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 really can’t see Vancouver and DC being competitive for top 7 in North America. Even top 10 is probably a tough one for either.
I’m turning around on Panama City though-just not sure what gets kicked off between San Francisco and Montreal.
Maybe you’re right, but DC’s urban core is larger than Philadelphia, Boston, and San Francisco. It’s not as intensely built as their downtown’s, but it covers a much larger area. If size is a factor, DC is right behind NYC and Chicago for American cities by land area. I guess it depends what definition the OP wants to use. Unfortunately, the OP didn’t provide one which is exactly how we got here in the first place.
I've been. It's beautiful. For how full of modern skyscrapers the city is, it's actual still pretty urban and high-quality density. It's not so much like a Miami or something like that. And even though the high rise neighborhoods may not be the absolute best examples of quality urban density, Casco Antiguo and other older neighborhoods are very dense.
Where would you put Panama City among US and Canadian cities in terms of how urban its central neighborhoods are?
Maybe you’re right, but DC’s urban core is larger than Philadelphia, Boston, and San Francisco. It’s not as intensely built as their downtown’s but it covers a much larger area. If size is a factor, DC is right behind NYC and Chicago for American cities by shear land area.
I can’t see an argument for DC having a more urban core than any of those three cities, and of those three, I only put SF down as a maybe, so DC is a pretty hard sell. It’s not just height limits limiting density and how urban it is, but also the really broad streets it has and the amount of land reserved for very specific uses only. This isn’t to say DC isn’t urban, but just don’t see a pathway to top 7 most urban core in North America.
I can’t see an argument for DC having a more urban core than any of those three cities, and of those three, I only put SF down as a maybe.
Well, that’s why I said what is the definition we’re using? Are we going by intensity or size? If I start walking, are we asking which city gives way first? If so, DC wins. If we are asking who has the tallest buildings over 14 stories, then DC obviously loses.
Well, that’s why I said what is the definition we’re using? Are we going by intensity or size? If I start walking, are we asking which city gives way first? If so, DC wins. If we are asking who has the tallest buildings over 14 stories, then DC obviously loses.
You mean which city can walk a longest linear path that’s built up, since SF eventually hits the sea on three sides? I can see how that can favor DC, but it’s a pretty odd metric. I also think that really specific things like that then introduce other new cities into the competition. I think if it takes a really tortured criteria to get DC a slot, then it’s probably not really that reasonable.
I can’t see an argument for DC having a more urban core than any of those three cities, and of those three, I only put SF down as a maybe, so DC is a pretty hard sell. It’s not just height limits limiting density and how urban it is, but also the really broad streets it has and the amount of land reserved for very specific uses only. This isn’t to say DC isn’t urban, but just don’t see a pathway to top 7 most urban core in North America.
The wide streets do hurt DC, however, the building boom over the last decade has more than made up for it in sheer size. There are literally entire new neighborhoods that used to be fields. Driving down New York Avenue entering the city right now literally has more cranes in one shot than any city in the nation including Seattle. I need to take a picture for the board. It has to be over 20 cranes in the NOMA/Union Market area.
You mean which city can walk a longest linear path that’s built up, since SF eventually hits the sea on three sides? I can see how that can favor DC, but it’s a pretty odd metric. I also think that really specific things like that then introduce other new cities into the competition. I think if it takes a really tortured criteria to get DC a slot, then it’s probably not really that reasonable.
No, I’m saying if you are walking the urban core of a city and you walk north, then south, east, then west, which will be a beast that never ends and which will end earlier? I can tell most people have never tried to walk across the urban core of DC based on the responses. It goes for miles which isn’t the case in Boston or Philadelphia. In Boston, you hit single family home neighborhoods and in Philadelphia, you hit row-house neighborhoods.
The wide streets do hurt DC, however, the building boom over the last decade has more than made up for it in sheer size. There are literally entire new neighborhoods that used to be fields. Driving down New York Avenue entering the city right now literally has more cranes in one shot than any city in the nation including Seattle. I need to take a picture for the board. It has to be over 20 cranes in the NOMA/Union Market area.
I know there’s been a construction boom in DC, though there’s also been a construction boom in a number of North American cities including ones that started out more urban than DC by most stretches.
What’s the criteria you were looking to use? With that criteria, how would you have ranked the top 7 in North America?
You wanted objective and we started with about 22 square miles more or less due to Manhattan as the basis—so form a comparable area for other parts. I think Chicago’s should be pretty easy. Mexico City’s is going to be a bit tougher since its 16 municipalities are pretty large chunks. What’s the equivalent you’re using for DC?
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
I’m having a hard time seeing Vancouver and DC being competitive for top 7 in North America. Even top 10 is probably a tough one for either.
I’m turning around on Panama City though-just not sure what gets kicked off between San Francisco and Montreal.
I don't think this is what the past few pages is discussing. It's been more of a head to head match up of Vancouver and DC being discussed.
Also Panama City is not close to more urban than Montreal or SF. It's just a sea of high rises, still an urban city, but completely different in type of urbanity. It has a smaller urban core than Santo Domingo. People are falling into deep with skyline here.
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.
