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 is silly. There are parking lots in every city.
There are lots all over the place around Dupont Circle, which is probably the most cohesive, urban area in DC. I used to live by Embassy Row, and there are accessory lots for tons of buildings, and even private driveways.
That's a relatively uncommon usage in the core Brooklyn neighborhoods, and, again, Dupont is as cohesive as DC gets.
I disagree. Penn Quarter is way more urban than Dupont Circle and Penn Quarter to Logan Circle and Mt. Vernon Triangle is now way more cohesive than Dupont Circle. I mean, Dupont has rowhouses.
Well you can walk north of there on street view and there isn't much for awhile even down the streets toward Adams-Morgan.
Okay, but you don't have to be in MENSA to see that there's a park there. Just like you don't have to be a genius to understand that there are mountains north of Hollywood Boulevard, and for that reason, I give LA a pass on that. I don't expect to see miles of continuous development going up and down the sides of tall mountains. It's just common sense. My basic point is that Google allows you to put things in context. A photo doesn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico
SF looking urban doesn't mean it is vibrant loaded with restaurants, bars, shops and pedestrian heavy.
But it is vibrant and loaded with restaurants, bars, shops and is pedestrian heavy.
An area that "looks urban" may not have much of those things, but an area that has a parking lot, strip malls and buildings that have the pedestrian accessibility of the CDC will certainly not have any of those things.
There are lots all over the place around Dupont Circle, which is probably the most cohesive, urban area in DC. I used to live by Embassy Row, and there are accessory lots for tons of buildings, and even private driveways.
That's a relatively uncommon usage in the core Brooklyn neighborhoods, and, again, Dupont is as cohesive as DC gets.
This doesn't make any sense only because you're comparing a commercial thoroughfare and a side street that are literally right around the corner from each other. It's like asking, "Which is more urban: Market Street or Bank Street (which is basically an alleyway)"? Center City does not have as many grand avenues and promenades as Manhattan, but I'd say that ranks pretty far down the list in terms of why Manhattan is more urban.
But you see it does make sense for that very reason. Many streets in Manhattan look like that. Streets in Center City resemble that side street. The street in Philly that looks the most like the one in Manhattan is the street with the widest boulevard.
But it is vibrant and loaded with restaurants, bars, shops and is pedestrian heavy.
An area that "looks urban" may not have much of those things, but an area that has a parking lot, strip malls and buildings that have the pedestrian accessibility of the CDC will certainly not have any of those things.
Not really, at least no more than Chicago. I have walked many times in those areas of SF and been the only person on the street going down many areas. Chicago is more subdued Nov-March but other than that it's pretty active, and goes a level above SF in the summer in terms of street activity.
Hum, looks like the crux of the debate is between Chicago’s grand scale and San Francisco’s more cohesive urban fabric.
Let's just build ourselves a combo city.
Not really, at least no more than Chicago. I have walked many times in those areas of SF and been the only person on the street going down many areas. Chicago is more subdued Nov-March but other than that it's pretty active, and goes a level above SF in the summer in terms of street activity.
Excuse me if Im not up to date on conversation, but Chicago never goes a level above SF in summer street activity. Ive lived in SF and spent lots of time in Chicago, my sister lives there. The first time I went I expected SF on steroids and it was, in urban form, skyscapers etc, but far less street activity/vibrancy than SF.
so somebody give me their own dimensions and expert opinion of where the bustling area boundaries are in SF and Chicago and I will make a map.
Personally I dont see the point of a map, you can but, its really best understood in person. To me SF is busy and vibrant over approximately the northern half to varying degrees. The neighborhoods are dense and pedestrian oriented, with pockets of bustling commercial. Chicago is of course much larger and doesnt have the boundaries, except for the Lake. And as you said most of the vibrancy is along the lake north/south. There are far more dead spots in Chicago, where SF is contained on all sides.
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.
