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.
Minneapolis would have been a good fit for this bracket had it gone through with the funding for a mass transit system similar to BART and the DC metro. Seems funny that it's being tendered as a competitor in this poll today though.
DC's rail system has had serious operational issues recently, but it's fixable and can stop these derailments with the requisite funding. That being said, Toronto seems to be a lot more committed towards improving its system than any of the other cities mentioned so I don't see DC being the city with the best rail system for very long especially as Toronto starts implementing its plan to turn its commuter rail system more into a commuter/rapid transit rail hybrid like BART and the DC metro are. The only other city in this roster with the potential to do that is Boston, but there's fairly little political will to do so unfortunately.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,560,868 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
Minneapolis would have been a good fit for this bracket had it gone through with the funding for a mass transit system similar to BART and the DC metro. Seems funny that it's being tendered as a competitor in this poll today though.
DC's rail system has had serious operational issues recently, but it's fixable and can stop these derailments with the requisite funding. That being said, Toronto seems to be a lot more committed towards improving its system than any of the other cities mentioned so I don't see DC being the city with the best rail system for very long especially as Toronto starts implementing its plan to turn its commuter rail system more into a commuter/rapid transit rail hybrid like BART and the DC metro are. The only other city in this roster with the potential to do that is Boston, but there's fairly little political will to do so unfortunately.
You are severely under estimating DC's rail system which has probably along with only maybe LA the most potential for future growth/ expansion in the entire US. Of these cities in discussion, DC easily has the best rail system overall. The bigger problems with the system I do expect to be fixed, not to mention DC ain't the only major city with rail problems.
A 23 mile light-rail in the MD suburbs that would connect the northern spokes of Metro's wheel is shovel ready and only being held up by politics right now. The Silver line in Northern VA has a second phase under way to extend past Dulles International airport. The next big step is to bring additional tunnels across the Potomac for separation of the Blue line through Downtown Washington. This would be close to the equivalent of what NYC is doing with the 2nd Ave subway line. Union Station will soon get a massive re-haul with development surrounding it. Finally after decades there are at least proposals now for a dedicated funding source for the system from DC/MD/VA. If anything I see DC's Metro separating itself from other North American systems if things go close to plan.
Toronto has both the historic buildings of DC and Boston, and the modern soaring skyscrapers that DC and Boston don't have.
Toronto is in another league than DC and Boston when it comes to modern skyscrapers. Boston and DC are in another league when it comes to historic building stock and architecture (especially Boston) That from someone who has actually lived in two of them (Toronto and Boston) and extensively visited the other (DC)
Yes lets ignore the fact that all those "cookie cutter condos" bring a huge number of residents to the core, which ultimately drives shared street designs, businesses, and street-level vibrancy, and instead focus on attractions like Target Field, Freedom Trail, and Alcatraz as true metrics of what defines urbanity.
Funny thing is the CN Tower being the main landmark of Toronto's core, is the only top attraction here that is in any way urban.
I would agree. Adding residents to the core is always a positive development and Toronto has done a great job when it comes to developing units in the core.
The issue is that you need the retail and other amenities to follow. Toronto has also added much of that, but I find there is a ton of work to do in that department. For the amount of residents Toronto has added over the past 5-10 years I would expect it to be significantly more vibrant than it is currently. Yes the city is on an upward trajectory, but the vibrancy is still not really all that overwhelming.
But Washington is no slouch when it comes to historic beauty either:
Those are great pics of DC and Boston, but Toronto also has loads of historic buildings and charming vistas of 19th century streetscapes quite similar in appearance to many of those you posted. You act as if Toronto has nothing of the sort and is just modern condos everywhere you look, which couldn't be further from the truth.
Those are great pics of DC and Boston, but Toronto also has loads of historic buildings and charming vistas of 19th century streetscapes quite similar in appearance to many of those you posted. You act as if Toronto has nothing of the sort and is just modern condos everywhere you look, which couldn't be further from the truth.
In 1901 Toronto has 238,000 people, Boston had 561,000 in 1900 (and at the time no Hyde Park), DC had 278,000 in 1900. So in terms of 19th century stuff Boston would have the most.
In 1901 Toronto has 238,000 people, Boston had 561,000 in 1900 (and at the time no Hyde Park), DC had 278,000 in 1900. So in terms of 19th century stuff Boston would have the most.
Of course. I'm not by any means implying that Toronto has the most or even as many historic buildings as DC or especially Boston (since 19th century Boston was obviously much bigger than 19th century Toronto), all I'm saying is that Toronto still does have a respectable number of 19th century buildings and streetscapes -- especially considering the rapid pace and growth and redevelopment that the city has undergone in the last 50 years or so.
Of course. I'm not by any means implying that Toronto has the most or even as many historic buildings as DC or especially Boston (since 19th century Boston was obviously much bigger than 19th century Toronto), all I'm saying is that Toronto still does have a respectable number of 19th century buildings and streetscapes -- especially considering the rapid pace and growth and redevelopment that the city has undergone in the last 50 years or so.
+1 Very fair post.
Toronto being called a city that is devoid of any historic architecture is really ridiculous. Similar to people saying there is no attractive modern architecture in either DC or Boston.
Those are great pics of DC and Boston, but Toronto also has loads of historic buildings and charming vistas of 19th century streetscapes quite similar in appearance to many of those you posted. You act as if Toronto has nothing of the sort and is just modern condos everywhere you look, which couldn't be further from the truth.
It would be like the Toronto guy on last page saying Boston has no skyscrapers.
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.
