You really saw a little bit, that's like going to any city, staying in one spot and saying it ain't big... You could say its not as dense as you thought, but saying it wasn't big is stupidity because you staying in 1sm of the city and saw about 3sm driving and all.
That's what I figured and that's exactly my point. In Boston there are practically no areas around the city that are so massively undeveloped close to the city( to the north there's Cambridge, Somerville, etc, to the west there's Newton, Natick, Framingham, etc. to the south there's Milton, Quincy, etc). Even Foxboro, where our football stadium is, is also a developed town with people living in it. Therefore I feel like metro Boston seems bigger than greater Philly because it's more continuous.
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.
This makes me sad. I could only spend a couple hours in Philadelphia because I had to rush out to Baltimore. I'll have to look around more next time.
