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.
It would take 2 1/2 hrs to ride from end to end of that metro and around the whole Bay in a circle, that picture is like 150 miles around. DC to Baltimore is 35 miles. In no traffic I could drive from NOVA to North of Baltimore in 1:15 mins probably less. See what i'm saying about the difference in development patterns?
The development patterns are much different east to west in the US. For us water and jagged mountains are the issue, they contain our sprawl to an extent but we develop around them and develop as much developable land as we can. Right now its headed east right into Stockton and Modesto. For the same reason as DC and Batimore and what lies between them I am going to refrain from calling Stockton and Modesto apart of out region, lots of jagged mountains and parks there, so no excuses for ad naseum boosterism for us there.
DC was a great town, the region however is unimpressive for anyone that likes dense development. The bay is densely developed along the ring of the San Francisco bay. You cant go anywhere along the shores of the bay and not feel like you're in a big city and that's the difference between us and you.
Pump your breaks homey. This is city data and I don't have a scratch on me. Jay-Z. lol. No one is upset or mad but you really do not have a clue about DC. First, you came into DC from a Federal Parkway, which dumps you into New York Ave. That's the only major artery from Baltimore on that end of the city. The Feds prohibit any development on their land. DT DC has more office space than DT LA and is much larger in land area. DC has miles or rowhouses. You only saw a small part of DC and it was probably the worst area to enter the city if you really wanted to see anything. You can't make a comparison if you didn't see everything and I know you didn't see everything. Oakland is rural compared to DC.
LOL and I took 95 on the way out of DC. So what's the excuse for that? I'll be waiting for a response. 95 reminded me of 205 from eastbay to Tracy.
Jay Z? You act like everyone listens to music like that
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,560,868 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrantiX
LOL I really don't care mr. broadbrush, that's not my problem. There's a military base between LA and San Diego but you don't see them still trying to make the densely developed area between those two cities off as one metro. Sucks that you have federal parkland but I like most people don't care, what's undeveloped is undeveloped. Simple as that!
Its undeveloped therefore its undeveloped. Even inside the district once you cross the New York avenue bridge into that rundown area is nothing but strip malls and low to medium density sprawl and bottom tier Sun Inn type hotels with HUGE PARKING LOTS. You'll never find that in the city of San Francisco. So why do people compare the two cities? LOL no contest, no contest! The bay is easily the bigger feeling region, you're off your rockers if you went to DC or Baltimore and truly felt a region of 9M.
DC is cute.
We are apples, ya'll are oranges, we don't care who "feels" like there in a region of 8 or 9 million we know where we are and live. This is the East Coast where it's full of bustling big cities. Tourists know it and locals know it. Do I care if someone rides up a low rise part of NY Ave in Northeast DC and doesn't feel like there in a big city? NO. Our Metro is bigger, and our CSA is bigger than yours, and growing faster deal with it.
LOL I really don't care mr. broadbrush, that's not my problem. There's a military base between LA and San Diego but you don't see them still trying to make the densely developed area between those two cities off as one metro. Sucks that you have federal parkland but I like most people don't care, what's undeveloped is undeveloped. Simple as that!
Its undeveloped therefore its undeveloped. Even inside the district once you cross the New York avenue bridge into that rundown area is nothing but strip malls and low to medium density sprawl and bottom tier Sun Inn type hotels with HUGE PARKING LOTS. You'll never find that in the city of San Francisco. So why do people compare the two cities? LOL no contest, no contest! The bay is easily the bigger feeling region, you're off your rockers if you went to DC or Baltimore and truly felt a region of 9M.
DC is cute.
I've been to the West Coast plenty of times and it's not that urban to me. Apples to oranges. LA is a huge suburb to most east coasters. It has alot of sprawl and strip malls. I don't call that development. Development to me is rowhouses and a DT core that connects. Walkability? Transit? Something that lacks on the West Coast. DC's suburbs of Arlington, Alexandria and Fairfax and (soon to be Tysons Corner) has more office space and subway riders than LA. Is that development for you? You rode in on a Federal Parkway and was astounded that there wasn't any development. That's incredible. It's equivolent to the tourist who come to DC's National Mall and really think it's a mall.
I left Center City Phily and got on 95 (that highway that goes into Wilmington) and started to head south
Yes, yes, I-95 is "that highway that goes into Wilmington" and also Baltimore, the DC Metro, Richmond, Fayetteville, NC, Savannah, GA and all the way down to Key West, FL. It only happens to be the most traveled road in the whole entire world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrantiX
I wasn't driving at that point as one of my relatives took over so I had some time to catch some skyline shots of Phily then we passed that area with all the sports arenas and stadiums and I looked over the elevated expanse of the highway and saw nothing but dense development until I started seeing hills in the back surrounding the Phily area.
Once you pass the Sports Complex and come upon the Island Avenue exit, you're on your way out of the city. The only elevated view you'd have of the city is from the 95 Bridge that takes you over and past the oil refineries. Even then, the only things you can really see are smoke stacks and oil refineries to your right and the Delaware River to your left.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrantiX
Phily looked like a huge place but in a very small geographic area while DC felt very spread out in every direction.
Not sure what this means.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrantiX
When we entered the district, it still looked rural but we started seeing some rundown areas and strip malls and the development was unimpressive because they were spread out.
There are no strip malls on Route 50. However, it is reminscient of some of the auto-centric design that you see in western cities. Route 50/New York Avenue was supposed to be I-95. But yes, I would agree with you that that part of DC is "spread out."
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrantiX
We got into the downtown/tourist area fast from there and it just left me wondering how only a few miles from downtown the district drops to such a underdeveloped space for a supposed region of 9M.
Because that area was cleared out long ago for highway development. That's why it looks like Los Angeles.
The more "developed" parts of the city were developed in accordance with the L'Enfant Plan. What L'Enfant designed is essentially the "core" of modern day Washington.
On the way back to NYC we crossed the New York avenue bridge and right after we crossed it was a underdeveloped, rundown, crimeridden area, saw a guy at 4 in the morning eating fried chicken on the narrow suburban looking sidewalk only 3 miles from downtown in the district. Compared to every other northeastern city I saw, this one was the most different by far. Baltimore fell in line with Phily but DC? I don't know what to tell you man.
Again, that area was originally cleared out for I-95, but the project didn't happen (that's why I-95 breaks at College Park and picks up again near Alexandria), and a number of industrial uses popped up. That area of town is also where the Amtrak tracks run.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrantiX
I enjoyed visiting DC for the tourist areas and I even left it thinking that I could live there but its not NYC, its not Phily, and its not Boston. It doesn't feel like a big city at all outside of those urban 13 story building canyons downtown. Its so underdeveloped. I felt a lot of breathing room that I don't get in the bay but it was sort of a good thing-bad thing situation if you know what I mean? Plus side that Metro system was terrific for tourists to get around the whole area and see things below grade and above grade and get around. Learned a lot from this trip and had a blast. Cant wait to do it again, will never visit any BosWash city by itself again, its most fun to do it all together IMO
It's almost exactly the same as SF and Boston actually (in terms of urbanity). Boston would feel rather underdeveloped if one of the main entry points into the city was along Blue Hill Avenue. And San Francisco would feel underdeveloped if one of the main entry points into the city was along International Boulevard in Oakland, which also has a lot of rundown, industrial stretches.
So if no one cares then why are you debating me? In fact, it seems like you have a cheat sheet already written out of what to say and what excuses to use. As stated before, sucks. Sucks to be you! Sucks that you have parkland and ghettos disrupting your development from Baltimore into DC but deal with it, its no where close to as developed as the bay. PupupupuPERIOD!
People brag about how huge L.A is but if you look at the city boundaries population and total area of the city, L.A isn't so big anymore. L.A without its suburbs is nothing.
So if no one cares then why are you debating me? In fact, it seems like you have a cheat sheet already written out of what to say and what excuses to use. As stated before, sucks. Sucks to be you! Sucks that you have parkland and ghettos disrupting your development from Baltimore into DC but deal with it, its no where close to as developed as the bay. PupupupuPERIOD!
Nah, it doesn't suck. It's actually a blessing that we have trees and beautiful leaves and greenery. And you have brush fires and everything is brown and dreary. That rhymed. LOL
People brag about how huge L.A is but if you look at the city boundaries population and total area of the city, L.A isn't so big anymore. L.A without its suburbs is nothing.
LA is a suburb.
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.
