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.
Boston and DC are very similar, both in terms of population and size. One thing to note, Boston has more land mass, a smaller rail and bus transit system, and a smaller population than DC (though both are very similar). I would actually put DC ahead of Boston. But I would say from a build space perspective these two cities basically share a great deal. I would put DC and Boston basically tied for number 5. Beyond that is anybodies guess.
Likewise I would not even put Baltimore in the running. The city has fewer people than DC, a poor rail transit network, over a wider land mass. It is also a declining city, abandonment is a major issue.
Boston is definitely ahead of DC. You have to remember Boston's urban core isn't just the city proper but also Cambridge, Somerville, Chelsea, Everett, Revere, Brookline, Medford, Arlington. DC has much less urbanity outside its borders.
125th a commercial corridor, in an extremely dense borough in an already extremely dense city, so what you're telling me isn't something new.
Well, you implied that Harlem wasn't too "vibrant" until the Yuppie gentrifiers came. That's simply not true. If by "vibrant" you mean "people in the streets at all hours of the day and night," then it's been vibrant for a very long time. It might even be less vibrant than it once was.
There's probably more people living within driving distance of San Antonio. I think that is what keeps SF numbers a little low; not many people within driving distance to visit.
SoCal is not within driving distance of NorCal? 20-25 million people in LA/OC/SD and points around can't drive 5-8 hours up? Moreover, there are more people in nearby Sacramento (and other parts of NorCal) than there are people in Austin (talking adjacent metros). So I don't buy the driving argument (not to mention the world's busiest air route or at least #2 is LA-SF, particularly when you factor in all the airports in each metro area...something like 3 or 4 million people a year fly between the two cities alone).
Quote:
Originally Posted by KodeBlue
Looks like there's a bunch to *see* at the National Mall vs more to *do* at the inner harbor.
So you wouldn't say that the:
Washington Monument observatory
National Museum of American History
National Museum of Natural History
National Gallery of Art
National Museum of the American Indian
National Air and Space Museum
Hirshorn Museum
Smithsonian Castle
Freer Gallery
Touring the US Capitol
Taking a picture in front of the White House
Newseum
US Holocaust Museum
and touring the Bureau of Printing and Engraving
aren't things to do on/along the National Mall?
Quote:
Originally Posted by KodeBlue
When did DC become a much larger city than Baltimore? Metro, yes, but City....No. I'm almost certain that Baltimore is the most underrated city in the country. Even people from Baltimore are unaware of what goes in here...very sad. Baltimore is still more urban than Seattle tho, the structural density didn't drop off since Baltimore's population peak of just under a million. Seattle has yet to hit those numbers, and yet to hit Baltimore's urbanity.
DC does have higher population (in smaller area, along with more amenities, more office space, more of everything), but really I'm thinking about the 5-6 million people that surround DC and are DC-centric versus the 2 million people that surround Baltimore. That's a huge difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
DC's city population only recently passed Baltimore's (shortly after the 2010 census) and the growth rate for DC continues to be greater than Baltimore's. Not much larger right now, but just a smidge. Moreover, DC is doing it in a smaller physical area, so has higher density overall. If you wanted a more apples to apples comparison, you can look at the census tracts and make a glob of contiguous tracts to compare.
See above - Baltimore and Boston are the "same size" the way you're looking at it. And Jacksonville is larger. None of that is true. Baltimore is much larger than Jacksonville, and Boston is much larger than Baltimore.
Boston and DC are very similar, both in terms of population and size. One thing to note, Boston has more land mass, a smaller rail and bus transit system, and a smaller population than DC (though both are very similar). I would actually put DC ahead of Boston. But I would say from a build space perspective these two cities basically share a great deal. I would put DC and Boston basically tied for number 5. Beyond that is anybodies guess.
Likewise I would not even put Baltimore in the running. The city has fewer people than DC, a poor rail transit network, over a wider land mass. It is also a declining city, abandonment is a major issue.
I agree Boston and DC are pretty similar cities. Boston has historically been the more urban city and it started recovering a good 10-15 years ahead of DC. But, DC has been closing the gap and growing much faster.
You are right, DC is now the slightly larger city by population (658,893 vs 655,884 in 2014 according to Census). But, Boston is a smaller city by land mass 48.42 vs. 61.4. This makes Boston about 30% denser than DC. Not a huge difference, but roughly the same gap as between DC and Seattle.
I think on the spectrum of urbanism:
SF > Bos > DC > Baltimore/Seattle. The gaps between each level are small enough that I can see people saying they are in the same range. But, when you go two levels apart the gaps become much more noticeable. I can see someone say Bos and DC are on the samle urban level, and I can see someone saying Bos and SF are on the same level. But, it becomes harder to argue that SF and DC are roughly equally urban when SF has 1/3 more people in 2/3 of the land area. Now of course, when the frame of reference is SF vs. NYC or DC. Then yeah, SF is more like DC.
Well, you implied that Harlem wasn't too "vibrant" until the Yuppie gentrifiers came. That's simply not true. If by "vibrant" you mean "people in the streets at all hours of the day and night," then it's been vibrant for a very long time. It might even be less vibrant than it once was.
You brought 125th into this conversation. If 125th was bombed out back in the day, then it would be relevant to what we were initially discussing. If it isn't, then you brought up something non applicable to our conversation.
I agree Boston and DC are pretty similar cities. Boston has historically been the more urban city and it started recovering a good 10-15 years ahead of DC. But, DC has been closing the gap and growing much faster.
You are right, DC is now the slightly larger city by population (658,893 vs 655,884 in 2014 according to Census). But, Boston is a smaller city by land mass 48.42 vs. 61.4. This makes Boston about 30% denser than DC. Not a huge difference, but roughly the same gap as between DC and Seattle.
I think on the spectrum of urbanism:
SF > Bos > DC > Baltimore/Seattle. The gaps between each level are small enough that I can see people saying they are in the same range. But, when you go two levels apart the gaps become much more noticeable. I can see someone say Bos and DC are on the samle urban level, and I can see someone saying Bos and SF are on the same level. But, it becomes harder to argue that SF and DC are roughly equally urban when SF has 1/3 more people in 2/3 of the land area. Now of course, when the frame of reference is SF vs. NYC or DC. Then yeah, SF is more like DC.
SoCal is not within driving distance of NorCal? 20-25 million people in LA/OC/SD and points around can't drive 5-8 hours up? Moreover, there are more people in nearby Sacramento (and other parts of NorCal) than there are people in Austin (talking adjacent metros). So I don't buy the driving argument (not to mention the world's busiest air route or at least #2 is LA-SF, particularly when you factor in all the airports in each metro area...something like 3 or 4 million people a year fly between the two cities alone).
Sure you can but it's kind of a pain for just a 2-day weekend, especially of you're not coming from the northern edge/area of LA. I just think there are probably more people within a 3 hour drive on San Antonio than SF. A 5-8 hour drive is a bit strenuous for a short weekend trip imo.
I hear ya, but where do these people stay? San Antonio has as many hotel rooms in its 461 sq mi (~37K), including ~14K rooms downtown, as San Francisco has in its 47 sq mi (~35K), almost all within a mile of downtown. If SA has 10-20 million more visitors than SF (~100% more visitors), where are these people staying? All with family? So there aren't people that visit SF that stay with family either?
Couple that with the fact that SF has some of the highest occupancy rates in the country, and about the highest average daily hotel rates as a result, whereas SA has some of the lowest average occupancy rates in the country and lowest average daily rates.
Also, fewer people come through SA's airport than Oakland or SJ's airport. Clearly people from Houston drive (3 hours, only 300K annual fliers). But you and I both know there are a *ton* of drivers between LA and SF, and additionally, there are ~2.9 million annual fliers, which would be nearly half of the entire traffic at SA's airport.
All I'm saying, related to the Baltimore vs DC argument, is that visitor stats are so stupid and Baltimore doesn't receive more visitors than our nation's capital. Anyone can create rules on what constitutes a visitor. What may be a "visitor" in SA may not be in SF if they aren't a hotel room night stat on leisure versus business. If SF counted every business traveler, or somehow aggregated unlinked trips between its tourist attractions, and compiled all of that (and while we're at it, let's add the millions who come to the city for Pride this weekend), it would have leagues more visitors than SA.
Last edited by anonelitist; 06-24-2015 at 11:49 AM..
So probably a lot of day visitors to SA or they're staying with family I'd imagine.
It isn't necessarily just about the # of visitors a place get but what type and what they spend. Honolulu's tourists spend billions more than other cities that get several times the tourists they do, same with SF.
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.
