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.
DC could be near 12k ppsm density by the 2020 Census. That's 5 years from now. As of July 2014, it was close to 11k ppsm. According to the US Census Bureau in a 2014 report, DC is the #2 incorporated place over 500,000 persons for adding population density, right after NYC at #1 and before SF at #3.
DC area job growth September 2009 to September 2010: +56,000 jobs
DC area job growth October 2014 to October 2015: +67,000 jobs
BLS data
Speaking of development and growth, I can't believe how much downtown DC retail has exploded. Gucci, Louis Vuitton, Hermes, Salvatore Ferragamo, Dior, Burbury etc. etc. etc.
Speaking of development and growth, I can't believe how much downtown DC retail has exploded. Gucci, Louis Vuitton, Hermes, Salvatore Ferragamo, Dior, Burbury etc. etc. etc.
Downtown DC retail is moving up. I'm excited about the Sacks Off 5th junior department store moving in, Nordstrom Rack not so much (It'll be the 3rd store for them in DC). But anyhow, that's about another 100,000 square feet of destination retail coming to downtown DC.
And, I'm at CityCenter DC a bit too much. Just started spending more time at the new boutique fashion retail stores that have popped up around 8th and Florida Ave NW in Shaw.
Frank & Oak is my new favorite.
Last edited by revitalizer; 11-30-2015 at 10:36 PM..
My rebuttals definitely aren't emotional. I don't get emotional about things I can't control, or have no input in. I just happen to think ( from what I've seen between the two cities) that Baltimore is the more structurally dense city. I just happen to think that superblocks containing short buildings, are less structurally dense than taller builder with a smaller footprint. Or rowhouses, and rowhouse apartments or more structurally dense than 7-story boxes, but that's my opinion. If I see something in DC that Baltimore cant match in the structural density department, I'll change my opinion, but until then I have to disagree. BTW, as another poster incorrectly stated, Baltimore is far from stagnant.. I know this year's incidents would have you believe otherwise, but that isn't the case.
I don't think Bmore is stagnant at all. I actually know quite a few people investing in the city via real estate. But what's been going on in DC, for better or worse, is on a whole other level.
Oh, I think NYC might have the densest built environment especially Manhattan, the portions of the outer boroughs that are within close proximity to Manhattan, and the portions of New Jersey across the Hudson from Manhattan. We'll have to dig up the stats and verify that though.
Speaking of Baltimore, SF has contiguous population of at least 3 million people with the same density as Baltimore city today. Los Angeles exceeds this just in its city limits (3.9 million at > 8K ppsm), as does Chicago (2.7 million at nearly 11K ppsm).
Doing something similar for Philly would be interesting. I don't think Boston or DC would produce the numbers, though. Note that for San Francisco, could very well keep going into South Bay, adding Santa Clara County cities such as Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, San Jose, and Milpitas (all of these and small points in between would easily add another 1.5 million people at > 5K ppsm, as well as nearly 60 million sf of office space).
My image:
Apparently Kidder Matthews thinks there is already about 99 million sf of office space in SF (the highest I've ever seen). I believe CBRE puts it closer to 85 million and Cushman Wakefield brings in the bottom with closer to 75 million with another 4 million sf under construction.
On the Peninsula south of San Francisco in the towns listed in graphic above there is another 37 million sf of office space with another ~1 million under construction.
In San Francisco there is somewhere in the range of 35-36K hotel rooms, mostly concentrated around Union Square and the Financial District. Apparently there are close to 5K AirBnB listings. There are less than 500 rooms currently under construction, but about 1500 rooms in the pipeline.
Apparently Oakland/Inner E Bay (core contiguous area denoted above) only has ~9K hotel rooms, and the Peninsula (SF Extended - Peninsula) has about 14K. The room count in the report below for SF is way wrong - I can rattle off a large number of really nice hotels not included for some reason, as well as a hotel right across the street from where I live.
So in the core 150 sq mi of SF-Oakland, there are already > 1.7 million people, somewhere between 105-120 million sf of office space, and around 44K hotel rooms. Untold retail, but this area includes 2 indoor malls, Union Square and other SF retail corridors, Emeryville's substantial shopping (which includes Ikea, Target, and other big box mixed with outdoor mall and lifestyle space), and Alameda's substantial shopping, several major universities (including Berkeley at 35K students, UCSF, UC Hastings, USF, SFSU), and two cities (SF and Oakland) with some of the highest per capita park space in the country, a worldclass setup of museums and cultural space, and a medium sized international airport.
Adding to that, in the 415 contiguous sq mi there is roughly 3 million people, somewhere in the ballpark of 150 million sf of office space, 58K hotel rooms, some of the wealthiest communities in the world in leafy single family setups, 2 major international airports, and a very large abundance of retail and cultural space.
Taking into account S Bay, in around 700 sq mi (a single standard US county), there are 4.5 million people, 210 million sf of office space, 3 international airports serving ~65 million passengers, close to 80K hotel rooms, 3 world class universities with ~57K students and about a dozen more universities overall, and a s**t ton of retail space ranging from world class high end both in urban setups (SF) and in malls (Stanford shopping center and Valley Fair) to everyday ranging from TWO Ikeas to infinite big box and mid-range retailers.
Would like to see a similar comparison for Philly, Boston, DC, etc. I'm already certain Chicago and LA exceed this at this larger scale. I'm willing to bet that SF/Bay Area is a clear 4th behind NYC, Chicago, and LA in terms of structural density going out this far.
impressive though the east bay is sort of pretty disconnected with a large body of water
for Philly I did something similar before an get to about 2 million with contingous average 10K density need to dig it up and believe was about 2.5 with 9K not sure I went past that after the first 3.5 it will start to drop in density
Philly would probably lead to say 2.5 to 3 million then start to lag as its densitiy radiating is lower than bay area suburbs
impressive though the east bay is sort of pretty disconnected with a large body of water
for Philly I did something similar before an get to about 2 million with contingous average 10K density need to dig it up and believe was about 2.5 with 9K not sure I went past that after the first 3.5 it will start to drop in density
Philly would probably lead to say 2.5 to 3 million then start to lag as its densitiy radiating is lower than bay area suburbs
Oakland is no more disconnected from the core of SF than most of Philly is to its core - people are still required to take a train or bus in.
The day SF has 1.5 million people in its bounds and Oakland 1 million, you people are still going to treat the two as worlds apart such that Philly with maybe 2 million in 2.3x land area by that point if growth picks up will still be more premier.
The fact remains that heavy rail connections between the two will only increase with another tube, and more transit connections will be made, and there will continue to be a symbiotic relationship between the two not unlike Manhattan and Brooklyn or to a lesser extent Boston and Cambridge/Somerville or DC and Rosslyn. The relationship, ties, and near effective contiguity can't be ignored. The only thing you can't do is walk across from one to the other or take the train late at night (yet), which are limitations that also can't be ignored, but if the separation were that great SF wouldn't function like the central city of a region of many many millions of people, like it does. It would exist more in a bubble, which it really doesn't.
Oakland is no more disconnected from the core of SF than most of Philly is to its core - people are still required to take a train or bus in.
The day SF has 1.5 million people in its bounds and Oakland 1 million, you people are still going to treat the two as worlds apart such that Philly with maybe 2 million in 2.3x land area by that point if growth picks up will still be more premier.
The fact remains that heavy rail connections between the two will only increase with another tube, and more transit connections will be made, and there will continue to be a symbiotic relationship between the two not unlike Manhattan and Brooklyn or to a lesser extent Boston and Cambridge/Somerville or DC and Rosslyn. The relationship, ties, and near effective contiguity can't be ignored. The only thing you can't do is walk across from one to the other or take the train late at night (yet), which are limitations that also can't be ignored, but if the separation were that great SF wouldn't function like the central city of a region of many many millions of people, like it does. It would exist more in a bubble, which it really doesn't.
you really think SF will have 1.5 million in its city proper?
also do you then assume Philly would have no growth? or areas attached that grow
there is also HR to NJ as well, not sure if you realize that
but the point was you showed data and impressive counts with high density and continuous etc and am also saying that today Philly is a tad larger on this metric and while impressive its not unique
you really think SF will have 1.5 million in its city proper?
also do you then assume Philly would have no growth? or areas attached that grow
there is also HR to NJ as well, not sure if you realize that
but the point was you showed data and impressive counts with high density and continuous etc and am also saying that today Philly is a tad larger on this metric and while impressive its not unique
Greater Philly is not more built up, though, on any metric. Not only are there more people just between SF and SJ MSAs, which are connected and contiguous, than Philly's MSA, the density at which all these millions of people live is significantly higher. Not only is there a good ~50% more office space in the city limits of SF than the city limits of Philadelphia, there is a ton more in the Bay Area than Greater Philly. The same goes for just about anything else, as well.
The one area I can think of where Philadelphia matches SF in terms of development intensity is the fact that you can cherry pick a ~50 sq mi area of Philadelphia and match the population, and thus the residential density, of SF.
I'd like to see the math that gets Philadelphia the same contiguous level of density with as many people as in the Bay Area.
I don't think it's inconceivable for SF to reach 1.5 million people in its city limits. Maybe not my lifetime - though 1.25 million people is not out of the question for that span of time. The demand and drivers to force this population growth and densification are in place. Political will is not quite there, though changing as necessitated (because of the uniquely strong demand in place). The reverse seems to be true for Philadelphia. Both Philly and Chicago are seeing a resurgence downtown and already nice areas, but aren't seeing the large demand forced by economic expansion that the Bay Area, or DC, or Boston are seeing, and thus overall aren't seeing rapid population growth even in spite of being effectively built out.
In terms of "unique", I'd say both Philly and the Bay Area as well as Boston, DC, Chicago, SoCal, and New York are unique in this country in terms of scale/intensity of development. South FL as well. The US is one of the largest and most developed countries in the world. To be at the top of the food chain of such a country (in size and stature) automatically makes a place quite unique in scale/intensity of development, and you feel it while you're in one of these cities.
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.
