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.
The current thread was not created by the OP to have DC be a topic discussed here. DC and it's 486 high rise buildings do not exist nor do any urban canyons.
-Regards
The International Conference on Fire Safety in High-Rise Buildings - defined a high-rise as "any structure where the height can have a serious impact on evacuation" In the U.S., the National Fire Protection Association defines a high-rise as being higher than 75 feet (23 meters), or about 7 stories.
Emporis Standards - defines a high-rise as "A multi-story structure between 35–100 meters tall, or a building of unknown height from 12–39 floors.
So much of DC elevation is as high-rise in its highest walled examples. To me they count and plenty of examples can be as a canyon IMO. There is enough warrant to me for DC still even if specified to be taller for the thread.
The lessening some get into caused more chatter on DC and on what you said of even a Chicago as a wider main city core street cannot count? and the river canyon could not inferred.
You added strife that kept DC and other things going. Chicago was a top city the OP excluded as a given. Yet you went into the street-width argument I got caught up in.
So share the blame too.
And you continue it.... YOU ARE. ⬇⬇⬇
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 LordHelmit
You're definitely responsible for about 9 pages of DC centric discussion, so this is an interesting post for you to suddenly make. You are correct, DC and its 486 dictionary-definition "high rises" do not COUNT (they definitely exist) or contribute to ANY urban canyons.
I like Boston because you get surrounded by buildings due to the lack of street grid. It gives a claustrophobic feel that really masks you feeel small. You can be so tightly boxed in by sky scrapers, it’s cool. More urban “walls” than “canyons” Pittsburgh is like a smaller Boston in that regard.
Yea, downtown Boston, financial district Manhattan, and downtown Pittsburgh have that narrow, irregular streets with tall buildings of different eras which is pretty neat
Let me drive to Baltimore or Philly to go find one.
Correct, no canyon there. If you want to keep proving my point for me with your many examples, go on ahead! Have you ever been to any other cities? Like NY, Chicago, LA, SF, etc?
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 ThinkPositiveRespect
The International Conference on Fire Safety in High-Rise Buildings - defined a high-rise as "any structure where the height can have a serious impact on evacuation" In the U.S., the National Fire Protection Association defines a high-rise as being higher than 75 feet (23 meters), or about 7 stories.
Emporis Standards - defines a high-rise as "A multi-story structure between 35–100 meters tall, or a building of unknown height from 12–39 floors.
So much of DC elevation is as high-rise in its highest walled examples. To me they count and plenty of examples can be as a canyon IMO. There is enough warrant to me for DC still even if specified to be taller for the thread.
The lessening some get into caused more chatter on DC and on what you said of even a Chicago as a wider main city core street cannot count? and the river canyon could not inferred.
You added strife that kept DC and other things going. Chicago was a top city the OP excluded as a given. Yet you went into the street-width argument I got caught up in.
So share the blame too.
And you continue it.... YOU ARE. ⬇⬇⬇
It's not about blame really, but I appreciate your logic being used in the thread. Many people were just coming up with there own definitions on spot as the thread has gone along, so my counters were only to that. To take the subjectivity out of things I created a separate thread for what I and MDAllStar were referring to, and what we consider as either urban canyons or high rise clusters. This thread was created by the OP to exclude DC from these discussions, and set an arbitrary standard mid thread on required building heights in order to be involved here.
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 LordHelmit
Correct, no canyon there. If you want to keep proving my point for me with your many examples, go on ahead! Have you ever been to any other cities? Like NY, Chicago, LA, SF, etc?
I've been to tons of cities, including the major ones in this country as well as Europe, South America, and Asia. If you read up thread you would have seen posts and examples from Boston and SF that were no more of an urban canyon of high rises by definition than the latest example I just posted from Washington.
DC has more “canyons” than Baltimore but Baltimore’s downtown has taller buildings, finer architecture and is more cool/edgy-authentic.
urban “walls” can be more impressive than Canyons-most notably Pittsburgh, but Baltimore has some too.
You and I agree on this, I'm not going to sit here and debate the aesthetics of much the office buildings of downtown DC being top tier. The OP wasn't based on aesthetics though, so...
The thread is about which cities have the most... not which one is the most personally aesthetically pleasing or the most impressive.
At the end of the day DC has high-rises (by multiple clear cut official definitions), their just not tall ones. Which in itself is a vague term since "tall" is a relative term not absolute. To that, outside of NYC & Chicago... DC has the most urban canyon's due to its unique zoning codes and height regulations which necessitate extreme lateral development rather than hyper centric vertical development.
99% of major cities have taller urban canyons then DC, but that doest not mean they have more. The end.
I'm far more interested on peoples thoughts comparing Philly/SF/Boston and Seattle/Baltimore
At the end of the day DC has high-rises (by multiple clear cut official definitions)
What official definitions would call a 110ft building a highrise?
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.
and the river canyon could not inferred. 
