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 drive exclusively during morning and evening rush, traffic isn't bad. Walk around the rest of day, don't recall saying I didn't walk around the city, I don't take metro.
You're delusional! I would bet you $500 that you can't drive from Capitol Hill (Eastern Market) across DT DC to West End (24th and M) in 40 minutes during rush hour. It's almost 3 miles.
That's a lie! It took me almost an hour to go from 12th and G to 21st and M on Monday! Where are you living?
He lives on the other side of Rock Creek Park near Wisonsin Ave. Might as well live in the suburbs. Route 355 in Maryland is more urban than that area. It says alot about his view of D.C.
Exactly - Boston is more structually Dense. There is one aspect denser in this thread
You need to show me some proof? A link or something. I already gave you some mathematical reasoning why DC has more structures DT in a larger footprint. This is comical.
Exactly, that area is not very urban. Its just a pocket of urbanity in the Bethesda CBD. Having a car is pretty easy around there. If you lived near logan circle or U Street, then we can talk.
Traffic isn't bad downtown? You must not be out in rush hour. So where do you park? That's very suburban thinking wanting to drive but to each his own. Walking on the streets down urban canyons is the city lifestyle. Parking hidden underground and a cap on grass and trees with sidewalks for miles is an urban playground.
Just wow. Reading your descriptions at times one would think there is some utopian ideal that DC is. I like DC but can see both its pluses and minuses
I think you two are argueing two different points. Boston has a higher structural density in a small area downtown. D.C. has a higher structural density over a wider area. I would rather have most of the city look like downtown than a few blocks. Quiet neighborhoods belong in the suburbs if you ask me. Multifamily buildings everywhere is what I consider urban. Concrete highrises everywhere. Thats why we seem to differ in our opinions of structural density. Boston may have a denser downtown over a small area but D.C. has a bigger downtown which is swallowing the city. Boston's downtown is just too small for me. Now, if it went on forever, then it would be something to talk about.
I just don't get this. If your definition of "urban" is multifamily buildings and concrete highrises, then Boston has DC beat by a long shot. DC may have more office buildings than Boston, but it does not have more multi-unit and tall buildings than Boston.
Exactly, that area is not very urban. Its just a pocket of urbanity in the Bethesda CBD. Having a car is pretty easy around there. If you lived near logan circle or U Street, then we can talk.
Weren't you just telling me about the URBANITY of Bethesda yesterday? You were saying how DC has so many "urban" areas outside of the city whereas Boston only has Cambridge (which has more urbanity than Alexandria, Bethesda, Silver Spring and Arlington combined).
I think you two are argueing two different points. Boston has a higher structural density in a small area downtown. D.C. has a higher structural density over a wider area. I would rather have most of the city look like downtown than a few blocks. Quiet neighborhoods belong in the suburbs if you ask me. Multifamily buildings everywhere is what I consider urban. Concrete highrises everywhere. Thats why we seem to differ in our opinions of structural density. Boston may have a denser downtown over a small area but D.C. has a bigger downtown which is swallowing the city. Boston's downtown is just too small for me. Now, if it went on forever, then it would be something to talk about.
Boston IS a structually denser city - CITY Wide
Now you may not like the development style. But it IS structually denser than DC. The structual density of boston does not drop off outside of the DT, it just may not be as tall. On the whole residential neighborhoods in Boston are more dense than structually dense neighborhoods in DC. Now DC may have a LESS dense DT over a wider footprint, and it is fine that you prefer this, but it is not as urban (to ma an many others) and not as vibrant (especially wiht the density factored). DC looks monotonous to me, or at least moreson than Boston. Preference is subjective, Structual density is not.
Just wow. Reading your descriptions at times one would think there is some utopian ideal that DC is. I like DC but can see both its pluses and minuses
Well to me, D.C. has captured the urban build without the filth of Philly and Boston. I hate dirty cities personally. How someone can like dirty cities is beyond me. I also hate old residential buildings. I like new places. Places that still appear to look new at least. Some people like old stuff, I couldn't care less about old buildings unless it has an office use. Thats probably why I like D.C. so much. Everything is brand new.
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.
