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.
I don't know if that is really a good example though. University City is urban and intensely built. It's similar to Center City. Capitol Hill on the other hand is all row houses and looks nothing like downtown DC. Now, the walk from Downtown DC to Mt. Vernon Triangle to NOMA are three neighborhoods that look similar with very little distinction between them.
When I say "Capitol Hill," I am talking about the actual Capitol building, SCOTUS, LOC, Rayburn, Cannon HOB, Union Station, etc. I'm not talking about the residential areas east of there.
NOMA is not even close to being "downtown" yet you insist on throwing that in there.
Actually it wouldn't be accurate at all - since it was pointed out that Philly's downtown population has ALWAYS been larger than Chicago's. That's what makes this thread so comical as far as the title and subject. Why was Chicago's name even thrown into this title or thread at all? It honestly has nothing to do with any of this more than San Fran as far as other cities with fairly large downtown populations. None of them are switching rank or passing anyone up, etc. This thread is a celebration of.....nothing new. Why Chicago was used in the title makes no rational sense.
What actually makes it interesting is that Chicago's downtown residential population has been growing at the fastest rate of any city in the country, so you could almost make a case that Chicago might give Philly a race for the title of the 2nd most populous at some point in the next 10-15 years if trends hold....
nah, we will just expand the boundaries, Temple, soon LaSalle and St Joes will all be DT making for not only the largest DT population outside of NYC but also the highest concentration of Universities and college students as well
In fact I venture to say soon Trenton and Princeton will be DT as well recapturing Mercer county back from the NYC metro - Plus two ivy league schools in one DT
nah, we will just expand the boundaries, Temple, soon LaSalle and St Joes will all be DT making for not only the largest DT population outside of NYC but also the highest concentration of Universities and college students as well
In fact I venture to say soon Trenton and Princeton will be DT as well recapturing Mercer county back from the NYC metro - Plus two ivy league schools in one DT
nah, we will just expand the boundaries, Temple, soon LaSalle and St Joes will all be DT making for not only the largest DT population outside of NYC but also the highest concentration of Universities and college students as well
In fact I venture to say soon Trenton and Princeton will be DT as well recapturing Mercer county back from the NYC metro - Plus two ivy league schools in one DT
Yep. This will be Greater Greater Greater Center City in 2030.
It will be the first "downtown" to be coterminous with its MSA. Philadelphia is a city of firsts!
By MSA it already is? At least to Atlantic City... that CSA already covers, and all the Way to Cape May for MSA. But Philly and New Jersey ARE ALREADY? OR SOON WILL BE OBSORBED BY YOUR MIGHTY NYC's WHOLE REACH. DC will have... basically does? Have the City of Baltimore, Delaware, Maryland and much of Virginia.
By MSA it already is? At least to Atlantic City... that CSA already covers, and all the Way to Cape May for MSA. But Philly and New Jersey ARE ALREADY? OR SOON WILL BE OBSORBED BY YOUR MIGHTY NYC's WHOLE REACH. DC will have... basically does? Have the City of Baltimore, Delaware, Maryland and much of Virginia.
Does it really matter whether University City is "considered" downtown? If they're adjacent to each other and seamlessly run together, would anyone really care whether its "considered" downtown? Walking, it's just one big uninterrupted area.
I don't find U City and Center City to be "seamless" the way that Center City is seamless with neighborhoods to the immediate south (nor do I find CC's connections to neighborhoods going north all that "seamless" either - it's really CC + South Philly that is the seamless transition). There are lots of vacant lots, shoddy buildings, a river, and a transit hub with however many lanes of rail and elevated roadway separating Center City's core with the walkable part of University City a mile away. It would be akin to the stuff Philly and other posters criticize Chicago of having around its downtown that effectively walls off its downtown core with surrounding areas.
Again, goes back to "can't have it both ways".
And speaking of, I find it funny that even denser neighborhoods just as, if not more, seamlessly surrounding DT SF on virtually all sides the way CC transitions into South Philly on one side are not to be considered "downtown" in SF while rowhouse neighborhoods or even depressed neighborhoods with rebuilt single-family attached homes a mile away from any major office buildings or high rise hotels/condos are to be "downtown" in Philadelphia, while this is not allowed to be the case in other cities (NOT that we in other cities want to, need to, or consider such areas in our respective cities to be "downtown"). A Philly poster in this thread blatantly said Nob Hill and Chinatown in SF are not "downtown" while rowhouse neighborhoods a mile away from CC are downtown in Philly, based on subjective "resident determination" of what is downtown.
Chicago's DT MUCH larger than SF's
SF's noticeably larger than Philly's
Philly's NOT larger than Chicago's (by way of deduction)
There IS a difference between dense, walkable urban core neighborhood that is walking distance to DT or maybe 1-2-3-5 subway stops away, and actually "downtown".
When I say "Capitol Hill," I am talking about the actual Capitol building, SCOTUS, LOC, Rayburn, Cannon HOB, Union Station, etc. I'm not talking about the residential areas east of there.
NOMA is not even close to being "downtown" yet you insist on throwing that in there.
Actually it wouldn't be accurate at all - since it was pointed out that Philly's downtown population has ALWAYS been larger than Chicago's. That's what makes this thread so comical as far as the title and subject. Why was Chicago's name even thrown into this title or thread at all? It honestly has nothing to do with any of this more than San Fran as far as other cities with fairly large downtown populations. None of them are switching rank or passing anyone up, etc. This thread is a celebration of.....nothing new. Why Chicago was used in the title makes no rational sense.
What actually makes it interesting is that Chicago's downtown residential population has been growing at the fastest rate of any city in the country, so you could almost make a case that Chicago might give Philly a race for the title of the 2nd most populous at some point in the next 10-15 years if trends hold....
Its pretty obvious why the initiator of the thread threw in Chicago and took a jab. Bias against Chicago, period. To me this thing is stupid, as has been pointed out, Chicago's downtown population is exploding, not Philadelphia's, and the two mile rule from city hall in Chicago would include much of the lake, Grant Park, and hotels and office buildings, something Philadelphia lacks.
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.
lol
