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.
Boston, and its not even close. DC should go up against something it can handle, like Atlanta, Houston or Dallas. Up until recently all these places were not on the map, Boston has a is a much richer urban fabric than DC.
You sound stoopid! DC smashed Boston in any category you throw up homey. Get off Boston's nuts.
Your apparent hatred of DC makes me chuckle. Ok, I get that you hate commercial office space but I only use it to make my point. DT DC is much larger than Boston. It has more office space with shorter buildings which means more structures over a larger foot print. Boston is cool. I love the city but you can easily walk across DT Boston in less than an hour. DT DC goes on forever. Plus I will put Chinatown in DC up against anything in DT Boston for vibrancy over a 24 hour period. DT Boston does not have the critical mass of people during the day as DC. The T is cool but it does not compare to the critical mass of people on the Metro. I have the numbers to prove everything I just typed.
No I have nothing against office space at all, my point is and has ALWAYS been that there is more to development than just purely office space. Aldso the developed density and population in DT Boston is at worst on par with DC and higher after 6. I really have no issues with DC. I have bigger issues with out of control spending from the Govt of which has more to do with DCs growth thajn anything else, hence my use of susidy.
On Boston, while the ridership level may not equal Metro, when you think about the smaller footprint etc. The combined 700-800K daily ridership on the T and Regioanl Rail offerings (which do the exact same thing as other forms of transit) have quite high ridership levels into the core. And honestly I dont really see how Chinatown is really any more vibrant than the most vibrant places in Boston.
And again, because you continually miss this aspect I am going to say again. DC IS dense, developed, vibrant, urban, moreso to me than all but maybe 5 or 6 cities in the US. It just so happens that Boston is one that is moreso.
On your footprint, yes it does factor.
Think about is this way
(am going memory a bit for the below so my numbers may not be exact but more to explain the comparison and why normalizing on footprint plays a role)
DC has something like 100 million sq feet of office space over 1.7 sq miles, so like 55-60 million per sq mile
Boston has somehting like 50-60 million sq ft of office space over about 1 sq mile or a similar density of office space.
The difference is there is more of other sq footage (residential, retail etc.) which is why it looks and feels more densly developed.
and also for the record. I quite like DC, have lived there, enjoyed it, have fond memories and continue to enjoy whenever I visit.
You sound stoopid! DC smashed Boston in any category you throw up homey. Get off Boston's nuts.
Now this is a comment that sounds stupid. Obviously both these cities have tremedous aspects where they significantly over index and neither particularly smashes either on nearly any category.
Also DC does have more in common in development style (especially when viewing the metro) to the large sunbelt cities than do any of the other NE cities, much much moreso than Boston which was developed and established long before new urbanist development became more mainstream. DC has much more of new urbanist fabric more similar to other large sunbelt cities, and again this is not good nor bad. Also DC has maybe the best examples of large scale use of TOD developement annywhere and continues to infill these areas and add new areas associated with TOD.
Last edited by kidphilly; 10-18-2011 at 08:30 AM..
I have a hard time understanding what he is saying because DT Boston has significantly less office space than DT DC (city not metro). DC does not have any tall structures taking up 3 million square feet of space like a 90 story skyscraper. But what DC does have is miles of mid rise office buildings ranging from 12 to 14 stories tall. DC has many more DT structures than Boston.
"Miles of mid rise office buildings ranging from 12 to 14 stories"?! More like about two square miles of low rise office buildings in the 4 to 10 story range with a few outliers. One big suburban office park.
Last edited by Mr. Joshua; 10-18-2011 at 10:55 AM..
No I have nothing against office space at all, my point is and has ALWAYS been that there is more to development than just purely office space. Aldso the developed density and population in DT Boston is at worst on par with DC and higher after 6. I really have no issues with DC. I have bigger issues with out of control spending from the Govt of which has more to do with DCs growth thajn anything else, hence my use of susidy.
On Boston, while the ridership level may not equal Metro, when you think about the smaller footprint etc. The combined 700-800K daily ridership on the T and Regioanl Rail offerings (which do the exact same thing as other forms of transit) have quite high ridership levels into the core. And honestly I dont really see how Chinatown is really any more vibrant than the most vibrant places in Boston.
And again, because you continually miss this aspect I am going to say again. DC IS dense, developed, vibrant, urban, moreso to me than all but maybe 5 or 6 cities in the US. It just so happens that Boston is one that is moreso.
On your footprint, yes it does factor.
Think about is this way
(am going memory a bit for the below so my numbers may not be exact but more to explain the comparison and why normalizing on footprint plays a role)
DC has something like 100 million sq feet of office space over 1.7 sq miles, so like 55-60 million per sq mile
Boston has somehting like 50-60 million sq ft of office space over about 1 sq mile or a similar density of office space.
The difference is there is more of other sq footage (residential, retail etc.) which is why it looks and feels more densly developed.
and also for the record. I quite like DC, have lived there, enjoyed it, have fond memories and continue to enjoy whenever I visit.
I see this structural density conversation come up alot on here. What many people on here forget is that D.C.'s downtown is divided by an imaginary boundary that has nothing to do with the developmental core in D.C. In Philly, the center city footprint is defined and boundaries are recognizable by breaks in development into residential rowhouse development. In Boston, the downtown is defined by breaks in development into residential rowhouse/victorian style houses. In D.C., development is all lowrise even outside the core so there really is no downtown boundary. Half the city is downtown by the naked eye these days.
The core continues to the SW waters edge to the south, to Georgetown to the west, to NOMA to the east, and to Columbia Heights to the north. Any breaks in development of this footprint are currently being taken care in the following fashion:
Projects under consturction or breaking ground next quarter:
Im not even going to begin on the H Street Corridor or downtown itself which is seeing a ton of development with more on the way also. I think this little snipit of a few current construction projects can put this structual density conversation about DC to bed. If you think D.C. isn't dense enough now, come visit in 2015 and see what you think. There are double these projects going on in D.C proper right now with more about to break ground all over the city. O, and Arlington, Alexandria, Bethesda, Silver Spring, Tyson's Corner etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. There might be over 100 apartment/office/hotel buildings under construction in the area right now around Metro Stations.
Last edited by MDAllstar; 10-18-2011 at 01:54 PM..
I see this structural density conversation come up alot on here. What many people on here forget is that D.C.'s downtown is divided by an imaginary boundary that has nothing to do with the developmental core in D.C. In Philly, the center city footprint is defined and boundaries are recognizable by breaks in development into residential rowhouse development. In Boston, the downtown is defined by breaks in development into residential rowhouse/victorian style houses. In D.C., development is all lowrise even outside the core so there really is no downtown boundary. Half the city is downtown by the naked eye these days.
I think you're conflating two different things: "structural density" and "lots and lots of buildings." DT Boston has all types of little alleyways and tight spaces that DT DC doesn't. A downtown with small streets, alleys, and skyscrapers is going to feel more urban than a downtown with very wide streets and short buildings. There's also the "grit" factor other people have mentioned. The grittiness of Downtown Crossing in Boston makes it feel like Lower Manhattan in many ways. The "shinyness" of an area like Gallery Place doesn't convey that hardcore urban feel the way Downtown Crossing does.
And btw, Downtown DC (the boundaries you gave were pretty much the boundaries of Downtown DC) does not stretch to Columbia Heights. That's definitely pushing it.
I think you're conflating two different things: "structural density" and "lots and lots of buildings." DT Boston has all types of little alleyways and tight spaces that DT DC doesn't. A downtown with small streets, alleys, and skyscrapers is going to feel more urban than a downtown with very wide streets and short buildings. There's also the "grit" factor other people have mentioned. The grittiness of Downtown Crossing in Boston makes it feel like Lower Manhattan in many ways. The "shinyness" of an area like Gallery Place doesn't convey that hardcore urban feel the way Downtown Crossing does.
And btw, Downtown DC (the boundaries you gave were pretty much the boundaries of Downtown DC) does not stretch to Columbia Heights. That's definitely pushing it.
****If you have any more wishes for DC, they have also probably been granted already. DC is BOOMING!!
While I am not a fan of these large scale developments that DC is known for, (they seem a bit too sterile and suburbanish for me) That is really cool what their doing around L'Enfant Plaza, DC as a whole has really changed in the last decade. I was an Urban Pioneer when I bought my place on T Street not too long ago.
I think you're conflating two different things: "structural density" and "lots and lots of buildings." DT Boston has all types of little alleyways and tight spaces that DT DC doesn't. A downtown with small streets, alleys, and skyscrapers is going to feel more urban than a downtown with very wide streets and short buildings. There's also the "grit" factor other people have mentioned. The grittiness of Downtown Crossing in Boston makes it feel like Lower Manhattan in many ways. The "shinyness" of an area like Gallery Place doesn't convey that hardcore urban feel the way Downtown Crossing does.
And btw, Downtown DC (the boundaries you gave were pretty much the boundaries of Downtown DC) does not stretch to Columbia Heights. That's definitely pushing it.
Agreed and no matter how many times this aspect is discussed it continually goes on deaf ears. Also no one is saying DC is not urban, but there is NO area of DC that feels like DT Boston (or Manhttan, or Philly, or SF) - does this make it inferior or anything, no. But based on the contruct regardless of how many buildings of this design it will not feel as urban as the very dense cores of these other cities. And no Tysons and SS and Rosslyn do not feel as urban. And the apartment buildings while impressive do not feel like a core condo/apartment dwelling in other cities. This again is neither nor bad but MD and Finest will continue to post the same images and stats while dismissing the developed density of these other places. There is a difference and it most definately can be felt in person.
And I still dont understand how or why rowhouses/aprtment houses intersperced with taller structures built with a higher footprint coverage(i.e smaller roads etc.) do not feel urban, they feel more urban to me than do uniformity of rectangular boxes and long superblocks with wide streets and sidewalks.
I also agree that liberties were taken with the coninuous build borders MD provides. All the way to Goergetown, well sure if you include the same breaks pinged in other places.
But it always seems that unless it is continuously built office building of uniform height it somehow cant compare... Yet it seems most not in DC see other aspects of urbanity, including the grit and tighter patterns as effects that enhance the urban feel.
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.
