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’d definitely say The Bay Area. I’m honestly surprised that it’s not more populated than it is. It seems a little bigger. Haven’t been to Philly or Boston but no other large city in the US seems bigger imo.
The Bay Area as a region feels larger because it’s multi-nodal but as a stand alone city Philly looks & fees physically larger than SF partly due to is lack of geographic constraints and unimpeded grid system
I'd DEFINITELY consider Philly bigger based on walking around. DC's core has busy areas but also wide expanses of park and public buildings that are grand but don't elicit big-city feelings. Philly is purely dense and vibrant.
Go out to secondary centers and the DC has a big edge of course.
The San Francisco area has a combination of a big, consistently vibrant core and an array of major secondary cores.
I'd DEFINITELY consider Philly bigger based on walking around. DC's core has busy areas but also wide expanses of park and public buildings that are grand but don't elicit big-city feelings. Philly is purely dense and vibrant.
Go out to secondary centers and the DC has a big edge of course.
The San Francisco area has a combination of a big, consistently vibrant core and an array of major secondary cores.
If you walk around the urban core of DC at 2 am on a Tuesday and then walk around the urban core of Philadelphia at 2 am the next day, which do you think will feel larger?
If you walk around the urban core of DC at 2 am on a Tuesday and then walk around the urban core of Philadelphia at 2 am the next day, which do you think will feel larger?
Is this some weird way to say that DC has a bigger nightlife scene and that makes it the correct answer or is there a joke that I'm missing?
The Bay Area as a region feels larger because it’s multi-nodal but as a stand alone city Philly looks & fees physically larger than SF partly due to is lack of geographic constraints and unimpeded grid system
I struggle with debating feelings, but in this case feelings appear to match reality as Philadelphia as a stand-alone city is indeed physically larger than SF.
Is this some weird way to say that DC has a bigger nightlife scene and that makes it the correct answer or is there a joke that I'm missing?
No, it’s making a point that the size of a place has nothing to do with how busy a place is. For instance, downtown DC is extremely busy during the day, pre-COVID obviously, in all those so called dead zones with government or institutional building that lack foot traffic at night or weekends. Trying to say a place is either larger or smaller by how vibrant it is will always depend on when you visit. The only constant is the actual built environment regardless of people.
If I visit Philadelphia at 4am during the middle of the week, it’s empty like every other city because people are sleep. So which city is going to feel larger on my walk, bike, or scooter ride through the urban core? I mean, what are you going to say, “it may seem smaller now, but come back in a few hours and it will be bigger when people go to work”….?
I vote for the Bay Area. It feels really big because, while also having a large and urban city core, it stretches over a large distance from north to south, on both sides of the bay, even if the developed area isn't actually very wide east-west. It takes hours to get from one end to the other, even with zero traffic.
The Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia-Bremerton CSA (like the Bay Area, the MSA should include more of the CSA's counties) is the same way, though on a smaller scale.
No, it’s making a point that the size of a place has nothing to do with how busy a place is. For instance, downtown DC is extremely busy during the day, pre-COVID obviously, in all those so called dead zones with government or institutional building that lack foot traffic at night or weekends. Trying to say a place is either larger or smaller by how vibrant it is will always depend on when you visit. The only constant is the actual built environment regardless of people.
If I visit Philadelphia at 4am during the middle of the week, it’s empty like every other city because people are sleep. So which city is going to feel larger on my walk, bike, or scooter ride through the urban core? I mean, what are you going to say, “it may seem smaller now, but come back in a few hours and it will be bigger when people go to work”….?
Every city is dead at 4am (even most of New York). What is your point? I don't think it's debatable that Philadelphia visually appears like a larger more expansive city (and in reality, it is).
I've spent consider amounts of time in DC and Philly, and I've found that DC has more scattered vibrant pockets, but Center City Philadelphia (as a unit) beats out the most vibrant parts of DC (IMO).
(In the end, both are very vibrant dense cities, but I find it hard for DC to make a winning case in this thread.)
Every city is dead at 4am (even most of New York). What is your point? I don't think it's debatable that Philadelphia visually appears like a larger more expansive city (and in reality, it is).
I've spent consider amounts of time in DC and Philly, and I've found that DC has more scattered vibrant pockets, but Center City Philadelphia (as a unit) beats out the most vibrant parts of DC (IMO).
(In the end, both are very vibrant dense cities, but I find it hard for DC to make a winning case in this thread.)
That’s the point I’m making. This isn’t about vibrancy. It’s about the built environment. Built environment is exempt from the type of use. If the thread is about vibrancy, then the built environment doesn’t matter. A place could have small little shacks with millions of people walking the street like third world countries. If that is what you define as a city feeling large, then I guess we disagree. I’m looking for urban canyons and the option to continue spreading out from what already exists. Is your urban core built out or is there room to double it?
If I’m walking through your urban core and after a mile I’m back to single family homes, that’s what I’m talking about. How many hours does it take to walk through Center City and how many hours does it take to walk across the urban core of DC? Which street can I walk along that will have nothing but buildings in Center City and how far does it go before single family home neighborhoods? What street can I walk along in DC that will have nothing but buildings and how far can I walk that street before single family home neighborhoods? Those are the questions I would won’t answered.
You may not be the only one, but probably one of the few that are going by city limits and not metro.
Well the metro doesn't include San Jose but I get it. I was thinking more of from a street level perspective.
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.
