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 would say Boston. DC has such wide streets and the layout doesn't make it feel as frenetic and fast-paced as Boston. Boston is a classic northeastern city with tighter streets and it "feels" a lot more tight, dense, and frenetic.
I agree with this. I'll also add that D.C.'s vibrancy is a lot more pockmarked.
There's a massive crush of tourists on the National Mall, and a massive crush of locals in Georgetown/Shaw/Adams Morgan/Columbia Heights, but then you have lots of dead spots in between.
Immediately south of the National Mall is L'Enfant Plaza, which feels extremely dead until you suddenly arrive in Navy Yard again which is buzzing. To get to the Wharf District from National Mall is another fun spectacle of crossing seedy roads, or dodging traffic near the highways.
You'll have the entire Orange Line Corridor full of bargoers, then a huge gap of suburban sprawl before you get the TOD in Pentagon City/Crystal City/Old Town, etc.
I think Boston's development is a lot more cohesive and less nodal, which gives the illusion of a bigger core and a less vibrant DC core.
Not sure what TOD means, but if it's referring to vibrant street life, Rockville is definitely NOT a good example. Downtown Rockville and Rockville town center is about vanilla as it gets, and the rundown sprawl of endless strip malls on decaying Rockville Pike add nothing to the vibrancy.....
Accurate, it is very vanilla. I've been to downtown Rockville on numerous occasions. It just feels more urbane/interesting/vibrant because there's a lot of people from relatively niche asian and central American countries there-its diverse. If it weren't ethnically diverse, it wouldn't be a notable place. They place make like 4 streets really well and new construction looks nice.
Not sure what TOD means, but if it's referring to vibrant street life, Rockville is definitely NOT a good example. Downtown Rockville and Rockville town center is about vanilla as it gets, and the rundown sprawl of endless strip malls on decaying Rockville Pike add nothing to the vibrancy.....
I didn’t say Rockville was amazing.
It’s way down the list of TOD developments near metro but I meant to say compared to most transit agencies, Rockville has way more TOD than average it seems. Bland or not.
Most transit stations seem to be parking lots beyond a few stations in a CBD (in the US)
It’s way down the list of TOD developments near metro but I meant to say compared to most transit agencies, Rockville has way more TOD than average it seems. Bland or not.
Most transit stations seem to be parking lots beyond a few stations in a CBD (in the US)
I understand. I wasn't following what your acronym TOD meant (which KodeBlue later explained), so I wasn't sure whether you were referring to vibrancy or something else.
I've lived in both and voted for DC, but they're very similar with subway suburbs like Brookline, Cambridge, Bethesda, and Arlington. Could go either way, but DC's gotten more vibrant in recent years with Navy Yard, Logan Circle and other gentrifying neighborhoods. DC's neighborhoods connect to each other better now, which Boston's have for a long time. I've walked from Clarendon to Capitol Hill and Brighton to downtown Boston. A lot of energy and great rowhouse neighborhoods in both.
I've lived in both and voted for DC, but they're very similar with subway suburbs like Brookline, Cambridge, Bethesda, and Arlington. Could go either way, but DC's gotten more vibrant in recent years with Navy Yard, Logan Circle and other gentrifying neighborhoods. DC's neighborhoods connect to each other better now, which Boston's have for a long time. I've walked from Clarendon to Capitol Hill and Brighton to downtown Boston. A lot of energy and great rowhouse neighborhoods in both.
And Alexandria too. Alexandria is pretty vibrant outside DC.
This is a tough one with DC having a lot of mid-rise streetwalls formed by buildings at the DC height limit, but Boston with some skyscrapers and a lot of fairly narrow streets which condenses things quite a bit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joakim3
That’s extremely debatable.
DC & Boston’s daytime population density match SF’s and they for sure have the foot traffic to back that up.
It's not like SF would win this by massive margins, but I think it'd be hard to argue that SF isn't more vibrant. Similar daytime population densities, sure, but then SF also has the notably greater residential density.
It's not like SF would win this by massive margins, but I think it'd be hard to argue that SF isn't more vibrant. Similar daytime population densities, sure, but then SF also has the notably greater residential density.
The massive homeless population in SF definitely makes it feel very vibrant too!!
Boston is about 20% denser than DC, and San Francisco is about 23% denser than Boston.
Boston is the only one of these cities with a major airport entirely in city boundaries, also Boston has manyuninhabited Islands, IRL is probably more like 20% less dense than SF IRL.
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.
