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.
Ummm, DC certainly has much better public transportation than Philly, is nearly 40% car free (second only to NYC), and has some of the highest commute to work by bike and walking than nearly every city. Not a fair assessment.
I was about to say something to that too. DC seems like it would be one of the easiest American cities to live in without a car. I think that DC sets a very good example for the rest of America with its rapid transit coverage, ridership, investment, and expansions.
Philly seems like it would be doable without a car as well. But if I lived in Philly I feel like I would have to purposely try to live near the subway instead of looking where I want to live first, and then seeing which train(s) run there, if that makes sense. It is worth noting that it is a lot larger in land area though. Ive also always felt like Philly seems like it would be a great biking city. I feel like a bike could easily replace a car there.
Philly seems like it would be doable without a car as well. But if I lived in Philly I feel like I would have to purposely try to live near the subway instead of looking where I want to live first, and then seeing which train(s) run there, if that makes sense. It is worth noting that it is a lot larger in land area though. Ive also always felt like Philly seems like it would be a great biking city. I feel like a bike could easily replace a car there.
Definitely. I's relatively low-grade terrain and narrow streets make it the perfect city for biking. And what Philly may lack in terms of rapid transit throughout more of the city, it makes up for in compactness and small blocks. It arguably has the best layout for human-scaled, pedestrianized living amongst any big city in the US.
That was hard to read, but after I did, I generally agree with your rankings.
Boston, Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, San Fran (in no order), DC is nice, but not a top 5.
My two other points...
1) Agreed that almost every major European city has a superior downtown compared to cities in the US.
2) New York offers quite an amazing dense urban experience, but it is hard to compare to Mexico City for a few reasons...
First, New York is essentially the worlds capital city, very wealthy and very powerful so the built environment and landscape between the two cities are very different.
Next, Mexico City is extremely dense, people living in tiny small quarters, and many neighborhoods have a hodge-podge of little dwellings with tons of people stuffed into them.
Finally, Mexico City is (what I would consider) a transitioning/ 2nd world city (if there is such a thing). So the dynamic would naturally make Mexico City more overwhelming from a street level perspective due to the different growth patterns/ lack of zoning, building regulations and poorer populous.
That being said, I still loved Mexico City when I spent 3 days there. Such an interesting streetscape with a surprising amount of public spaces and historic sites, and actually the 2nd highest concentration of museums behind Paris.
However, New York (especially Manhattan) offers a unique street level experience that I still have not found replicated anywhere else in the world, its quite an experience.
1st off, sorry about the spacing as a couple other posters have commented. I am working on a doctoral dissertation which I spend all too much time procrastinating for on here (make me stop), and I wanted to take a study break, but also not too long of one, and so what ended up happening was just a rapid stream of consciousness that I never edited afterhand though I intended to, something else came up.
I had actually heard Mexico City had the most museums of any city in the world? Perhaps that has changed recently but at last check they had like 180 or so. Mind boggling, and you're right, 2nd world is a good term, but all the different personalities of the place made it truly endearing, like a place where you get 8 different cities in one almost.
I completely agree that New York City is an impressive place by world standards and I need to get there and spend more time. But what specifically about it do you find unique on a world scale? Of course, the power and wealth and culture concentrated there is impressive, but those are somewhat known commodities too. Is it the sheer continuous nature of it all? I was in Mexico City in late March, and Tokyo, Hong Kong and Beijing in June, and so I haven't recent experience there, and the only one that seemed to have a similar continuous intense flow to it like that was Hong Kong. Still though, a number of things in general observation that I found was just shockingly impressive about each of those 3. Similarly, I'd be curious on what other things I would want to look out for that would be unique and impressive of that nature.
I've seen a couple of posts about Washington DC and how it belongs. I guess it depends on what were asking. Are we talking about the city regions as a whole and urban cores? Then yes, I think DC would most certainly usurp SF. But, if we are talking about just downtowns as the thread mentions, things like concentration of power, the surrounding neighborhoods, etc., really aren't quite as pertinent to the specific question. I like DC a lot but I don't know that it has a single, central "hood" that is above all the others, though if I had to say (I haven't been since I was 19 in 2010), Dupont Circle, north of the White House, seems to be filling that role.
I also don't think SF would match Philadelphia or Chicago. In some ways, I feel like while SFs geography is a blessing from a standpoint of tourism and stunning viewpoints/uniqueness of course, I think it also kind of interrupts SFs continuous urban flow. In both Philadelphia and Chicago I get the sense that first off, subway/transit stations are more numerous around the core (though neither has a regional rail network like SF). SF has it's cable car which is unique and charming particularly for the tourist types, but it doesn't seem to really have a consistent way of getting from one end of the downtown core to the other, quickly. Also, you can walk through bustling stretches of Chicago and Philadelphia downtown for a mile or close to two. SF may have an equal number of places like that, but there are certainly gaps between them, and they aren't as similarly bustling as SF is. That's my impression, at least. Citywide, SF may win on walkability statistics, etc. but that is a flawed premise of course because were comparing 46 sqmi of SF to places 3-5 times it's size.
San Francisco, Miami and LA in the future with all those new construction
Miami is moving forward to be certain. But to be honest with you, more of the new construction in Miami seems based upon drawing tourists to downtown (like the 1000 ft. tower going in that won't have any residential units).
I also think hurting Miami is a Sun Belt culture which traditionally hasn't pushed for urban living in the sense that other places do. Miami as a whole is very seriously focused in mall culture and air conditioning, and so I'm not sure I see it ever developing at street level in the way that some other places have, though it will continue to improve and be more urbane than most if not all Sun Belt cities in part due to necessity of building range, and in part due to a unique demographic more open to urban living.
1st off, sorry about the spacing as a couple other posters have commented. I am working on a doctoral dissertation which I spend all too much time procrastinating for on here (make me stop), and I wanted to take a study break, but also not too long of one, and so what ended up happening was just a rapid stream of consciousness that I never edited afterhand though I intended to, something else came up.
I had actually heard Mexico City had the most museums of any city in the world? Perhaps that has changed recently but at last check they had like 180 or so. Mind boggling, and you're right, 2nd world is a good term, but all the different personalities of the place made it truly endearing, like a place where you get 8 different cities in one almost.
I completely agree that New York City is an impressive place by world standards and I need to get there and spend more time. But what specifically about it do you find unique on a world scale? Of course, the power and wealth and culture concentrated there is impressive, but those are somewhat known commodities too. Is it the sheer continuous nature of it all? I was in Mexico City in late March, and Tokyo, Hong Kong and Beijing in June, and so I haven't recent experience there, and the only one that seemed to have a similar continuous intense flow to it like that was Hong Kong. Still though, a number of things in general observation that I found was just shockingly impressive about each of those 3. Similarly, I'd be curious on what other things I would want to look out for that would be unique and impressive of that nature.
I've seen a couple of posts about Washington DC and how it belongs. I guess it depends on what were asking. Are we talking about the city regions as a whole and urban cores? Then yes, I think DC would most certainly usurp SF. But, if we are talking about just downtowns as the thread mentions, things like concentration of power, the surrounding neighborhoods, etc., really aren't quite as pertinent to the specific question. I like DC a lot but I don't know that it has a single, central "hood" that is above all the others, though if I had to say (I haven't been since I was 19 in 2010), Dupont Circle, north of the White House, seems to be filling that role.
I also don't think SF would match Philadelphia or Chicago. In some ways, I feel like while SFs geography is a blessing from a standpoint of tourism and stunning viewpoints/uniqueness of course, I think it also kind of interrupts SFs continuous urban flow. In both Philadelphia and Chicago I get the sense that first off, subway/transit stations are more numerous around the core (though neither has a regional rail network like SF). SF has it's cable car which is unique and charming particularly for the tourist types, but it doesn't seem to really have a consistent way of getting from one end of the downtown core to the other, quickly. Also, you can walk through bustling stretches of Chicago and Philadelphia downtown for a mile or close to two. SF may have an equal number of places like that, but there are certainly gaps between them, and they aren't as similarly bustling as SF is. That's my impression, at least. Citywide, SF may win on walkability statistics, etc. but that is a flawed premise of course because were comparing 46 sqmi of SF to places 3-5 times it's size.
For DC, that’s like saying you haven’t been back to a city since the 1980’s. DC has added about 100,000 people since 2010. By 2020, it will have increased in population by +20%. It’s hard to even remember what DC was like in 2010. You should definitely come back when you get a chance. I’m assuming you don’t even know what Midcity, NOMA, Union Market, Capital Riverfront, The Wharf, Mt. Vernon Triangle, or H Street is since you have been gone since 2010.
Miami has some serious problems in the future. Not sure if the water level problem can be solved, by building more buildings downtown. I've said this before, and anyone who reads, knows it to be fact. You can find numerous articles by scientists on the Internet, that might have more validity than those on this site, who are going to try to deny it. I'm not a scientist, but after reading the various articles, I believe that Miami will be under water in the future. Actually, it's a certainty.
Nothing can compete with NY or maybe even CHI downtown.
Totally agree and these are the originals!! As someone has mentioned San Francisco is really worth mentioning here as well as Philly when you're talking about a true American downtown feeling... Idk, I think Miami is just too new and too beach front condoish to have that true feeling, if you get my meaning. Hey, it's worth mentioning though
1st off, sorry about the spacing as a couple other posters have commented. I am working on a doctoral dissertation which I spend all too much time procrastinating for on here (make me stop), and I wanted to take a study break, but also not too long of one, and so what ended up happening was just a rapid stream of consciousness that I never edited afterhand though I intended to, something else came up.
I had actually heard Mexico City had the most museums of any city in the world? Perhaps that has changed recently but at last check they had like 180 or so. Mind boggling, and you're right, 2nd world is a good term, but all the different personalities of the place made it truly endearing, like a place where you get 8 different cities in one almost.
I completely agree that New York City is an impressive place by world standards and I need to get there and spend more time. But what specifically about it do you find unique on a world scale? Of course, the power and wealth and culture concentrated there is impressive, but those are somewhat known commodities too. Is it the sheer continuous nature of it all? I was in Mexico City in late March, and Tokyo, Hong Kong and Beijing in June, and so I haven't recent experience there, and the only one that seemed to have a similar continuous intense flow to it like that was Hong Kong. Still though, a number of things in general observation that I found was just shockingly impressive about each of those 3. Similarly, I'd be curious on what other things I would want to look out for that would be unique and impressive of that nature.
I've seen a couple of posts about Washington DC and how it belongs. I guess it depends on what were asking. Are we talking about the city regions as a whole and urban cores? Then yes, I think DC would most certainly usurp SF. But, if we are talking about just downtowns as the thread mentions, things like concentration of power, the surrounding neighborhoods, etc., really aren't quite as pertinent to the specific question. I like DC a lot but I don't know that it has a single, central "hood" that is above all the others, though if I had to say (I haven't been since I was 19 in 2010), Dupont Circle, north of the White House, seems to be filling that role.
I also don't think SF would match Philadelphia or Chicago. In some ways, I feel like while SFs geography is a blessing from a standpoint of tourism and stunning viewpoints/uniqueness of course, I think it also kind of interrupts SFs continuous urban flow. In both Philadelphia and Chicago I get the sense that first off, subway/transit stations are more numerous around the core (though neither has a regional rail network like SF). SF has it's cable car which is unique and charming particularly for the tourist types, but it doesn't seem to really have a consistent way of getting from one end of the downtown core to the other, quickly. Also, you can walk through bustling stretches of Chicago and Philadelphia downtown for a mile or close to two. SF may have an equal number of places like that, but there are certainly gaps between them, and they aren't as similarly bustling as SF is. That's my impression, at least. Citywide, SF may win on walkability statistics, etc. but that is a flawed premise of course because were comparing 46 sqmi of SF to places 3-5 times it's size.
depending on how you label downtown (and admittedly highly extended version to downtown in SF as an area of centrality) is basically the northeast corner...east from Van Ness, north from Mission Bay....has narrow streets and extremely narrow sidewalks in many areas. And in the densest parts...Union Sq, the financial district on Montgomery, the Tenderloin, Nob Hill, etc., areas with either tall or midrise structures, there is a strong feel of what you described as "bustle". And then there is Chinatown...where "bustle" morphs into "teaming"....talk about a place alive with life.
The only part of Center City that is truly 'gritty' is Chinatown and by extension Market East north of Market Street. Market East is obviously all under construction with a redesigned mall opening late next year and another two tower mixed use complex across the street that is opening this year. Chinatown is Chinatown. It's a crazy little place with so much character and street activity.
I could go on forever about why I love living where I live, but I won't. I will just say Philly has a great food scene, great nightlife, and great cultural options (museums/music/comedy/theater/etc.). It's also the least expensive city in terms of rent/purchasing a condo/house out of the ones being mentioned. Philadelphia's history is also second to none.
It's spelt B-o-s-t-o-n not n-o-n-e.
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.
