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.
Deanwood does have SFH yes, but so do Queens and Staten Island, which I know you would not mention are country.
I did not say it was country. DC Urban Turf called it country and so did a lifelong resident of the neighborhood. And truthfully, it does have a rural, southern feel to it, and apparently other people feel the same way, which is why there was a whole article written about it.
You said "point out an area of DC that could be considered rural." And I showed you an article from one of DC's most prominent (if not the most) RE/urban planning blogs that does precisely that.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,552,695 times
Reputation: 5785
Right but look at the picture in the article and tell me if that defines rural. Deanwood is a neighborhood of houses and duplexes with yards in front. Not a rural area, with farms or horse stables. If Deanwood is "rural" then parts of Detroit or Chicago must be no mans land.
I don't know any rural area of the U.S. with its own Metro stop.
Right but look at the picture in the article and tell me if that defines rural. Deanwood is a neighborhood of houses and duplexes with yards in front. Not a rural area, with farms or horse stables. If Deanwood is "rural" then parts of Detroit or Chicago must be no mans land.
It's obviously not a rural area in the sense that there are square miles of farmland. But that's not Los Angeles either. So why are you calling it "rural" when a whole bevy of posters on DC Urban Turf are calling a non-insignificant slice of DC "rural"?
So by your measure DT Baltimore on this list should be ahead of DC? I've never disagreed with the whole "grit" factor that so many people on CD feel is their make or break factor in being a great city. This however does not make all the world to me. I actually like the cleaner, gleaming, crystal clear looking, marble historical buildings in DT DC. Are there too many glass boxes IMO heck yes, but there are enough streets that liven up and make DT interesting enough to keep me happy. What's different about Philly is that even though the city limits are twice DC's size, the areas of DC that many visitors or tourists would venture to expand much further from the center than Philadelphia. Yes Philly has that intense and seamless core and the areas around UC and 30th street station, but there are many people who do not expand much outside of that. Washington will attract many people from the Anacostia waterfront to SW waterfront, all the way up into downtown, West to Georgetown and up Wisconsin Ave, and East all the way to H Street/ Union Station area. I understand that Philly has much more building density across this same level of stretch because the streets are more narrow and population is just greater. What you don't find there is the many separate urban nodes across the city once you get outside of CC. I still believe that Philly is more urban than DC CITY wide but I do NOT believe there is some separate tier of urbanity when looking at the two cities up close.
I said DC is 6th with the caveat that it feels characteristically different than its Eastern seaboard counterparts. I don't know what else you want me to say at this point.
When you say "sprawling south side neighborhoods", you imply that it might be the overwhelming norm there. Obviously now you didn't mean it, but I've seen time and time again on this site that people think the south side is under 7000 people per sq mile everywhere which is far from the truth.
I don't see how that implies anything. I could make a straightforward statement like "There are Hispanics in the United States" and you would counter "Okay, but not everyone's Hispanic." You can see how that sort of goes off on a tangent, right?
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,552,695 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
It's obviously not a rural area in the sense that there are square miles of farmland. But that's not Los Angeles either. So why are you calling it "rural" when a whole bevy of posters on DC Urban Turf are calling a non-insignificant slice of DC "rural"?
The previous posters may have twisted the discussion to make it seem like I called LA rural, but I most definitely did not. I have always claimed LA to be urban. There were other posters claiming DC is "rural" east of the river, which I admitted to the drop off in development but also said its a gross exaggeration to call that part of the city rural.
I said DC is 6th with the caveat that it feels characteristically different than its Eastern seaboard counterparts. I don't know what else you want me to say at this point.
That it's as urban as any other city. You need to begin all of your comments with a certain degree of deference given the sensitity of so many posters here. Kidphilly has mastered that art.
"No, really, Houston is one of my favorite cities and it's spectacular with tons of amenities with great food and very urban, no more or no less than Chicago, though different, in its own special way, though I could see the argument for it being more urban but not really but it's kind of like splitting hairs because one could argue Houston really is urban by a host of different metrics."
I don't see how that implies anything. I could make a straightforward statement like "There are Hispanics in the United States" and you would counter "Okay, but not everyone's Hispanic." You can see how that sort of goes off on a tangent, right?
I would never say that. Perhaps the reason why I am like this with what you said is because I've seen it numerous times on here that people think the entire south side is un dense.
True, but that doesnt make DC's neighborhoods more urban, it just makes them nicer. It's like comparing San Francisco to the Bronx. SF is clearly more desirable and beloved than the Bronx, but the Bronx is unquestionably more urban.
By US standards DC has an excellent and outsized transit system for its size and density, that's why it does so well in those metrics. You could argue that Boston, Philly, SF would exceed DCs total ridership with comparably comprehensive systems, but that's speculation. All three are more urban than DC IMO.
I had to go back and read the post you were replying to because your reply didn't make sense to me. It still doesn't seem relevant to what I wrote.
I wasn't opining on what cities were "more urban" than others. I frankly think this is a silly argument and only leads to people using the data that favors their beloved city while ignoring data that doesn't. The only city we all seem to agree on as "more urban" is NYC since it demolishes all U.S. cities in pretty much every statistical category.
My point was that the focus in these threads is always on the more central, transit rich areas of these cities. By necessity, these are more or less "pound for pound" rankings and I prefer it that way. The alternative is arguing that City A is less urban than City B because it has a mountain chain with coyotes running around in it, etc.
I would never say that. Perhaps the reason why I am like this with what you said is because I've seen it numerous times on here that people think the entire south side is un dense.
But that's basically what you did. There was nothing in my post that warranted the response you gave. You should tailor your response to the post you are replying to, not to posts that were made way back when that someone might not be aware of.
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.
