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.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,990,056 times
Reputation: 7333
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly
Cleavor angle for one, yes the tall in the middle is pretty far from midtown on the left, and yes it is very linear and no not as cohesive as many other cities and seperated but pretty large distances
What I thought would happen.
That whole area looks like this.
South of BofA Tower (the big one in the middle that OMG2010 posted.
Area around BofA
From far away, all you'll notice is the big one sticking out, but in the actual neighborhood it is cohesive.
Table 9. Downtown Typologies Fully-Developed
Boston
Chicago
Lower Manhattan
Midtown Manhattan
Philadelphia
Emerging Downtowns
Atlanta
Baltimore
Charlotte
Cleveland
Denver
Los Angelos
Memphis
New Orleans
Norfolk
Portland
San Diego
San Francisco
Seattle
Downtowns the Edge of Takeoff
Chattanoga
Dallas
Miami
Milwaukee
DC
Interesting find, I'll have to read it later to get all the details. Brookings usually produces good stuff, but several on the "emerging list" seem odd. Especially San Francisco and Seattle. They seem to have fully developed "downtowns".
So what area is BOA in, thought that was technically still downtown, also yes it is very linear, and why back on point would the two areas be combined when no other cities are judged this way, great there are multiple skylines, well established. But back to the point, why are the rules different for Atlanta?
Interesting find, I'll have to read it later to get all the details. Brookings usually produces good stuff, but several on the "emerging list" seem odd. Especially San Francisco and Seattle. They seem to have fully developed "downtowns".
Yes SF jumped at me too (also DC at the next level lower), also on quick review it looks like Houston was excluded in much (think they cut off at some population level plus some of the data is using 2000 census counts, need to give it a more thorough read, but some good income and education stats etc. looks pretty interesting and lots of good metrics for many cities.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,990,056 times
Reputation: 7333
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly
So what area is BOA in, thought that was technically still downtown, also yes it is very linear, and why back on point would the two areas be combined when no other cities are judged this way, great there are multiple skylines, well established.
That is the biggest debate in the world. Some people will tell you it's in Midtown, others will say it is in Downtown. It's right on the dividing line between the two districts so both have merits. The real answer, it is in SoNo
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly
But back to the point, why are the rules different for Atlanta?
They aren't, the explanation of how it came to be and why it is the way it is just different. Besides, there aren't any rules for what exactly constitutes a "Downtown" or CBD.
I thought this was interesting, one of the conclusions of Brookings on downtowns from the above link on a cities downtown
"Density Choices
Density matters. In general, the evidence
suggests that there is a relationship
between density and the ability to
attract downtown residents. While a
city with a substantial amount of
vacant or underutilized land might be
tempted to allow low-density residential
construction—in order to encourage
any investment at all—this would
likely be a mistake. Producing lowdensity
suburban models squanders
the market advantages of centrally
located real estate that many downtown
dwellers value—namely accessibility
to jobs, walkability, and an urban
quality of life—and limits the ability to
support the very services, facilities,
and amenities that determine downtown
character.24 In addition, low-density
development underutilizes existing
infrastructure, including streets, water,
parks, and transit systems."
Clevor angle for one, yes the tall in the middle is pretty far from midtown on the left, and yes it is very linear and no not as cohesive as many other cities and seperated but pretty large distances
The Tall building is not far from Midtown the street behind it is where Midtown begins. There is alot of infill there just not Tall infill..
Yes SF jumped at me too (also DC at the next level lower), also on quick review it looks like Houston was excluded in much (think they cut off at some population level plus some of the data is using 2000 census counts, need to give it a more thorough read, but some good income and education stats etc. looks pretty interesting and lots of good metrics for many cities.
but looks like a good read overall
Real good read, but I'll be interested to see if they put together an updated version for 2010, when the numbers are out.
It looks like San Fran is on a lower level than we expect, given the population numbers being in the 43k that live in the city. They seem to judge these tiers of downtown typography based on the size of the downtown population, household growth (number of households) and rates of household ownership. Although this tells a certain story, I'm not sure that it definitively suggests how much a downtown has truly emerged. I guess you could say number of households + metro health + household ownership builds urban density (aka foot traffic) and increased amenities, but I think there are other measures.
I'm also interested in Houston's numbers. It's hard for me to believe that Mesa, Jackson, etc. made it, but Houston didn't...???
Real good read, but I'll be interested to see if they put together an updated version for 2010, when the numbers are out.
It looks like San Fran is on a lower level than we expect, given the population numbers being in the 43k that live in the city. They seem to judge these tiers of downtown typography based on the size of the downtown population, household growth (number of households) and rates of household ownership. Although this tells a certain story, I'm not sure that it definitively suggests how much a downtown has truly emerged. I guess you could say number of households + metro health + household ownership builds urban density (aka foot traffic) and increased amenities, but I think there are other measures.
I'm also interested in Houston's numbers. It's hard for me to believe that Mesa, Jackson, etc. made it, but Houston didn't...???
They must have a different definition of "Downtown San Francisco" than your average SF resident then...here's a very close representation of downtown SF using census tracts (outlined in red):
^that's around 2-3 square miles, and includes the Financial District, Union Square, the Tenderloin, Civic Center, Nob Hill, parts of SOMA, and parts of Chinatown.
As you can see, the population is nearly twice what brookings counted. These stats I posted are from 2000 also, so downtown SF's population is definitely higher now.
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.
