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.
I guess we need to redifine core...you act like I haven’t been to dc. There are absolute gaps in vibrancy between all these nodes of activity that you refer to. To me “core” means urban area of continuous vibrancy. If we define core by active nodes regardless of whether they are interrupted then I may as well say Boston’s core runs to Jamaica plan, Harvard st Brighton, moody st Waltham, newton, chestnut hill, heck even Salem. There are mixed use developments going up in what had classically been defined as suburbs on the 128 corridor. You don’t need shiny mixed use buildings to equal vibrancy either...id take DuPont and Georgetown over those monotonous glass slabs downtown dc any day of the week but obviously that way of building is a thing of the past
The neighborhoods I listed all touch the core and have massive developments moving that will bring intense vibrancy to their neighborhoods. They include:
Having a lot of people doesn’t equal vibrant. I think that’s what everyone is talking about throughout the thread. You need mixed use activity centers which DC is always going to win in. We just have more. It’s because we’re a newer city. A lot of Boston will never be mixed use because it’s older.
[quote=MDAllstar;52842267]
Quote:
Originally Posted by btownboss4
Well, it’s not more people because DC is bigger than Boston. It gets more tourists and anchors a much larger metro areas of over 6 million people. That’s another reason DC’s core can be bigger than Boston while still being as busy if not more. The same goes for Chicago’s core and NYC’s core. A much larger population pool to pull from not to mention more tourists.
I love these two posts. Having a lot of people doesn't equal vibrant and then talking about how DC has more people.
I love these two posts. Having a lot of people doesn't equal vibrant and then talking about how DC has more people.
I love the post they I was responding to even better:
[quote=btownboss4;52842035]
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDAllstar
I don't mean Back Bay/ FiDi, I mean the entire inner core is 930,000 people in 62 sq miles in the inner core of Boston.
As if cities like DC and NYC that pull people in from all over like tourists etc. have only people living in the city walking around their streets. You do realize that in a place like DC, a lot of people walking around the city don’t even live here. The same goes for NYC. That poster tried to make a point that having higher density in a large area means that area should be more vibrant which may be true for a city like Boston, but not a city like DC with tourists from all over the nation and world 12 months a year. We have people from all over our metro area that come into the city regardless of how far they live from DC. Since we have more people in our metro area to pull from at any given time, we do have more people especially combined with tourists. This will always be true.
My point was mainly about retail being the reason places are vibrant. That goes for a mixed use street, suburban shopping TOD, suburban shopping mall etc. You need an anchor that attracts people. Only retail can do that. That’s why you need massive mixed use developments like Seaport in Boston or The Wharf in DC to get vibrancy.
Last edited by MDAllstar; 08-19-2018 at 09:11 AM..
I love the post they I was responding to even better:
Quote:
Originally Posted by btownboss4
As if cities like DC and NYC that pull people in from all over like tourists etc. have only people living in the city walking around their streets. You do realize that in a place like DC, a lot of people walking around the city don’t even live here. The same goes for NYC. That poster tried to make a point that having higher density in a large area means that area should be more vibrant which may be true for a city like Boston, but not a city like DC with tourists from all over the nation and world 12 months a year. We have people from all over our metro area that come into the city regardless of how far they live from DC.
As if D.C. has 150,000 more tourists/day than Boston does?
According to this D.C. only get marginally more visitors/year.
400,000/year would be only 2-3k/day at most during peak season.
DC gets way more day trip tourists than Boston. That’s the biggest subset of tourist for any city. Those are also the people walking around including people from the suburbs that come in to party, shop, or eat. This is why people say DC is more vibrant. Our brunch scene, day party scene, and nightlife scene is on a different level.
DC gets way more day trip tourists than Boston. That’s the biggest subset of tourist for any city. Those are also the people walking around including people from the suburbs that come in to party, shop, or eat. This is why people say DC is more vibrant. Our brunch scene, day party scene, and nightlife scene is on a different level.
The neighborhoods I listed all touch the core and have massive developments moving that will bring intense vibrancy to their neighborhoods. They include:
If youre calling benning road and hill east core than I can absolutely call Brighton landing mixed use developments, south end Albany and Harrison mixed use developments, various Cambridge and Somerville new mixed use, Suffolk downs mixed use, Dorchester ave mixed use core as well. I’ve been including land area of continuous vibrancy from about museum of fine arts Huntington down to Boylston/Newbury over gardens/common, theatre district/Chinatown/downtown crossing, Faneuil Hall through north end to north and downtown seaport boulevard further south. This is about 3.5 miles of continuous activity/vibrancy from west to east. To the north mass ave from Boylston to central square Cambridge is about 2 miles of continuous vibrancy north and Charles st through Kendall woiluld be another connector of continuous daytime vibrancy. If I expand based on nodes then I would include Brighton, south Boston near broadway, south end on Tremont and now Harrison/Washington, northpoint, assembly row etc. I was not originally including this as core
DC gets way more day trip tourists than Boston. That’s the biggest subset of tourist for any city. Those are also the people walking around including people from the suburbs that come in to party, shop, or eat. This is why people say DC is more vibrant. Our brunch scene, day party scene, and nightlife scene is on a different level.
If dc was significantly more dense than Boston as Boston is more dense than dc you wouldn’t be saying that density has nothing to do with vibrancy..
I love the post they I was responding to even better:
Quote:
Originally Posted by btownboss4
As if cities like DC and NYC that pull people in from all over like tourists etc. have only people living in the city walking around their streets. You do realize that in a place like DC, a lot of people walking around the city don’t even live here. The same goes for NYC. That poster tried to make a point that having higher density in a large area means that area should be more vibrant which may be true for a city like Boston, but not a city like DC with tourists from all over the nation and world 12 months a year. We have people from all over our metro area that come into the city regardless of how far they live from DC. Since we have more people in our metro area to pull from at any given time, we do have more people especially combined with tourists. This will always be true.
My point was mainly about retail being the reason places are vibrant. That goes for a mixed use street, suburban shopping TOD, suburban shopping mall etc. You need an anchor that attracts people. Only retail can do that. That’s why you need massive mixed use developments like Seaport in Boston or The Wharf in DC to get vibrancy.
Boston doesn’t get tourists from all over America? American revolution mean anything to you?
If dc was significantly more dense than Boston as Boston is more dense than dc you wouldn’t be saying that density has nothing to do with vibrancy..
It's true though that residential population density, in and of itself, doesn't guarantee vibrancy. Sure, everything else being equal, you'd expect an area with 40k ppsm to be more vibrant than one with 20k ppsm. But often times everything else is not equal.
Central London is one of the most vibrant places in the western world even though its densest boroughs clock in at somewhat pedestrian 30k ppsm -- around the same as Lakeview in Chicago and Back Bay in Boston. Why? Because it's a huge political and financial center and one of the most touristy places on earth. So you do have to take the totality of factors into account.
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.
