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.
MD has a form that is basically DC contruct i the model that all others are compared to and sets the frames such that it compares all to the DC development style - DC is more the outlier on many aspects due to many influences from the Gov't etc.
Exactly. I understood the context of the OP's question being not just urban buildings but urban ambiance/environment. I work in downtown DC, and I am pretty experienced with the kind of environment it has.
Is downtown DC impressively built-out? Absolutely. There are probably fewer surface lots in DC than any other city except NYC. But not all buildings are equally conducive to an urban/walkable experience, and downtown DC has a distinct urban form that is very skewed toward utilitarianism and uniformity that is completely different from downtowns in New York, Chicago, Boston, San Francisco and Philadelphia -- which all have a much more organic feel.
This is a much more nuanced discussion that statistics cannot necessarily contribute to, but insofar as we are talking about all aspects of urbanism, I think it is important.
But there are cities and municipalities more dense than LA. Just that no one knows about them because they are only 1 square mile, and aren't known on a first name basis. You and I both know that Chicago is still more dense than LA, just not by much (only 3,000).
The thing about LA is that it is not a matter of if, but when. People are still moving into the city, which speaks for itself, so I really do not understand how these conversations digress the way they do on here.
If we're talking the 50 sq miles of the core, LA is already denser than Chicago, however this thread has nothing to do with population density so I'm not sure why people keep bringing it up.
The only thing I am maintaining is that the entire city of Chicago is more dense than the entire city of LA. I already stated that LA had more neighborhoods with a density of greater than 10,000 per square mile than any other city with the exception of NY. That much proves your argument.
Chicago is only dense in a few areas, and when you consider the entire metro, Chicago is clearly behind LA. There is a lot of confusion about the actual city core, and the metro area, in a lot of these threads on C-D.
Isn't Chicago like half of the size of Los Angeles? But LA only has 1.1 million more people within the city limits. That's all I'm really saying.
Parts of North Philly are pretty desolate and sparse, but there are plenty of other areas that remain solidly built-up. Is there patchiness in parts? Yes, but I'd argue that there is still a consistent 10 sq. mile boundary of consistent urbanity in Philly, even if it is far from a perfect rectangle.
Even so, every city has relatively dead zones. Here are a few examples for DC in what would be part of the consistent 10 sq. mile boundary.
On another point, I'd argue that DC is pretty solidly built overall, but in many instances there is a lack of pedestrian intimacy. In other words, there are many large monolithic buildings that create kind of a lackluster experience for vibrancy. Here is a prime example:
From my perspective and experiences, even though Philadelphia is admittedly "patchier," the areas that are more consistently built-up have a much more intimate and engaging pedestrian experience -- with smaller blocks and narrower buildings with varying heights and building types:
Are we talking about Chicago and San Fran or DC? Also, not that it matters, but those areas outside of the bridge over rock creek park (really) don't look that way in DC anymore. There are multiple buildings under construction in Mt. Vernon Triangle and at Howard University. Also, do you know how many areas like that exist in North Philly?
So some of you are seriously saying there are 10 square miles that have people (and a huge mass of them) at all hours of the day walking around, day in and day out, from one built up neighborhood to the next, in almost uniform liveliness (for majority of the area, understandably not all) in Seattle or Baltimore?
Seriously? I've lived in the DMV area for a while now, I go to Baltimore every single time I want to get seafood, and seriously? 10 contuously built up square mileage of nothing but European style pedestrian liveliness from one area to the next? Sometimes I even wonder if Washington fits that quota.
And these areas have more than just residential and are not all ingle residence by any means - many are multi unit. and this is an area with totally orgnanic mixed use - Before people even had a name for it
Now this styling has its pluses and minuses but MD may be one of the only people who does not this to be dense, continuous and urban.
MD has a form that is basically DC contruct i the model that all others are compared to and sets the frames such that it compares all to the DC development style - DC is more the outlier on many aspects due to many influences from the Gov't etc.
KidPhilly, When did I say that wasn't urban? Saying something is more urban than something else doesn't mean that the lesser urban building or street isn't urban at all. I mean, if it isn't urban, what is it? Suburban? When have I every said that about anywhere in Philly?
Let me ask you, is that corner pub you posted more urban than this:
Two things can both be urban even though one is more urban than the other. Also, my criteria for urbanity is the same criteria planners and architects use in D.C., Boston, Philly, NYC, Chicago, L.A., San Fran, ATL, Houston, Dallas, etc. etc. etc. and that can be seen in all the developments being built across the whole country. Nobody is building parking lots and calling them urban. Nobody is building driveways in the front of houses and calling that urban. Nobody is building strip malls with parking lots and calling that urban. In fact, building parking garages above ground isn't as urban as building them underground either. I could go on and on about what criteria is used to design an urban redevelopment or ground up development in 2014 and the characteristics you seem to think do not detract from a cities urbanity are the very characteristics that are being eliminated.
^^ Come on MD - that comparison is silly - I grabbed a corner bar more because am just saying it is not all residential - yes much of the city looks like that. DC goes to single homes and less urban much more quickly than does Philly
there are many more urban choices I could have cherry picked outside the DT in Philly and many far less urban than your example for DC - not sure your point there honestly
You have a specific criteria that is what you want to use - fine - many disagree and I mean you are even saying that somehow U City loses urban connectivity from CC etc.
And honestly I no idea what you are even getting at with your last paragraph.
And we will disgaree on which city is more urban, so be it
You present an academic view that to me misses the reality many times
^^ Come on MD - that comparison is silly - I grabbed a corner bar more because am just saying it is not all residential - yes much of the city looks like that. DC goes to single homes and less urban much more quickly than does Philly
there are many more urban choices I could have cherry picked outside the DT in Philly and many far less urban than your example for DC - not sure your point there honestly
You have a specific criteria that is what you want to use - fine - many disagree and I mean you are even saying that somehow U City loses urban connectivity from CC etc.
And honestly I no idea what you are even getting at with your last paragraph.
And we will disgaree on which city is more urban, so be it
You present an academic view that to me misses the reality many times
Which is why I said Philly is more urban as a city. Don't you remember me saying that? I said the following:
Most Urban Downtown: Philly
Most Urban Core: Washington D.C.
More Urban City: Philly
Problem with that is for this thread, D.C. has the more urban core therefore the more urban 5 mile X 2 mile footprint. Make it 10 miles X 10 miles, it's not close and Philly comes out way ahead.
I didn't say U City loses connectivity from Center City, I said 5 miles north-south loses connectivity to Center City.
and to me Broad street maintains urban conistency for its whole way could probably say the same for market as well
both cities have an urban core, one more intense and one a little more spread - is what it is
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.
