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.
DC falls in to a spectrum somewhere between SF and Seattle. San Francisco is clearly more urban than DC, but it is close enough that I could seeing them being in the same range. Same with DC and Seattle. DC is clearly ahead of Seattle, but is close enough in the grand scheme of things that I could see it being in the same range.
So DC will have more of a big city feel, but Seattle has a better downtown and some decent neighborhoods to at least make it competitive.
DC falls in to a spectrum somewhere between SF and Seattle. San Francisco is clearly more urban than DC, but it is close enough that I could seeing them being in the same range. Same with DC and Seattle. DC is clearly ahead of Seattle, but is close enough in the grand scheme of things that I could see it being in the same range.
So DC will have more of a big city feel, but Seattle has a better downtown and some decent neighborhoods to at least make it competitive.
Seattle neighborhoods are not dense. They are pretty sprawled, even Seattle posters even said that on this thread. It's not walkable and not even close in the same league as places such as DC neighborhoods. Seattle and DC are not in the same league, just because DC lacks skyscrapers and has a height limit does not mean it lowers its big city feel. This is a common misconception amongst Americans, skyscrapers do not determine a big city..... DC resembles a European city. DC is in the same tier as Boston, Philly, SF. Not Seattle..... People seem to be pretty misinformed. This is not comparable, downtown is not the major factor.
Seattle neighborhoods are not dense. They are pretty sprawled, even Seattle posters even said that on this thread. It's not walkable and not even close in the same league as places such as DC neighborhoods. Seattle and DC are not in the same league, just because DC lacks skyscrapers and has a height limit does not mean it lowers its big city feel. This is a common misconception amongst Americans, skyscrapers do not determine a big city..... DC resembles a European city. DC is in the same tier as Boston, Philly, SF. Not Seattle..... People seem to be pretty misinformed. This is not comparable, downtown is not the major factor.
Of course, Seattle is less dense than DC. But, density is a relative issue. Seattle is mostly a bungalow city with some apartment buildings mixed in. It obviously lacks the row houses of DC.
But, you could say the same thing about SF. You could easily argue that DC isn't in SF's tier because DC lacks the hyper-dense walkup apartment neighborhoods of inner-SF (Chinatown, Nob Hill, Tenderloin).
Sure DC is about a 1/3 denser than Seattle, but SF is roughly 70% denser than DC. So I stand by my statement, DC is more urban than Seattle, but in the grand scheme of things it is close. It is hard to argue that the density difference between DC and SF or Bos are meaningless, but the (similar sized) gaps in density between Seattle and DC are hugely important.
It's not walkable and not even close in the same league as places such as DC neighborhoods. Seattle and DC are not in the same league, just because DC lacks skyscrapers and has a height limit does not mean it lowers its big city feel.
Absolutely not true. Seattle's residential neighborhoods are every bit as walkable as D.C.'s.
Of course, Seattle is less dense than DC. But, density is a relative issue. Seattle is mostly a bungalow city with some apartment buildings mixed in. It obviously lacks the row houses of DC.
But, you could say the same thing about SF. You could easily argue that DC isn't in SF's tier because DC lacks the hyper-dense walkup apartment neighborhoods of inner-SF (Chinatown, Nob Hill, Tenderloin).
Sure DC is about a 1/3 denser than Seattle, but SF is roughly 70% denser than DC. So I stand by my statement, DC is more urban than Seattle, but in the grand scheme of things it is close. It is hard to argue that the density difference between DC and SF or Bos are meaningless, but the (similar sized) gaps in density between Seattle and DC are hugely important.
Here we go with the density debate.
Couple things....
Build environment density and population density are two different things and have nothing to do with each other. Built environment density has to do with urban design and building street relationship. The use of the building plays the biggest role in population density, but has nothing to do with vibrancy. The most vibrant parts of any city for the longest part of a 24 hr day is the area with the most office space. Why? Because the workday is the longest part of the day. Residential neighborhoods are quiet during the day because people are are at work. If you were to visit a city at 4am on a Wednesday during a rain storm, that is the absolute best time to evaluate the urbanity of a neighborhood's built environment.
This argument is asking about big city feel. You can't argue the topic unless you define what it is and everyone uses the same definition. Without that definition, this debate is a waste of time because everyone will be on different pages. The only way to come up with a concise answer is to figure out what being a big city means.
Now, as for the DC vs. Seattle argument, these cities don't offer the same lifestyle at all. Living in DC, you take the train or a cab most places like other major urban cities around the country. You visit multiple urban neighborhoods all around the city to do different things. These neighborhoods consist of apartment high-rises or row-homes. When living in Seattle, how many places can you visit that don't lose their urban development intensity? How many neighborhoods in DC can you visit that don't lose their urban development intensity? Compare the two lists and you have your answer.
Absolutely not true. Seattle's residential neighborhoods are every bit as walkable as D.C.'s.
LOL ok wow now you're just saying stuff out your baboon but you have no ideas what you're talking about. This tends to a reoccurring thing from you though, so I'm not surprised. Even the Seattle posters said the neighborhood are not as dense or walkable as DC. They are not, look at the density/walkability stats and compare them. You're clearly just disagreeing with me to just further your pride. They are not even close in density, DC and its neighborhoods is are older. Wow.....
Of course, Seattle is less dense than DC. But, density is a relative issue. Seattle is mostly a bungalow city with some apartment buildings mixed in. It obviously lacks the row houses of DC.
But, you could say the same thing about SF. You could easily argue that DC isn't in SF's tier because DC lacks the hyper-dense walkup apartment neighborhoods of inner-SF (Chinatown, Nob Hill, Tenderloin).
Sure DC is about a 1/3 denser than Seattle, but SF is roughly 70% denser than DC. So I stand by my statement, DC is more urban than Seattle, but in the grand scheme of things it is close. It is hard to argue that the density difference between DC and SF or Bos are meaningless, but the (similar sized) gaps in density between Seattle and DC are hugely important.
There are major differences between the density for Seattle and D.C. vs. San Fran and D.C.
Couple things.....
The urban core of San Fran and DC are not that far apart in density. The drop off is when you consider areas outside the urban core. D.C.'s urban core is about 20-25 sq. mile's. San Fran is dense for its entire 40+ sq. miles which is why it's density is so high. Seattle 20-25 sq. mile urban core on the other hand, is not close to as dense as D.C.'s urban core. The urban cores are really what this debate is about.
I will give you an example. If DC developed the lower density, lower income, section of the city across the river like its urban core, we would equal or pass San Fran in density. DC's density depends on it's development in outlying neighborhoods.
Now, as for the DC vs. Seattle argument, these cities don't offer the same lifestyle at all.
There is absolutely no possible way for you to know this without visiting Seattle. You are assuming again, but you are flying blind here.
Quote:
Living in DC, you take the train or a cab most places like other major urban cities around the country.
Yes, just like in Seattle. Or a bus, a streetcar or commuter rail. Just like Seattle. Seattle is lacking in rail at the moment, but they are spending billions to expand the system as we speak. They also are implementing their second streetcar line, something D.C. has really been struggling with. They have one of the most comprehensive bus systems in the U.S., and it is heavily used.
Quote:
You visit multiple urban neighborhoods all around the city to do different things. These neighborhoods consist of apartment high-rises or row-homes. When living in Seattle, how many places can you visit that don't lose their urban development intensity?
Every single one of them that surround the core. The outer neighborhoods all have neighborhood village districts that are mixed use and serve as the local focal points. This is required city-wide by zoning, and it is working beautifully.
Quote:
How many neighborhoods in DC can you visit that don't lose their urban development intensity? Compare the two lists and you have your answer.
Again, too black and white with no grey area whatsoever. It isn't as cut and dry as you prefer to make it be.
Seattle neighborhoods are not dense. They are pretty sprawled, even Seattle posters even said that on this thread. It's not walkable and not even close in the same league as places such as DC neighborhoods. Seattle and DC are not in the same league, just because DC lacks skyscrapers and has a height limit does not mean it lowers its big city feel. This is a common misconception amongst Americans, skyscrapers do not determine a big city..... DC resembles a European city. DC is in the same tier as Boston, Philly, SF. Not Seattle..... People seem to be pretty misinformed. This is not comparable, downtown is not the major factor.
I said they aren't as dense as DC's. But that doesn't mean they're not dense and walkable. You're just wrong about Seattle neighborhoods. Seattle densest tracts aren't even in Downtown (they're in Capitol Hill). Capitol Hill, Lower Queen Anne, U District, South Lake Union, Ballard, Greenwood, Fremont etc. are all very walkable and most of them are quite dense. You seem to be the one who is uninformed.
There is absolutely no possible way for you to know this without visiting Seattle. You are assuming again, but you are flying blind here.
Yes, just like in Seattle. Or a bus, a streetcar or commuter rail. Just like Seattle. Seattle is lacking in rail at the moment, but they are spending billions to expand the system as we speak. They also are implementing their second streetcar line, something D.C. has really been struggling with. They have one of the most comprehensive bus systems in the U.S., and it is heavily used.
Every single one of them that surround the core. The outer neighborhoods all have neighborhood village districts that are mixed use and serve as the local focal points. This is required city-wide by zoning, and it is working beautifully.
Again, too black and white with no grey area whatsoever. It isn't as cut and dry as you prefer to make it be.
Seattle's ridership is good compared to what city? Looks awful compared to DC.
It's not black and white, it's about being "urban" which is clearly defined all across the world. What is your definition of urban design? What is your criteria? What are your intensity dynamics?
I think if we both get a mutual definition for what the most urban and intense design of any building and street relationship can be, we can rate neighborhoods from 1-10 with 10 being the most urban by the urban design criteria and 1 being the least urban. This will allow neighborhoods to be rated in their entirety.
Have you ever stopped to ask yourself why all the urban cities are designed the same way? What do you think the reason 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.
