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.
You bring up an interesting point that I often point out when people complain about DC’s height limit. I can almost guarantee if DC lacked height limits, it would be less urban than it is right now and certainly less urban than it will be in the future based on the cities long term pipeline.
DC may not have buildings taller than 15 stories, but DC is by far built taller over a much larger area than almost all cities except NYC and maybe Chicago because of height limits and zoning. To grow, DC has to build much taller very far from the center of the city. The result is high-rises for miles upon miles and growing. People need to ask themselves, would you rather a small downtown only 1 mile by 1 mile or an urban core that is 5 miles by 5 miles with many buildings ranging from 9-15 stories?
It’s a trade off, but it creates an extremely vibrant and urban city over a much longer distance and growing.
I think you’re vastly overestimating how much space is in these buildings. Like 5x5 is 25x larger than 1x1. So an “equal” built area space of 25sq miles of 14 floor buildings (which is laughable large even for DC) you’d need 1 sq miles of 350 floor buildings, which don’t exist.
Like you’re talking about some extra buildings but it’s like 3 vs 4 sq miles not 1 vs 25
It’s also not like Newbury Street in Boston is “suburban” despite being 5 floors or so along its length.
I think you’re vastly overestimating how much space is in these buildings. Like 5x5 is 25x larger than 1x1. So an “equal” built area space of 25sq miles of 14 floor buildings (which is laughable large even for DC) you’d need 1 sq miles of 350 floor buildings, which don’t exist.
Like you’re talking about some extra buildings but it’s like 3 vs 4 sq miles not 1 vs 25
It’s also not like Newbury Street in Boston is “suburban” despite being 5 floors or so along its length.
Did you even read what I said?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDAllstar
You bring up an interesting point that I often point out when people complain about DC’s height limit. I can almost guarantee if DC lacked height limits, it would be less urban than it is right now and certainly less urban than it will be in the future based on the cities long term pipeline.
DC may not have buildings taller than 15 stories, but DC is by far built taller over a much larger area than almost all cities except NYC and maybe Chicago because of height limits and zoning. To grow, DC has to build much taller very far from the center of the city. The result is high-rises for miles upon miles and growing. People need to ask themselves, would you rather a small downtown only 1 mile by 1 mile or an urban core that is 5 miles by 5 miles with many buildings ranging from 9-15 stories?
It’s a trade off, but it creates an extremely vibrant and urban city over a much longer distance and growing.
I didn't say every building in that 5X5 sq. mile urban core was 9-15 stories. I said many buildings in that footprint are 9-15 stories which they are. How well do you know DC?
Philadelphia, Boston, San Francisco, LA, etc. etc. etc. have much taller buildings, but vastly smaller urban cores. Zoning probably plays a role in that too. The other point I was making is the outward growth of DC's urban core. There is an entire midtown area in DC being built way up by Shaw/Petworth right now around Howard University. There is another downtown area being built in the new Bridge District east of the river by Anacostia. If a city can't build up, it has to build out. The crazy thing is the way DC builds their buildings also adds more units than cities without height limits which can be seen below:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDAllstar
The densest neighborhood by block group in DC is downtown in Mt. Vernon Triangle with 4 block groups over 100,000 people per square mile:
Downtown DC (Mt. Vernon Triangle) Census Block Groups
1. 167,715.9 people per square mile
2. 153,403.4 people per square mile
3. 150,188.3 people per square mile
4. 130,359.9 people per square mile
No city outside NYC has this level of density. Blocks with this level of density are spreading across Northwest One, NOMA, Union Market, Buzzard Point, Navy Yard, The Wharf/waterfront Station, and Howard University/U Street/Shaw. We may eventually see some downtown DC blocks join the mix from office-to-residential conversion in the future.
Last edited by MDAllstar; 08-25-2022 at 09:51 AM..
I didn't say every building in that 5X5 sq. mile urban core was 9-15 stories. I said many buildings in that footprint are 9-15 stories which they are. How well do you know DC?
Yes but what I am saying a 12-15 floor buildings are not 1/25th the size of a normal skyscraper, it’s more like 1/3. Considering structural elements, you’re probably talking a 45 floor building has double the sq feet of a 15 floor one. And those 45 floor buildings are usually on the higher end of skyscrapers everyone outside New York, maybe Chicago
Yes but what I am saying a 12-15 floor buildings are not 1/25th the size of a normal skyscraper, it’s more like 1/3. Considering structural elements, you’re probably talking a 45 floor building has double the sq feet of a 15 floor one. And those 45 floor buildings are usually on the higher end of skyscrapers everyone outside New York, maybe Chicago
Ok, even if the downtown DC area would be bigger than 1X1, it still would be a fraction of what it is now and it definitely wouldn't be growing outward like it is now. Cities that allow skyscrapers don't build 9-15 story buildings miles from their downtown that I know of. Which city are you referring to?
Ok, even if the downtown DC area would be bigger than 1X1, it still would be a fraction of what it is now and it definitely wouldn't be growing outward like it is now. Cities that allow skyscrapers don't build 9-15 story buildings miles from their downtown that I know of. Which city are you referring to?
DC really doesn’t either. You’re talking more like an urban core ~25% larger not 25x larger than it would be with skyscrapers .
In “Boston” the Encore/Assembly to the Seaport is about 4.5 miles, then the Seaport out to Longwood is about 4 miles.
The 150 buildings for Austin that I counted on Emporis is for buildings starting at 9-10 floors and above. I just noticed I left that out on my last post.
Anyhow, like I said, I question the 300 plus completed buildings 12 floors and above because they are not all listed by name on Emporis. I can attest to this because I specifically counted each and every listed structure for San Antonio and Austin to see which city has more high rises overall 9-10 floors and above. I included 9 story buildings as well because they are some 9 floor buildings that are taller than some 10 floor structures and decided that would be a good starting point.
Again, San Antonio has more according to Emporis if you look at the list and each page of building names. The buildings are from tallest to shortest and San Antonio's has considerably more midrise and high rises than Austin but definitely less over 300ft. If Austin does have over 300 plus buildings above 12 floors they are not listed by name on Emporis or Wikipedia.
Another indicator that S.A. has more is merely looking at the metro total inventory square footage of office space. S.A. has more office space inventory as well as across all other commercial sectors by a significant amount.
I could not find Austin's total multifamily units for the entire metro but I would assume it is less than San Antonio's citywide/metro total but obviously has more residential component in the CBD.
Austin for sure has far more skyscrapers but less infill of the smaller scale buildings in the urban core and citywide total. San Antonio is more urbanized and dense within each cities respective Urbanized Area both covering about 500 sq. mi according to census bureau. San Antonio having upward of 2.1 million versus 1.7 million for Austin. More people equates to more glass, steel and stone so to speak.
My argument simply suggests that S.A. has more high rise building stock overall although in the form of smaller scale buildings and the total office space inventory reflects that notion.
I understand you love your city. But as someone who just moved to SA from Austin, and as someone who enjoys SA more than Austin and its CBD more than Austin's, you are completely wrong, (respectfully). In its core, Austin is a much more dense, urban, taller city. Downtown, West Campus, E 6th, South Lamar, South Congress, and E Riverside are far more urban than anything SA has to offer. This doesn't include the urban areas of Mueller, Highland, the Domain, the Triangle, or the up and coming St. Elmo area. SA has some urban blocks, the Pearl which is really starting to become a formidable urban pocket, and countless suburban highway highrises along 10 and 410, but it is in no way, shape, or form more urban, dense, or bigger than Austin. Austin has numerous walkable areas and has many residents without vehicles. It would be just about impossible to live in SA without a car, nor have I met one. I have Uber/Lyft'ed all over both cities, giving rides to all kinds of people, and the two just don't compare. SA and Austin are actually just two very different cities. SA as a whole feels bigger, with a large sprawling "urban" area. Austin is very small east to west and has limited highrises outside of downtown and the Domain. Outside of its urban pockets, it still feels like a smaller city.
With that said, SA has so much more history, culture, architectural beauty, attractive grittiness, and pride than Austin could ever wish of having. This is what makes me love San Antonio. It doesn't have the biggest or the most buildings. But it does have so many intricately detailed historical buildings, churches, missions, with amazing architecture. I find way more things to photograph and film here in SA than I ever could in Austin. You can feel the history and the soul of the city as you walk around downtown. It is truly inspiring and empowers your creative energy. You don't get that feeling in downtown Austin... or really in any part of Austin for that matter. Everything is so new, so sleek, so... generic. Hardly any history remains there. The culture is lost within the explosive cookie-cutter growth and influx of people from across the country who move there, diluting the culture and history of the city. The pride of the city in Austin doesn't feel genuine and feels forced.
Anyways, the fact of the matter is Austin has more highrises, Austin has a taller skyline, Austin is more urban/ dense, and that is fine. SA has so many other benefits and advantages that are much more important than just some tall buildings, that Austin could never have. I just hope SA never makes the same mistakes Austin has and never demolishes or redevelops away its history.
DC really doesn’t either. You’re talking more like an urban core ~25% larger not 25x larger than it would be with skyscrapers .
In “Boston” the Encore/Assembly to the Seaport is about 4.5 miles, then the Seaport out to Longwood is about 4 miles.
Huh? This is why I asked how well you know DC. All these developments have buildings ranging from 9-15 stories and they are miles from the center of the city. There are way more than this, but here are some examples:
How do you think DC is going to accomplish this below without building 9-15 story high-rises all the way to the Maryland line? The point is, DC's urban core will never stop growing outward because it can't grow upward to the sky like other cities. Height limits are creating this.
I understand you love your city. But as someone who just moved to SA from Austin, and as someone who enjoys SA more than Austin and its CBD more than Austin's, you are completely wrong, (respectfully). In its core, Austin is a much more dense, urban, taller city. Downtown, West Campus, E 6th, South Lamar, South Congress, and E Riverside are far more urban than anything SA has to offer. This doesn't include the urban areas of Mueller, Highland, the Domain, the Triangle, or the up and coming St. Elmo area. SA has some urban blocks, the Pearl which is really starting to become a formidable urban pocket, and countless suburban highway highrises along 10 and 410, but it is in no way, shape, or form more urban, dense, or bigger than Austin. **cut for brevity**
Well said and a really great comparison between the 2 cities.
Austin has really grown so explosively and boomed so rapidly in the past decade or so. A result of that is Austin losing a lot of its character.
I was just in Austin in March, and had such an amazing time. But there's definitely growing pains and a huge amount of bland, brand new condo and apartment towers everywhere.
Austin is probably one of the top cities in the US right now that's undergoing the most radical change.
I understand you love your city. But as someone who just moved to SA from Austin, and as someone who enjoys SA more than Austin and its CBD more than Austin's, you are completely wrong, (respectfully). In its core, Austin is a much more dense, urban, taller city. Downtown, West Campus, E 6th, South Lamar, South Congress, and E Riverside are far more urban than anything SA has to offer. This doesn't include the urban areas of Mueller, Highland, the Domain, the Triangle, or the up and coming St. Elmo area. SA has some urban blocks, the Pearl which is really starting to become a formidable urban pocket, and countless suburban highway highrises along 10 and 410, but it is in no way, shape, or form more urban, dense, or bigger than Austin. Austin has numerous walkable areas and has many residents without vehicles. It would be just about impossible to live in SA without a car, nor have I met one. I have Uber/Lyft'ed all over both cities, giving rides to all kinds of people, and the two just don't compare. SA and Austin are actually just two very different cities. SA as a whole feels bigger, with a large sprawling "urban" area. Austin is very small east to west and has limited highrises outside of downtown and the Domain. Outside of its urban pockets, it still feels like a smaller city.
With that said, SA has so much more history, culture, architectural beauty, attractive grittiness, and pride than Austin could ever wish of having. This is what makes me love San Antonio. It doesn't have the biggest or the most buildings. But it does have so many intricately detailed historical buildings, churches, missions, with amazing architecture. I find way more things to photograph and film here in SA than I ever could in Austin. You can feel the history and the soul of the city as you walk around downtown. It is truly inspiring and empowers your creative energy. You don't get that feeling in downtown Austin... or really in any part of Austin for that matter. Everything is so new, so sleek, so... generic. Hardly any history remains there. The culture is lost within the explosive cookie-cutter growth and influx of people from across the country who move there, diluting the culture and history of the city. The pride of the city in Austin doesn't feel genuine and feels forced.
Anyways, the fact of the matter is Austin has more highrises, Austin has a taller skyline, Austin is more urban/ dense, and that is fine. SA has so many other benefits and advantages that are much more important than just some tall buildings, that Austin could never have. I just hope SA never makes the same mistakes Austin has and never demolishes or redevelops away its history.
I agree that Austin has the taller skyline and is building density at a faster rate and is more architecturally dense in certain areas. It doesn't however have the larger urban core as far as footprint. San Antonio has more urban districts in the central city than Austin. S.A. has more inner city commercial districts/corridors than Austin. Why wouldn't it is a much older city? San Antonio has over 20 historic inner city districts/neighborhoods that are listed on the national registry that have elements or urbanity.
I will post the thread that lists the inner city populations of U.S. cities indicating that San Antonio's central city has over 220K or so don't recall that exact amount. S.A.'s central city population is a little less than Houston's but more than Dallas' and Austin's. Austin's central city is under 200k.
San Antonio also has Domain type new urbanism style developments out in the suburbs. San Antonio is far more than just the Pearl District. There are several planned Pearl like districts in the urban core; Essex Modern City, East End, Broadway East, Lone Star, and Hemisfair Park which is currently under redevelopment.
Last edited by SweethomeSanAntonio; 08-25-2022 at 03:39 PM..
Huh? This is why I asked how well you know DC. All these developments have buildings ranging from 9-15 stories and they are miles from the center of the city. There are way more than this, but here are some examples:
How do you think DC is going to accomplish this below without building 9-15 story high-rises all the way to the Maryland line? The point is, DC's urban core will never stop growing outward because it can't grow upward to the sky like other cities. Height limits are creating this.
You are vastly overestimating the amount of space above 15 floors in most major cities. It’s a marginal difference not a fundamental one
Like even in Boston, the Fenway, Seaport, Assembly, East Cambridge, Kendall is growing now really the central core. If you look at total sq feet.
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.
