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.
You realize Seattle in the DT is not even half as dense as Philly correct? And drops off to 33% the density in the next set of nabes?
DC is about 55% as dense
SF a tad more (15-20%) in the ~DT
Chicago about the same in the core
NY; well NYC is well above all of them; Manhattan as a whole is almost 400% on average more dense than DT Seattle (NYC kills all places on this metric) But in your list Seattle is by far the significant ladggard on density with DC next lowest
Seattle feels alot more urban because of all those residential towers. They have way more highrises than Center City. It also feels more complete. That's how I see it. It's just much more exciting. The South St. is the closest thing Philly has to offer interms of urban excitements.
There are some unfortunate underdeveloped lots in Center City and vicinity, but urban mass certainly is not anywhere near lacking in Philadelphia, especially compared to Seattle or DC. That's actually a fairly ironic statement, considering Philadelphia was an American urban model for many later-developing cities like San Francisco and Chicago.
Frankly, everyone is obsessed with high-rise density and "urban canyons," but that really does absolutely nothing for urban vibrancy beyond superficial pictures of generic-looking "cities," especially if it's single-use. In addition to simply adding density and buildings, cities need a "sense of place."
What many people fail to realize about cities like Philadelphia (along with Boston) is that low-rise density creates a much more charming, human-scaled environment. This type of development is far more amenable to vibrancy than soulless glass towers and tends to interact much better at the street level.
There are many things that Philadelphia could do better, but its urban design is definitely one of its strong points. While it could use more re-development in certain areas, Philly is being very cautious as it re-develops as not to disrupt its unique urban scale and neighborhood identity with gargantuan, characterless apartment complexes and needless office space. This provides for a much more organic, not overdeveloped, feel.
That's more than I can say for many other cities.
Yes, I have. 4 most important steps to be a real deal: A. fewer parking lots B. central gathering area. C. more mid to highrises(maybe about 12 more) D. a stadium or an arena downtown.
Seattle feels alot more urban because of all those residential towers. They have way more highrises than Center City. It also feels more complete. That's how I see it. It's just much more exciting. The South St. is the closest thing Philly has to offer interms of urban excitements.
Just to clarify misconceptions of factual data, Philadelphia has over 100 more high-rises than Seattle. That's not to say all of them are concentrated in Center City, but most of them surely are:
Seattle feels alot more urban because of all those residential towers. They have way more highrises than Center City. It also feels more complete. That's how I see it. It's just much more exciting. The South St. is the closest thing Philly has to offer interms of urban excitements.
Actually I think they are close with Philly ahead on highrise, in terms of population density, no, not even close. Stret level feel, ehh not so much either, Seattle does hve better shopping though if that is your thing, a great market as well, though RTM is pretty damn good as well
And South Street, the most exciting part of Center City
Just to clarify misconceptions of factual data, Philadelphia has over 100 more high-rises than Seattle. That's not to say all of them are concentrated in Center City, but most of them surely are:
1st off thats DOWNTOWN, so Boston and Philly are between 1-1.5 Sq miles while DC is at like 3-3.5 sq miles, so Boston and Philly are signifagantly denser.
1st off thats DOWNTOWN, so Boston and Philly are between 1-1.5 Sq miles while DC is at like 3-3.5 sq miles, so Boston and Philly are signifagantly denser.
I wasn't talking about downtown. I was talking about the core. And no, this list is for the entire city, not downtown. D.C.'s core is huge and the mass of buildings covers miles. How else do you think 1,400+ buildings can fit in 61.4 square miles? That is literally double the buildings in Boston and Philadelphia. D.C.'s core is just larger. The crazy thing is the huge amount of highrise and lowrise buildings that need to be added to this list now.
DC definately has the spread, Philly/Boston is concentrated in an area much less sq miles in their cores.
But both DC and Boston (Arlington/Crystal City etc. and Cambridge) extend more directly as well.
Am curious as to the sq footage in the comparisons, not sure it exisits other than office sq footage
But on the point of density; to clarify you mean density of listed buildings? Boston and Philly are far more continuously dense as cities, though much is residential, But there is no way to look at a picture like this and say there is no building density. Also DC has to have more buildings per to achieve similar footage, it cant build up like other cities
“It’s a Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood" | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tiascapes/5396573474/ - broken link)
I wasn't talking about downtown. I was talking about the core. D.C.'s core is huge and the mass of buildings covers miles. How else do you think 1,400+ buildings can fit in 61.4 square miles? That is literally double the buildings in Boston and Philadelphia. D.C.'s core is just larger. The crazy thing is the huge amount of highrise and lowrise buildings that need to be added to this list now.
there is more Building because say Back Bay, or Kenmore isn't counted as Downtown Boston while areas of Equal Distance are counted for DC, when Back Bay is clearly part of the CBD, is same for Philly.
there is more Building because say Back Bay, or Kenmore isn't counted as Downtown Boston while areas of Equal Distance are counted for DC, when Back Bay is clearly part of the CBD, is same for Philly.
But he is right DC has more buildings listed (these numbers include all areas of the city so BB and Financial District, and Copley etc are included), mostly because it cant buit up so it has to spread more
I am not sure though I would call DC more structually dense than either Boston or Philly but does have more that are tall enogh to be listed, it basically has to, again it cant build up
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.
