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.
Just to clarify I lived in Albany the first 13 years of my life, which is nothing compared to my 21 years in California. The only thing I remember about Albany is that it was a boring place where I would wait till each autumn when the leaves changed colors to conclude that the place had any merits at all aside from being close to Boston or NYC.
Why people on this site seem to think that the only opinions that matter are those of the consensus on this forum is beyond me. You have people always talking about how "many will agree" and I wonder to myself how much this forum truly means to them, I mean is your life vested into this one site? Reps, polls, contests, these are all nice but we should just focus on individual posts, lots of good ones and bad ones.
Quote:
Now, that wasnt you was it?
Sure wasn't!
Quote:
Dont be afraid of your East Coast roots.
LOL we'll see.
I didn't know your profile said it but I can just tell, there's only one person on this forum that sounds like you and that's Space.
If you're even implying DC-Baltimore are as built up as the bay then you're the one in denial and you're being intellectually dishonest.
kthnxbye
These pics imply that SF is very picturesque. It's a beauty. But it's also very filthy. DC's rowhouse neighborhoods like Georgetown and Dupont Circle are just as urban than anything in SF. Plus we have real transit like a real city.
Not only that but San Francisco is more built up. Just look at the density and development in those pictures of San Francisco.
Not all of those pictures were even San Francisco, many of them were satellite views showing an impressive grid system, built density, and continuous development. That's what those pictures prove, you would know that had you opened all of them. What were you staring at in this pictures the hills? Did you forget to look beyond the surface at the city?
Quote:
It's a beauty.
Yes
Quote:
But it's also very filthy.
Guess we're talking about things unrelated to those visuals now? In that case I could say DC is ghetto and dangerous but I'll stick to something more positive. The buldings in downtown DC are fantasticly clean, looks like they're power washed and maintained and I do wish San Francisco was more clean like that.
Quote:
DC's rowhouse neighborhoods like Georgetown and Dupont Circle are just as urban than anything in SF.
Then prove it. Give me the links to anything in DC that looks that urban and I'll do a side by side comparison of the two cities most urban areas. Not only that, at a metro and region you can actually make an argument that DC is large and as large as the bay. Just the cities of DC and San Francisco, its no contest that San Francisco is the larger, more urban, more dense city than DC.
Quote:
Plus we have real transit like a real city.
You have more transit riders, don't delude yourself into thinking the bay or San Francisco have nonexistent transit systems. DC is better and that's just me giving the credit its due instead of being argumentive over the obvious. Coverage of the transit in the bay is very extensive and its being extended.
Or maybe you want to see the Muni, BART, VTA, and Caltrain maps to believe it?
So now here's another question why isnt the urban area of DC as dense as San Francisco? The bay urban area rounded up to 900 miles has a population of about 6.5M with a uniform density of the area at over 5K and DC urban area is over 1,300 miles with a population just over 4M and a density that fickles in comparison. Go ahead and throw in Baltimore if you want, only makes it look more sprawled out.
So now here's another question why isnt the urban area of DC as dense as San Francisco? The bay urban area rounded up to 900 miles has a population of about 6.5M with a uniform density of the area at over 5K and DC urban area is over 1,300 miles with a population just over 4M and a density that fickles in comparison. Go ahead and throw in Baltimore if you want, only makes it look more sprawled out.
Why are small houses on small lots, in neighborhoods that are still rather auto-dependent, desirable?
Also, your pictures youre posting of SF and DC are not to scale.
Then go hurry find some of DC that are to scale. Quickly now, quickly, times a runnin out!
Shouldn't matter what scale its on, the close up view of the bay shows how obviously connected the entire region is. Let me know if you want me to bring the bay's pictures same scale as DC into it? But I really suggest you bring DC's to scale satellite images in because I would really like to see the inter connectivity of the great DC-Baltimore region at the same scale for a side by side comparison.
Not only that but San Francisco is more built up. Just look at the density and development in those pictures of San Francisco.
Not all of those pictures were even San Francisco, many of them were satellite views showing an impressive grid system, built density, and continuous development. That's what those pictures prove, you would know that had you opened all of them. What were you staring at in this pictures the hills? Did you forget to look beyond the surface at the city?
Yes
Guess we're talking about things unrelated to those visuals now? In that case I could say DC is ghetto and dangerous but I'll stick to something more positive. The buldings in downtown DC are fantasticly clean, looks like they're power washed and maintained and I do wish San Francisco was more clean like that.
Then prove it. Give me the links to anything in DC that looks that urban and I'll do a side by side comparison of the two cities most urban areas. Not only that, at a metro and region you can actually make an argument that DC is large and as large as the bay. Just the cities of DC and San Francisco, its no contest that San Francisco is the larger, more urban, more dense city than DC.
You have more transit riders, don't delude yourself into thinking the bay or San Francisco have nonexistent transit systems. DC is better and that's just me giving the credit its due instead of being argumentive over the obvious. Coverage of the transit in the bay is very extensive and its being extended.
Or maybe you want to see the Muni, BART, VTA, and Caltrain maps to believe it?
So now here's another question why isnt the urban area of DC as dense as San Francisco? The bay urban area rounded up to 900 miles has a population of about 6.5M with a uniform density of the area at over 5K and DC urban area is over 1,300 miles with a population just over 4M and a density that fickles in comparison. Go ahead and throw in Baltimore if you want, only makes it look more sprawled out.
Here's some big city stuff for you.
Cities with the highest percentage of transit usage
NYC
DC
I asked for neighborhood pictures comparable to the ones of San Francisco and you give me this? What language do you think I'm speaking in? Westcoasanese?
If there aren't any pictures of DC that are comparable then just say so, stop dodging the bullet with all this other dramatic nonsense about importance and airports and office space. So are you giving me the pictures or not? How about a maps aerial of it or zip code density or at this point I'm even open to taking toilet paper with your drawings of these neighborhoods on them. Stay consistent to the argument, this thread is about big city mentality I don't know what brings you to talking about airports and media but k.
We can sit here asking unanswered questions all day Yankee. I suggest you answer mine first before asking one of your own. My questions are seeking answers not riddles with your questions. We're not playing Jeopardy here.
Answer to yours is that we embrace cars here in the west as a transportation option just as you do in the east. You and most easterners here sound like paranoid people, when you see cars you run away going mad calling it "evil machine, evil machine".
Your point is ridiculous and you know it is. I am man enough to admit that DC is much better than San Francisco in transit usage both by raw numbers and as a percent. Metro is a fantastic system, truly. I have no negative comments about it but you're intellectually dishonest by exaggerating San Francisco's auto dependency like only westcoast cities are that way. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...tterns2006.png
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.
