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 think you should change the list order from downtown battle to San Fran, Boston, Dc being that the top ones are Philly, Chi, New York City.
Obviously not everyone agrees with you.
I think you could make a case for any of these downtowns being better than the other: Chicago, Washington DC, San Francisco, Philadelphia, or Boston. There really is no clear-cut #2 downtown. Obviously #1 is New York...but there is plenty to argue about in regards to #2.
New York, Chicago and Philadelphia are the only U.S. cities with 1,000,000+ population and 10,000+ people per square mile. There's your top three, as far as I'm concerned. No other U.S. cities have that combination of both size and density. That's why I rank Boston and San Francisco behind Philadelphia, even though they're both denser, because it's a lot easier to maintain high density in small areas. Washington DC is no slouch, but it's still a distant last place in this comparison.
I'll just harp on the bolded language. Philadelphia is well-known for boxing and in fact has its own brand of defense called the "Philly Shell." You may have seen this used by some guys, just random fellas, by the name of Floyd Mayweather, Bernard Hopkins, and James Toney. The young Philadelphia girl in this video is practicing this defense and can probably beat all of the boys her age down in DC. Is there a "DC style" of anything? Pizza? Boxing? Bagels?
I think D.C. is very glamorous. It's one of the few places where I wouldn't be surprised to see a movie star or some other celebrity on the street (or getting out of a limo). That being said, the geography is too spread out and the streets and sidewalks are too wide for it to ever achieve that crowded urban feeling that is in Philly or Boston.
If DC is only 68 sq/ miles, with a HUGE downtown, and monuments & museums galore, all while squeezing 600k people within its city limits, then DC must be a pretty dense city.
Basically, according to Census all of the grow from 2000-2009 in Boston has come from larger household sizes.
Additionally, the city only added 2,500 total units from 2000-2008 and then from 2008 to 2009 added 12,000??
This isn't supported in the Boston permit data which was around 5,000 total units between 2005-2008. http://www.chapa.org/files/f_1220886185HousingReportCard20062.pdf (broken link)
This leads me to believe there maybe some methodological issues behind the growth, such as trying to count students better, etc.
I think D.C. is very glamorous. It's one of the few places where I wouldn't be surprised to see a movie star or some other celebrity on the street (or getting out of a limo).
That's because they all have their heads up Barack Obama's ass.
why is the height limit a bad thing? i think it makes dc cooler than every other city in the country. i wouldn't want a bunch of ugly boxy skyscrapers towering over the mall or the ww2 memorial. downtown boston is as bland as it gets and philly's downtown feels like every other in the country. i like how when you think dc you think the mall..
Last edited by CelticGermanicPride; 11-27-2010 at 07:52 AM..
DC is 61 square miles and has approximately 610,000 people. This means about 10,000 per square mile. However, the neighborhoods on average are way more densely populated because of all the land taken up by parks (National Mall for example) and the US Capitol Complex (over 1 square mile). No one lives in these areas obviously.
DC needs to eliminate the height requirement for buildings. If 3 floors were added to each 12 story apartment building, the housing shortage would end. 15 stories is much different than 12, which is about as high as a building can go given the height requirement.
If DC is only 68 sq/ miles, with a HUGE downtown, and monuments & museums galore, all while squeezing 600k people within its city limits, then DC must be a pretty dense city.
Yes but.........very few of them live in the areas we would call "downtown" D.C.
DC is 61 square miles and has approximately 610,000 people. This means about 10,000 per square mile. However, the neighborhoods on average are way more densely populated because of all the land taken up by parks (National Mall for example) and the US Capitol Complex (over 1 square mile). No one lives in these areas obviously.
DC needs to eliminate the height requirement for buildings. If 3 floors were added to each 12 story apartment building, the housing shortage would end. 15 stories is much different than 12, which is about as high as a building can go given the height requirement.
The housing shortage is intentional. To keep housing values high.
Every city has plenty of non-residential land. DC may have parks and what not(as does every city), but it lacks an airport within in its city limits, which tends to waterdown pop density numbers. DC also lacks large swaths of industrial land. So while DC may be slightly denser than the official number, I don't think its numbers are skewed any more so than any other city, actually its probably skewed less than most 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.
