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.
No it wouldn't. Do any of you actually objectively look up stats, or do you just go with your biased "feelings"? I posted lots of info on the last page proving why Philly should not be considered the 3rd largest or the 3rd most populated downtown. One of the top 5 or ten depending on what we're measuring? Sure. But it is not the next largest after NYC and Chicago, period.
He listed it as #4 not #3. Shouldn't New York's be separated into Midtown and Downtown rather than as one. Though the OP asked only for "Downtowns" but I assume Midtown can still count?
Philly's DT workforce is not #3. It may be behind DC, SF and Boston.
It may be.
But they don't have the residential population Philly have, and (except D.C's, though it lacks the density) their downtowns are smaller in area than Philadelphia's.
BTW, I said Lower Manhanttan was the 3rd largest downtown in America (it's considered seperate from Midtown Manhanttan) and I guessed Philadelphia's downtown was fourth.
Again, my guess with regards to Philadelphia was not fact-based or scientific.
BTW, I said Lower Manhanttan was the 3rd largest downtown in America (it's considered seperate from Midtown Manhanttan) and I guessed Philadelphia's downtown was fourth.
Again, my guess with regards to Philadelphia was not fact-based or scientific.
Actually going by office space, Lower Manhattan is #4 after DC. They should switch once the World Trade Center is completed.
I'm curious as to how well traveled you are. I've lived in NYC, DC and Chicago and DC by far (I mean a huge margin) feels much smaller than Chicago to me. Downtown DC has a big footprint, but is just a sea of 8-10 story 9-5 office buildings. Chicago seems much more developed.
We are talking about downtown development. Unless you are walking around looking up all day or sitting on a hill away from from the city gazing at the skyline, skyscrapers serve no purpose for street level urban form that a 10-15 story building can't do. Zero lot development and street retail is the only thing that matter in relation to urban form. Skyscrapers are nice in pictures but do little to build urban form. See Atlanta, Dallas, Houston for examples of skyscrapers that serve no purpose at street level. Downtown DC's critical mass of dense development covers a larger footprint than Chicago in a much more efficient shape which is where Chicago's development has failed. It's like taking The skin of an apple and peeling it into a long strand of skin. It was a huge mass until you peeled it and spread it out. Chicago goes vertical in height yes. Chicago goes vertical in build up the coast yeah. Chicago does not however create the critical mass needed in depth. That is why when walking away from the coast, there is a major drop off. It's also why it can't compete with Manhattan. If all those buildings were build going away from the core, Chicago would definetly be neck and neck with Manahattan. But they don't.
It's semantics IMO, considering that NYC only fell to 4th place due to an unfortunate terrorist attack and that space lost will be returning soon.
Well not really. Office space gone = less office workers = smaller downtown for at least 10 years. And we don't know how quickly that will be filled. There was a bunch of subsequent conversion of office space to condos as well (as the Downtown became less desirable to other offices without as many nearby offices), so in a way it helped it became more vibrant at the expense of less workers.
Many of the offices that left Downtown moved to Midtown, so as a whole it wasn't a big loss for Manhattan.
I guess I was too lazy to type on a phone...But Downtown DC is def a office space beast, but doesn't have the Live/Work/Play feel that Chicago does. That is what I meant by developed, now that I re-read what he wrote, MDAllSTAR was probably talking about footprint of downtown.
Isn't that what the question was? If they said what are the best downtown's, then of course Chicago is ahead of DC. He asked what are the biggest downtowns and DC's downtown footprint because of height limits has sprawled it to a much larger size than every city except NYC and really the center city core will be as large as Manhattan soon. It will not be close to as intense or as populated or dense, but by land area and canyons, it is getting pretty insane.
Actually going by office space, Lower Manhattan is #4 after DC. They should switch once the World Trade Center is completed.
They will switch right back as NOMA, Mt.Vernon Triangle, and Northwest One develops and DC will pass Chicago by a pretty large margin. DC is actually developing a second downtown also to the south as well just like NYC with Midtown and downtown in NYC in SW DC. Capitol Riverfront, SW Waterfront, Buzzard Point are all developing into a full fledged downtown as we speak. By 2020, it will be interesting to see the change in SW DC.
We are talking about downtown development. Unless you are walking around looking up all day or sitting on a hill away from from the city gazing at the skyline, skyscrapers serve no purpose for street level urban form that a 10-15 story building can't do. Zero lot development and street retail is the only thing that matter in relation to urban form. Skyscrapers are nice in pictures but do little to build urban form. See Atlanta, Dallas, Houston for examples of skyscrapers that serve no purpose at street level. Downtown DC's critical mass of dense development covers a larger footprint than Chicago in a much more efficient shape which is where Chicago's development has failed. It's like taking The skin of an apple and peeling it into a long strand of skin. It was a huge mass until you peeled it and spread it out. Chicago goes vertical in height yes. Chicago goes vertical in build up the coast yeah. Chicago does not however create the critical mass needed in depth. That is why when walking away from the coast, there is a major drop off. It's also why it can't compete with Manhattan. If all those buildings were build going away from the core, Chicago would definetly be neck and neck with Manahattan. But they don't.
I completely disagree with this. The lowrise neighborhoods near downtown are more urban than DC IMO. The highrises in Chicago are obviously on another level from DC.
They will switch right back as NOMA, Mt.Vernon Triangle, and Northwest One's develop. DC is actually developing a second downtown also to the south as well just like NYC in SW DC. Capitol Riverfront, SW Waterfront, Buzzard Point are all developing into a full fledged downtown as we speak. By 2020, it will be interesting to see the change in SW DC.
When completed, the World Trade Center will have 11.9 million square feet of space.
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.
