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 don't really think so. depends how you define it but I would say both Philly and SF have denser CBDs than DC
If we go by official US fire code (7 stories or 115’) DC has more high rises than both Philly & San Francisco
DC’s CBD is massively larger than both even without proper skyscrapers. It has to be when outside of Manhattan it supports the largest commuter work influx of any US city.
If we go by official US fire code (7 stories or 115’) DC has more high rises than both Philly & San Francisco
DC’s CBD is massively larger than both even without proper skyscrapers. It has to be when outside of Manhattan it supports the largest commuter work influx of any US city.
Is that the CBD or is it the whole city? If you have a link please provide. but i also have to note you are going by number of buildings and not taking their height into account
I edited my last post, it doesn't take bldg height or square footage into account. so im not buying it
Yes it does take building height into account, and it's a well known fact that DC has the 3rd (or second) largest CBD by square footage
The US fire-code marks a high rise as anything +7 floors. Emporis puts it a 12 floors/115' and by that metric DC has more high-rise that most US cities directly due to its height restrictions
First, office stats aren't counted very accurately or in parallel. It's a misconception, generally by people not in commercial real estate...brokerage stats aren't for comparing inventories. Different geographic standards, different types of space they include, different percentage of buildings included, and so on.
Second, CBDs include uses other that offices. Especially ones that aren't Downtown DC.
First, office stats aren't counted very accurately or in parallel. It's a misconception, generally by people not in commercial real estate...brokerage stats aren't for comparing inventories. Different geographic standards, different types of space they include, different percentage of buildings included, and so on.
Second, CBDs include uses other that offices. Especially ones that aren't Downtown DC.
I took the luxury of composing a same scale overhead shot of both Chicago & DC's CBD's to give you a sense of how physically large DC has become.... and I'm about as anti-DC-boost as they come.
Chicago's core is structurally denser because it obviously can stack skyscrapers next to each others. But because of DC's height limits, outside of Manhattan you're not finding longer continues urban canyons because lateral sprawl. DC's CBD is not one dimensional anymore, it's just as mixed-use and varied as any other big US city, the government just happens to be it's largest "tenant"
The sheer size gap between other US cities and the above two, makes their relative density trivial in the grand scheme of things. Outside of NYC, no other US cities play in the same league as Chi-town and DC when it specifically comes to the size, scope & density of their CBD's (despite them being at the two extreme ends of the height scale)
I think it's a given that Chicago is much larger in square footage.
Who's biggest in offices might be in question. But not who's biggest overall.
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.
