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.
Are you really saying that you don't think D.C. has building's that are taller on average than Boston and Philadelphia? Didn't we already discuss this using data from another competitor website?
Having a marginally larger core is not the same as saying DC has “centers of activity throughout the city averinging 12-15 floors”
DC more highrises due to height limits but it like 1.5x the footprint of Philly or Boston. But with lower peak intensity.
Certainly much more similar than it is to Chicago or NYC (the latter being laughable)
Are you really saying that you don't think D.C. has building's that are taller on average than Boston and Philadelphia? Didn't we already discuss this using data from another competitor website? D.C. has about 100 more high-rises than Boston and Philadelphia and about 200 more buildings. The biggest realization of that is D.C. is building twice the amount of high-rises as Boston and three times the high-rises as Philly right now so the count will only increase.
I think you're using a pretty liberal definition of "high-rise" in this case.
DC's tallest buildings are mid-rise, at best, in either Boston or Philadelphia. Hence, there's a factor of peak density that should be considered here. Skyscrapers pull a much greater weight of density/urbanism than any "high-rise" in DC.
That's to say nothing of the wider streets, greater setbacks, and much less granular urbanism in downtown DC compared to the vast majority of Philly or Boston. These are all factors in the built environment.
A little bit too much of DC feels like a really impressive office park. Off about 12 story buildings that all look like each other. It’s not the whole core but it’s a lot and it definitely feels Lea urban to me than somewhere like Shaw, Rhode Island Ave or Petworth.
The largest residential neighborhoods in Boston (Roxbury and Dorchester, 180k people between the two) are 19k ppsqmi, just like nearby Cambridge... East Boston is even denser when you subtract the airport. So just because they’re not full tall faceless blocks doesn’t mean they’re not highly urban. And very functionally urban
I think you're using a pretty liberal definition of "high-rise" in this case.
DC's tallest buildings are mid-rise, at best, in either Boston or Philadelphia. Hence, there's a factor of peak density that should be considered here. Skyscrapers pull a much greater weight of density/urbanism than any "high-rise" in DC.
That's to say nothing of the wider streets, greater setbacks, and much less granular urbanism in downtown DC compared to the vast majority of Philly or Boston. These are all factors in the built environment.
It's not my definition. It's also not my database. Do you know where the data came from? Which website?
Also, the most impressive urban vistas in D.C. are those under construction, not those that are already built. Navy Yard/Buzzard Point and NOMA/Northwest One/Union Market will be denser than anything in Philadelphia or Boston at full buildout. D.C. doesn't have anything like those neighborhoods right now, but they are rising.
A little bit too much of DC feels like a really impressive office park. Off about 12 story buildings that all look like each other. It’s not the whole core but it’s a lot and it definitely feels Lea urban to me than somewhere like Shaw, Rhode Island Ave or Petworth.
The largest residential neighborhoods in Boston (Roxbury and Dorchester, 180k people between the two) are 19k ppsqmi, just like nearby Cambridge... East Boston is even denser when you subtract the airport. So just because they’re not full tall faceless blocks doesn’t mean they’re not highly urban. And very functionally urban
I can agree with this. That's why the office to residential conversions happening right now will impact downtown DC on an astronomical level. D.C. with a mixed use downtown similar to Philadelphia or Boston will be on a different level. Everyone knows the residential density for D.C. is outside of the old downtown areas. I'm sure most people can't wait for that to change and change it will.
The office uses are spreading to newer parts of the city like NOMA, Union Market, Navy Yard, the Wharf, etc., etc. which is long overdue. If half the office buildings downtown could convert to residential and move to other parts of the new downtown areas, DC would finally become balanced.
Having a marginally larger core is not the same as saying DC has “centers of activity throughout the city averinging 12-15 floors”
DC more highrises due to height limits but it like 1.5x the footprint of Philly or Boston. But with lower peak intensity.
Certainly much more similar than it is to Chicago or NYC (the latter being laughable)
I can agree with this. We do have more high-rises because of height limits. Without height limits, most of that development would be stuffed into 30-50 story buildings and the rest of the city would be row homes or 4-story apartment buildings. I have said many times height limits is the only reason D.C. is urbanizing so fast and will continue to urbanize. Once a neighborhood reaches full built out, it's on to the next.
Demand for this type of stuff would be sucked into a tiny area that encompasses downtown like most other cities:
I can agree with this. We do have more high-rises because of height limits. Without height limits, most of that development would be stuffed into 30-50 story buildings and the rest of the city would be row homes or 4-story apartment buildings. I have said many times height limits is the only reason D.C. is urbanizing so fast and will continue to urbanize. Once a neighborhood reaches full built out, it's on to the next.
You’re vastly overestimating both the relative speed of DC Development and how tall buildings are.
Like Boston has like 10 or 11 40-50 story buildings it’s not like they’re all over the city
You’re vastly overestimating both the relative speed of DC Development and how tall buildings are.
Like Boston has like 10 or 11 40-50 story buildings it’s not like they’re all over the city
Look, even areas way outside the urban core in D.C. are seeing massive development. Can you honestly say Boston is building developments to this scale all over the city way outside the urban core at the same pace as DC? Do you think D.C. is going to stop building this type of development over the next 20 years? Having buildings in the 9-15 story range and even 4-8 story range throughout the city does change the character of residential neighborhoods. Don't you agree? That's why people fight tall buildings so much.
Look, even areas way outside the urban core in D.C. are seeing massive development. Can you honestly say Boston is building developments to this scale all over the city way outside the urban core? Do you think D.C. is going to stop building this type of development over the next 20 years?
Some interesting facts about Philadelphia and Los Angeles:
Zip codes with 15,000+ ppsm:
Philadelphia: 21
Los Angeles: 24
Zip codes with 30,000+ ppsm:
Philadelphia: 0
Los Angeles: 5
I'm wondering where in Los Angeles its "not very urban" between Boyle Heights and Venice Beach, which covers a much larger area than the entirety of Philadelphia.
I'm also wondering where the "very suburban parts" of Los Angeles city are. Very suburban to me means planned residential that you have to drive through for miles to get to even a strip mall or any type of commercial area. Its not even like that in Woodland Hills.
It seems people are having a hard time accepting that Los Angeles is an urban city throughout its entire 469 square miles.
Very suburban parts of Los Angeles for the most part on the hills as well as parts of the San Fernando Valley. This should be pretty obvious to anyone who has every lived in Los Angeles. I grew up there and worked on gigs that covered a massive swath of the city and metropolitan area including suburban parts. The sheer breadth of neighborhoods Los Angeles, as in the literal, legal jurisdiction of the city of Los Angeles covers is pretty massive.
Here are some examples of places in the city where you most definitely will be driving to any shops, restaurants, services, etc.
Los Angeles covers a lot more territory than Philadelphia, we're talking about ~140 square miles versus ~470 square miles of land area. In that land area, Philadelphia's urban parts are mostly very closely clumped together as essentially offshoots of Center City. Los Angeles had a different development pattern though the largest node extends out from DTLA, to the west especially, as well, but in that much larger physical area also has nodes that are much more removed from the central node and sometimes more tenuously connected. I think the issue is how to "weigh" that bit more splotchiness of Los Angeles's urbanity compared to Philadelphia's. I think there is something to be said with having Philadelphia's more uniform urbanity especially in regards to how people can and do get around and yielding less space to people just passing through (as you see a lot more in much more car-centric Los Angeles). However, I think even on that count, Los Angeles will probably quickly pass by Philadelphia this decade due to the infrastructure improvements it's making on some very major routes--I think one thing LA still needs to tackle is it's ridiculous parking minimum requirements for construction.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 01-02-2021 at 05:10 PM..
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.
