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.
In cities like San Francisco, Boston, Philly where the neighborhoods sort of bleed into the core, it is harder to tell where downtown begins and ends. Other cities like Los Angeles and Chicago it is pretty cut-and-dry.
I'm used to more the first type of cities, I think it leads to some confusion when referring to "downtown". New York City, not really either. Portland's transition is relatively smooth for a newer city, for Seattle it's easier to notice.
I'm used to more the first type of cities, I think it leads to some confusion when referring to "downtown". New York City, not really either. Portland's transition is relatively smooth for a newer city, for Seattle it's easier to notice.
Yeah Manhattan is so dense that basically any part of it could be other cities' downtown. Makes it hard to draw lines.
Wouldn't it be easy to tell where downtown stops and ends in Philly and Boston? I could understand San Fran because it's built up more. Seems like Center City is pretty cut and dry going from a mix of highrise's and rowhomes to straight rowhomes.
I didn't find it obvious for Philly or Boston. For Center City, it's a gradual transition between row house only and more high rises. For Boston, there areas like Back Bay that are mixed the more residential neighborhoods right by downtown don't have any obvious break between them and downtown.
I don't know, maybe that is true - only been to Philly once. Boston is a little ambiguous because Back Bay is so built up though is not really considered the traditional "downtown", though many people consider it to be downtown Boston.
BTW I'd put DC with the other cities that it is hard to tell where downtown begins and ends.
I think the height of buildings in Center City creates a pretty noticeable barrier. Boston does have more height outside of downtown so I can agree with that with Back Bay etc. D.C. could just be one big downtown in a decade or two unless they repeal the height limit. At some point, D.C. will run out of land and then what? The height limit is the only reason they are buildings highrise's everywhere across the city. Don't know if that is good or bad. I can see both arguments.
I didn't find it obvious for Philly or Boston. For Center City, it's a gradual transition between row house only and more high rises. For Boston, there areas like Back Bay that are mixed the more residential neighborhoods right by downtown don't have any obvious break between them and downtown.
I think it's good that Boston and Philly have been able to preserve their history with a focus on growth in their downtown's. Wish D.C. would have been able to do that. Congress couldn't give two flips about D.C.'s historical buildings throughout the last 100 years. They razed have the city without blinking. D.C. has been a guinea pig for everything.
I think the height of buildings in Center City creates a pretty noticeable barrier. Boston does have more height outside of downtown so I can agree with that with Back Bay etc. D.C. could just be one big downtown in a decade or two unless they repeal the height limit. At some point, D.C. will run out of land and then what? The height limit is the only reason they are buildings highrise's everywhere across the city. Don't know if that is good or bad. I can see both arguments.
Hmm. Maybe, but at street level you notice the high rises less. For Chicago, there's a this is residential (Lincoln Park / Old Town), this is downtown (Loop). In between in the Near North Side, it was mostly commercial or industrial until recently, it's not a gradual change. Philly has row houses mixed in right in the downtown, Boston goes back and forth between downtown and residential blocks. By Rittenhouse Square:
I think it's good that Boston and Philly have been able to preserve their history with a focus on growth in their downtown's. Wish D.C. would have been able to do that. Congress couldn't give two flips about D.C.'s historical buildings throughout the last 100 years. They razed have the city without blinking. D.C. has been a guinea pig for everything.
Didn't know that, I need to visit DC… DC was historically much smaller than Boston or Philly and now it's a similar size metro-wise, so the old downtown area wasn't as built up, so perhaps more needed to be removed?
Nob Hill isn't downtown SF, nor is SoMa. People who live in those areas say they live in Nob Hill and SoMa, not downtown.
Those areas are not referred to as downtown SF. They aren't the office or commercial or governmental cores of the city. They're both peripheral residential zones.
But no WF whatsoever downtown. Just so we're consistently pedantic with your Detroit comments.
But you are incorrect! Nob Hill and SoMa are definitely part of downtown San Francisco.
Union Square, SoMa, Chinatown, parts of North Beach, the Tenderloin and Rincon Hill are all downtown neighborhoods. You're confusing a CBD with a much broader downtown. You are correct- there is no WF in the CBS of San Francisco. That is almost exclusively businesses and offices'.
The Moscone Center is part of SoMa. Many hotels and tourist attractions are in the area. Many businesses are in the area.
Haha. You have been stating downtown Minneapolis looks dead based on Google Street View and then you go and list downtown Oakland as a top downtown area. Downtown MPLS tops downtown Oakland in regards to size, vibrancy, architecture, businesses, and general aesthetics, which this thread is about.
I would say downtown MPLS tops downtown San Diego when all of the criteria is taken into consideration.
Perhaps you can make the case for downtown Minneapolis being nicer and more thriving than downtown Oakland, but San Diego will take a lot of convincing. Please show us a restaurant/bar district downtown Minneapolis that can match the Gaslamp district of downtown San Diego. Use your own criteria to convince me that downtown Minneapolis is nicer than downtown SD.
I am not trying to be hard-headed, but you are yet to show us how Minneapolis has a great downtown. Imo, San Diego DOES have a good downtown. Might not be Chicago or NYC, but its a darn good one.
Downtown SD is on a very nice waterfront, has tons of restaurants, one of the nicest baseball stadiums in the country, is VERY clean and very safe compared to most downtown's. Its also has a very large club/bar scene from SD being both a college and navy town. And from pictures, it definitely appears larger than downtown Minneapolis.
Here are some videos I found on youtube of downtown Minneapolis. Like all the pictures we've seen, it appears to be a very dead downtown, though does have some nice architecture, but then so does Detroit.
Last edited by SFNative87; 12-04-2013 at 05:56 PM..
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.
