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.
This make's it look very impressive. Especially with the Clock tower like building in the distance, and some of the background towers. I don't know whether this photo looks better than the Seattle one, but the two skylines next to each other always makes a metro area look massive.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,547,924 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joakim3
Bellevue can build taller because DC's metro's is height limits but in terms of sheer density and scope? There are like 4 or 5 DC TOD urban nodes that individually match or exceed Bellevue lol.
Bellevue is very impressive, but it's one cluster. The DC metro area has no buildings above 600' yet, but at least one is on the way. What the DC metro does have is 7 or 8 or maybe more clusters/ TOD nodes of buildings of over 300' if not 400' or right about at the 400 ft mark. And dozens of clusters metro wide with buildings over 250 ft. This may sound like short wimpy skylines to some, but believe me it totally transforms the scale and size/feel of the breadth of a metropolis when you can drive in 20 miles in multiple directions and find "tall buildings".
Reston has two metro stations, Tysons has four metro stations, and all six stations have buildings above 300 ft and some approaching close to 500ft. Arlington itself has 4 different clusters of tall buildings with transit below, and some approaching 400 ft, which is only scraping the surface with HQ2 building now. Alexandria now has 300+ ft building clusters to the south and abutting the beltway. Then you have all of the high rise clusters in existence in Maryland and the ones that are still being built up further.
Visually for me it's Miami and the Bay Area. Geographical barriers are the name of the game.
Miami/South Florida extends lengthwise at a relative high density for a long ways. If you drive 95 South from about West Palm Beach down through Miami itself, it's a unbroken expanse of relatively high density development. You pass right by 3 major international airports, and it seems like there's a pretty consistent view of high rises off to the left for the duration. Of course, the ocean and the Everglades have sort of forced development to be constrained to that narrow stretch, but when you're driving through it feels quite large.
The Bay Area is similarly densely developed over a large area. I remember my first visit expecting Boston and San Francisco to look/feel similar since they are often considered peers, and in the urban core, they kind of do. But the metro areas could not be any more different. The mountains, Bay, and the ocean have constrained development to certain areas and forced higher density development well outside of the city center.
Cities like Boston and Philadelphia can look bigger than they are, especially in the urban core. But they don't maintain the density over a great distance like South Florida or the Bay Area.
Visually for me it's Miami and the Bay Area. Geographical barriers are the name of the game.
Miami/South Florida extends lengthwise at a relative high density for a long ways. If you drive 95 South from about West Palm Beach down through Miami itself, it's a unbroken expanse of relatively high density development. You pass right by 3 major international airports, and it seems like there's a pretty consistent view of high rises off to the left for the duration. Of course, the ocean and the Everglades have sort of forced development to be constrained to that narrow stretch, but when you're driving through it feels quite large.
The Bay Area is similarly densely developed over a large area. I remember my first visit expecting Boston and San Francisco to look/feel similar since they are often considered peers, and in the urban core, they kind of do. But the metro areas could not be any more different. The mountains, Bay, and the ocean have constrained development to certain areas and forced higher density development well outside of the city center.
Cities like Boston and Philadelphia can look bigger than they are, especially in the urban core. But they don't maintain the density over a great distance like South Florida or the Bay Area.
Agree about Miami. Even ignoring Palm Beach County, just from Dadeland to Ft Lauderdale you’ve got 40+ miles of continuous high density development and a number of large clusters. Downtown Coral Gables, Miami, South Beach, Bal Harbor, Aventura/Sunny Isles, Hollywood Beach… it goes on and on. This is what make a city feel big — visually dense urban development over a large area, not never-ending low density sprawl of SFHs with one acre lots. This is why Mexico City feels much bigger than any American city other than NYC and LA (and arguably bigger than both of those as well) even though its urban area is fairly small by U.S. standards.
Here are some of my aerial pictures of DC taken about 15 years ago. I don't have any updated pictures and DC's urban core is obviously about 3 times the size of these pictures now.
Here are some of my aerial pictures of DC taken about 15 years ago. I don't have any updated pictures and DC's urban core is obviously about 3 times the size of these pictures now.
The first picture is west DC straddling the Potomac River by Roosevelt island
The third pic is over a mile away east of what appears to be Franklin Park
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.