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.
We've exhausted this lifelong debate. Let's just get back to the topic without involving the OP, he's entitled to the same opinions we all are. Haters need to grow up. Back to big city feeling, how would you folks rank the 5 cities from the biggest feeling city to smallest for NYC, LA, DC, Chicago, and San Francisco.
Bajan's prehistoric statistics clearly show that midtown holds a higher percentage of jobs than lower manhattan/DT Brooklyn/DT Newark COMBINED. I never said the place sucked, sheesh.
Actually, my statistics just showed that you were FLAT OUT WRONG. Paris is not any more or less decentralized than NYC from an employment or amenities perspective. Both are very centralized cities. So the Paris-Los Angeles comparison is simply not a good one.
LA is actually far more comparable to Phoenix, Dallas or Houston.
Coral Gables doesn't look anything like Hollywood. It's looks like a moderately dense neighborhood in Orange County.
And yeah, I will stick to my density figures. Facts are good. I know they bother those who think attached housing are all that makes a place urban, but oh well.
I would say that Hollywood and Coral Gables are somewhat similar. Not exactly similar, but certainly similar than comparing Coral Gables with Orange County.
Hollywood is a weird urban/suburban hybrid, like Coral Gables. I'm not comfortable calling it urban (way too auto-oriented and density drops off too soon), but it definitely isn't suburban (very dense, many apartment complexes, and some pedestrian-oriented blocks). Coral Gables is similar, though somewhat less intense.
Actually, my statistics just showed that you were FLAT OUT WRONG. Paris is not any more or less decentralized than NYC from an employment or amenities perspective. Both are very centralized cities. So the Paris-Los Angeles comparison is simply not a good one.
Agree that the Paris - Los Angeles comparison is not a good one. Your stats are rather old but I couldn't find anything better myself. The numbers may have changed by 20-30% but I think the general pattern is about the same for any built out area.
It depends on what you mean by centralization on whether NYC is more centralized than Paris. If you mean both have a high percentage of white collar jobs in a general core region (below 59th st in Manhattan for NYC not as sure about Paris). But within this core, NYC centralizes its jobs within two points (Midtown and Lower Manhattan). Paris' jobs are spread out within the core. If you look at the link, the NYC CBDs have really high job density numbers. The reason is of course one has skyscrapers and the other has a height limit.
Amenities in NYC have a bit of a Midtown concentration but nowhere near the scale of the job concentration. Many of the amenities are concentrated in a region between Union Square and Greenwich Village (with plenty in the adjacent nabes) as much as Midtown. It sounds some of the posters here have only done only a brief tourist visit of New York City. Sure, the tourists tend to congregate in Midtown. But when I visit New York City and go into Manhattan I often find myself in the same Union Square / Greenwich Village axis I mentioned. Museums are concentrated in the Upper East Side and scattered around the rest of the island. Nothing going on around here :
Large shopping stores, some offices, and attract much more residents than Times Square. From doing walks in and around Downtown Brooklyn (North and West of the Atlantic Terminal and maybe the adjacent neighborhoods), it felt as urban and vibrant as sections in and around the center of Boston. Hard to measure, but to say there's nothing in Brooklyn is absurd.
Agree that the Paris - Los Angeles comparison is not a good one. Your stats are rather old but I couldn't find anything better myself. The numbers may have changed by 20-30% but I think the general pattern is about the same for any built out area.
Paris has not gone from having 20 percent of all employment in the region concentrated in the Paris CBD to having 10 percent employment concentrated in the CBD in a mere 20 years. It's certainly losing job share, but that's the case for many cities, especially very built out and dense cities like Central NYC and Central Paris that have no land left to build on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
It depends on what you mean by centralization on whether NYC is more centralized than Paris. If you mean both have a high percentage of white collar jobs in a general core region (below 59th st in Manhattan for NYC not as sure about Paris). But within this core, NYC centralizes its jobs within two points (Midtown and Lower Manhattan). Paris' jobs are spread out within the core. If you look at the link, the NYC CBDs have really high job density numbers. The reason is of course one has skyscrapers and the other has a height limit.
That's really getting nitpicky. The claim was that NYC has "5 square miles of fun!" Well, Paris also has five or six "square miles of fun!" The bottom line is that a good bulk of the jobs and attractions in Paris are found in a small area. They are not scattered all around the region as you would find in a decentralized city like LA.
Again, both Paris and NYC are very centralized from a jobs and amenities perspective. While some jobs may leave the primary CBDs, the amenities are not going anywhere. The Eiffel Tower won't be dismantled and relocated to Aulnay-sous-Bois anytime soon. And the Empire State Building won't be moved to the southern tip of Staten Island. Certain things about a region are fixed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
Amenities in NYC have a bit of a Midtown concentration but nowhere near the scale of the job concentration. Many of the amenities are concentrated in a region between Union Square and Greenwich Village (with plenty in the adjacent nabes) as much as Midtown. It sounds some of the posters here have only done only a brief tourist visit of New York City. Sure, the tourists tend to congregate in Midtown. But when I visit New York City and go into Manhattan I often find myself in the same Union Square / Greenwich Village axis I mentioned. Museums are concentrated in the Upper East Side and scattered around the rest of the island. Nothing going on around here :
But that's still a geographically small area compared to decentralized Metro areas like Atlanta or Houston. The difference between NYC and other cities is that you're walking to most of the places you visit. And while a 7 sq. mile area does not sound large to someone accustomed to daily highway driving at 80+ mph, it is an especially large area for a pedestrian.
But within this core, NYC centralizes its jobs within two points (Midtown and Lower Manhattan). Paris' jobs are spread out within the core. If you look at the link, the NYC CBDs have really high job density numbers. The reason is of course one has skyscrapers and the other has a height limit.
This isn't really true. Manhattan south of the park functions more as a contiguous core business area, and there aren't really "two points". Maybe that was true at one point, but the job counts between Midtown and Downtown are actually higher than in Downtown. Office rents are higher too. The office rents in the "in between" part now top even Midtown.
And the folks saying that all the vitality is in Manhattan have never been to NYC. Flushing, Queens, has more pedestrian vitality and overall density than anything in LA. I mean, not even close. Not even close to close. Then there's Astoria, Jackson Heights, Jamaica, Elmhurst, Rego Park, etc. etc. (and that's just Queens. Then there's Brooklyn and Bronx).
I would say that Hollywood and Coral Gables are somewhat similar. Not exactly similar, but certainly similar than comparing Coral Gables with Orange County.
Hollywood is a weird urban/suburban hybrid, like Coral Gables. I'm not comfortable calling it urban (way too auto-oriented and density drops off too soon), but it definitely isn't suburban (very dense, many apartment complexes, and some pedestrian-oriented blocks). Coral Gables is similar, though somewhat less intense.
The biggest difference I see between the two is Coral Gables drops way off around the central mini-CBD areas - though the main areas are close enough to be within walking distance of each other IMO. I agree that Hollywood blends an urban and suburban aesthetic - not sure I'd call it auto-oriented or even car-friendly, but I agree it is not pedestrian-centric either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
LA is actually far more comparable to Phoenix, Dallas or Houston.
Uh no. Why can't you just be reasonable like the above poster?
Just off the top of my head cities like Seattle, Portland, San Diego, Miami, Detroit, even Chicago are closer in resemblance to LA than Dallas, Phoenix and Houston. No matter how many times you try to put that square peg into a round hole, it will never fit.
I guess if you are saying LA is closer to those cities than Paris, maybe you are right. But contrary to popular belief, those cities are not very similar to LA at all.
Last edited by munchitup; 08-28-2012 at 11:07 AM..
This isn't really true. Manhattan south of the park functions more as a contiguous core business area, and there aren't really "two points". Maybe that was true at one point, but the job counts between Midtown and Downtown are actually higher than in Downtown. Office rents are higher too. The office rents in the "in between" part now top even Midtown.
That's a good point. Without having any data in front of me, I would say that the Financial District and Midtown have higher job densities, but that you still have a whole lot of jobs in between those two districts. We tend to only think of "jobs" as people who put on a shirt and tie and work in skyscrapers. But there are quite a few tech jobs, service industry jobs, etc. located in other parts of Manhattan.
Last edited by BajanYankee; 08-28-2012 at 11:32 AM..
Actually, my statistics just showed that you were FLAT OUT WRONG. Paris is not any more or less decentralized than NYC from an employment or amenities perspective. Both are very centralized cities. So the Paris-Los Angeles comparison is simply not a good one.
LA is actually far more comparable to Phoenix, Dallas or Houston.
Thats funny, because I don't remember your stats showing that 21% of all the jobs in Paris metro are located in a 5-6 sq miles area. Anyway, the larger point was that NYC is very monocentric--a point your statistics hammer home.
I NEVER said L.A. and Paris have anything in common.
Last edited by RaymondChandlerLives; 08-28-2012 at 12:00 PM..
Thats funny, because I don't remember your stats showing that 21% of all the jobs in Paris metro are located in a 5-6 sq miles area. Anyway, the larger point was that NYC is very monocentric--a point your statistics hammer home.
am pretty sure that NYC has far more than 21% of its jobs more than 5-6 miles from Manhattan, probably well over 50%
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.
:
