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.
One thing DC and Manhattan have in common is a relatively small land area that makes sprawl impossible. Once you can't build out anymore.. you start building up. There is no other option.
DC actually has more than 3 times the land area of Manhattan.
This seems counter-intuitive, given how huge Manhattan feels.
DC actually has more than 3 times the land area of Manhattan.
This seems counter-intuitive, given how huge Manhattan feels.
I think Manhattan might feel bigger for two reasons:
1. Its very long but not very wide. So if you drive or subway from the Southern end to the Northern end, the island feels massive. But its very skinny if you travel East to West.
2. Manhattan.. for the most part, is fully built out. DC has a lot of green space, row houses and residential space. If 100% of DC's land area was built out to look like downtown.. DC would look and feel like a very large city.
People are always calling DC small.. but it really isn't. But these are usually the people who never leave NW and act like anything beyond NW doesn't exist.
I think Manhattan might feel bigger for two reasons:
1. Its very long but not very wide. So if you drive or subway from the Southern end to the Northern end, the island feels massive. But its very skinny if you travel East to West.
2. Manhattan.. for the most part, is fully built out. DC has a lot of green space, row houses and residential space. If 100% of DC's land area was built out to look like downtown.. DC would look and feel like a very large city.
People are always calling DC small.. but it really isn't. But these are usually the people who never leave NW and act like anything beyond NW doesn't exist.
You are so right. I have gathered over the years that some people think of DC as being even smaller in land area than cities that are actually smaller than DC in land area. I find that many people, especially newcomers, define the city's size by what they picture it to be in their own head, which are the neighborhoods that they only frequent or (care to) know - namely Dupont Circle, Logan Circle, Downtown, and sometimes Georgetown. Only in the last few years has the DC size bubble gotten a little bigger for many people as they conceptualize it in their own heads.
I observed frequent blank faces when mentioning neighborhoods like Petworth, Bloomingdale, Eckington, Trinidad, Brightwood, and Brookland only 5 years ago. I would mention Petworth sometimes, and the response would be "Is that in Maryland"? (I had gotten that response from a person who was living in DC for 10 years already)
It is so interesting to me that some people never really explore outside of this group of 4 zip codes: 20009, 20036, 20005, and 20004.
I have conceptualized the story going like this for a certain percentage of people..... A person knows only or cares to know only a few select neighborhoods, therefore DC is very, very small, therefore all there is to know or see in DC is only in those select neighborhoods, therefore the person tells friends and family that, when visiting, they can see everything that is worth seeing in just 2 days, therefore when that is accomplished then the person knows what DC is all about.
Last edited by revitalizer; 12-16-2016 at 05:58 AM..
You are so right. I have gathered over the years that some people think of DC as being even smaller in land area than cities that are actually smaller than DC in land area. I find that many people, especially newcomers, define the city's size by what they picture it to be in their own head, which are the neighborhoods that they only frequent or (care to) know - namely Dupont Circle, Logan Circle, Downtown, and sometimes Georgetown. Only in the last few years has the DC size bubble gotten a little bigger for many people as they conceptualize it in their own heads.
I observed frequent blank faces when mentioning neighborhoods like Petworth, Bloomingdale, Eckington, Trinidad, Brightwood, and Brookland only 5 years ago. I would mention Petworth sometimes, and the response would be "Is that in Maryland"? (I had gotten that response from a person who was living in DC for 10 years already)
It is so interesting to me that some people never really explore outside of this group of 4 zip codes: 20009, 20036, 20005, and 20004.
I have conceptualized the story going like this for a certain percentage of people..... A person knows only or cares to know only a few select neighborhoods, therefore DC is very, very small, therefore all there is to know or see in DC is only in those select neighborhoods, therefore the person tells friends and family that, when visiting, they can see everything that is worth seeing in just 2 days, therefore when that is accomplished then the person knows what DC is all about.
Yep. Sometimes the ignorance and arrogance people show about this city can be pretty staggering.
Another part of it is the assumption people make that a neighborhood they visited back in 2010 will be exactly the same today. I've heard people talk with confidence and authority about areas of DC based on a visit from the 1990's. Really?
The general rule in DC is if you haven't been to an area in a year or two you have no clue what its like now.
Yep. Sometimes the ignorance and arrogance people show about this city can be pretty staggering.
Another part of it is the assumption people make that a neighborhood they visited back in 2010 will be exactly the same today. I've heard people talk with confidence and authority about areas of DC based on a visit from the 1990's. Really?
The general rule in DC is if you haven't been to an area in a year or two you have no clue what its like now.
Yes, indeed. DC is changing so fast. Not seeing a city/neighborhood for a few years means you wouldn't be in tune with current reality for a place like DC that is seeing fast-paced redevelopment.
As for future development in Ward 7 and Ward 8, it should be obvious to the reasonably informed that the area will see intense redevelopment.
The general rule in DC is if you haven't been to an area in a year or two you have no clue what its like now.
That's all fine and dandy but most of those, who have this train of thought, are mostly in love with the "idea of", not the result of. All big and glamorous but with no stock.
You can't possibly make this statement and think that things will automatically fall into place and that everyone will understand this concept. It's not natural and it isn't organic for cities to change at such rapid rates. What will potentially come of this is an unsustainable threshold that DC has never seen before.
No stats dude, just pure logic and common sense of the human condition.
That's all fine and dandy but most of those, who have this train of thought, are mostly in love with the "idea of", not the result of. All big and glamorous but with no stock.
You can't possibly make this statement and think that things will automatically fall into place and that everyone will understand this concept. It's not natural and it isn't organic for cities to change at such rapid rates. What will potentially come of this is an unsustainable threshold that DC has never seen before.
No stats dude, just pure logic and common sense of the human condition.
Are you kidding? There is nothing "organic" or "natural" about a city to begin with and there never has been.
And who decides what the "proper speed of change" is? You?
I'll say this.. if development happens at a faster pace than population growth then there is a real chance the bottom will fall out temporarily. You will have a situation like Miami in 2008 where there was loads of new development with no one to buy it or rend it. Just empty space. But when that happens, prices just drop. Once prices drop, people see "bargains" and start buying and renting again. Then when demand exceeds supply, prices rise again.
Its really a cycle. All the development in DC started because DC was under supplied. The speed of development doesn't matter as long as the demand matches or exceeds it. If population growth were to stop.. then you have a problem. But only temporarily.. unless you have a "flight back to the suburbs" situation like the 1950's/1960's. However, that is a VERY unlikely occurrence for several complex reasons.
Sustainability is not an issue if demand stays high. If a mega-city like New York can exist then the development in DC is definitely "sustainable". DC is like a fraction of New York and you are talking "not sustainable"? That's absurd. Only if demand drops will the development be "unsustainable". Otherwise it can go on until DC runs out of space.
That's all fine and dandy but most of those, who have this train of thought, are mostly in love with the "idea of", not the result of. All big and glamorous but with no stock.
You can't possibly make this statement and think that things will automatically fall into place and that everyone will understand this concept. It's not natural and it isn't organic for cities to change at such rapid rates. What will potentially come of this is an unsustainable threshold that DC has never seen before.
No stats dude, just pure logic and common sense of the human condition.
Throughout the history of cities as they relate to human civilization patterns, the biggest cities have all experienced rapid change during multiple periods in their histories to get to where they are today.
Take NYC for example. It went through 150+ years of unabated rapid change from 1770 to 1930. And during the 30-year period between 1900 (after the 5 boroughs were consolidated into a single city) and 1930, NYC saw a doubling in population from 3.4 million to 6.9 million. There was nothing gradual about that process, and the city didn't implode due to the "human condition" alarm going off and telling residents that it wasn't natural and that they should leave to save themselves.
DC's recent spate of rapid change (about 10 years so far) is nothing compared to that. And today, DC isn't even at the top of the list of cities undergoing rapid change. There are many cities in the US seeing an even faster rate of change than DC.
And as for an "unsustainable threshold", I don't see it happening, population-wise and from a land-use perspective, for another 50 years (at least). Let's talk about it when DC reaches 1.2 million. And from an economic standpoint, I see DC becoming nearly sustainable as a jurisdiction (meaning it can bear paying for its own court system, etc.) near 1 million.
Last edited by revitalizer; 12-18-2016 at 11:18 AM..
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.
