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.
A thread so dumb yet you can't even dispute my argument. So the only thing you have left is ad hominem. No offense but you sound like a bitter Chicagoland homer.
Your argument has been disputed about 5,000 times in this thread. It's not like it matters though, because you believe what you want to.
If it's really true that Philadelphia's downtown has expanded, then all that really means is...
-It now has the lowest employment density of any major city in the United States
-It goes from being one of the most educated downtowns to one of the least
-It goes from being relatively affluent to relatively impoverished
-It goes from having one of the highest walkscores to one of the lowest
If it's really true that Philadelphia's downtown has expanded, then all that really means is...
Exactly. This thread is silly.
I am a big Philly fan, but if the premise were true, it would be a bad thing, moreso than a good thing. A healthy downtown is expanding more with commercial growth, not residential growth. Strong residential growth means that housing is a more valuable function than office or hotel space, which is an unhealthy sign for a central business district.
In order to understand the relative health of a city, downtown is the last place to look. You need to look at the neighborhoods.
If it's really true that Philadelphia's downtown has expanded, then all that really means is...
-It now has the lowest employment density of any major city in the United States
-It goes from being one of the most educated downtowns to one of the least
-It goes from being relatively affluent to relatively impoverished
-It goes from having one of the highest walkscores to one of the lowest
The only one of those that is true is the employment density since those neighborhoods are mostly residential. Which neighborhood would bring down the walkscore?
The only one of those that is true is the employment density since those neighborhoods are mostly residential. Which neighborhood would bring down the walkscore?
Because if office space is being converted to residential space, it would make sense that people can no longer walk to their workplaces.
If your city is undergoing a downtown residential boom, that's generally a worrisome sign. Notice that the most valuable CBDs in the country do not get a tremendous amount of housing built, because commercial values are already so high. Instead, residential towers go up nearby, but usually not right in the middle of the CBD.
I guarantee Detroit has a higher rate of residential growth downtown than SF, since Detroit was so abandoned that much of the empty office space was converted to apartments. In SF, downtown conversions from office to residential would be rare and typically uneconomical. But that doesn't mean Detroit has a stronger downtown than SF, obviously.
Because if office space is being converted to residential space, it would make sense that people can no longer walk to their workplaces.
If your city is undergoing a downtown residential boom, that's generally a worrisome sign. Notice that the most valuable CBDs in the country do not get a tremendous amount of housing built, because commercial values are already so high. Instead, residential towers go up nearby, but usually not right in the middle of the CBD.
New York City has seen steady CBD residential construction. Though the section with the most (Lower Manhattan / Financial District) has seen some commercial decline.
The only one of those that is true is the employment density since those neighborhoods are mostly residential. Which neighborhood would bring down the walkscore?
Nope. Expanding the boundaries of "Downtown Philadelphia" drags its educational attainment percentage down to 59%. Downtown Atlanta's is 70%. So it looks like Philadelphia loses that crown too.
Gotta take the good with the bad. I've always thought the "most educated downtown" claim was kinda silly anyway since most American downtowns don't have significant residential populations.
New York City has seen steady CBD residential construction. Though the section with the most (Lower Manhattan / Financial District) has seen some commercial decline.
Not really. Midtown Manhattan has very little residential construction, and almost no conversions. Core Midtown probably hasn't grown much in a century (I would guess population decline). The only new residential you see going up in the commercial core are super-luxury $10 million-$100 million condos for global bazillionaires (432 Park and the like).
A run-of-the mill highrise apartment building will probably never be built again in the Midtown core, because the land values are too high to justify such a use. For example, when the land for 15 CPW was sold, I think it went for nearly $500 million (and that was at least 10 years ago). There's no way highrise rentals, even "luxury" rentals, pencil out with those kind of land costs.
And the richest, most desirable neighborhoods in Manhattan aren't growing either. The growth in Manhattan is almost entirely in the least expensive parts of Manhattan. The population growth and residential development is almost all in Hudson Yards, Hells Kitchen, Harlem, and the like.
And the real growth is outside of Manhattan, in places like Long Island City, Downtown Brooklyn, Williamsburg and the like. There, demand is strong, and land values are still not up to Manhattan levels, so regular ground-up luxury housing pencils out.
Nope. Expanding the boundaries of "Downtown Philadelphia" drags its educational attainment percentage down to 59%. Downtown Atlanta's is 75%. So it looks like Philadelphia loses that crown too.
Gotta take the good with the bad. I've always thought the "most educated downtown" claim was kinda silly anyway since most American downtowns don't have significant residential populations.
ha I have never heard "most educated downtown", now that is a marketing term. I honestly was under the assumption it was one of the lowest educated. According to the report listed in OP's original post, it is 57.1% (29.3 with advanced degrees, 27.8 with just a bachelors) which according to what kidPhilly posted yesterday center city was only like 62% anyway. Same with income levels, outside of the groups of housing projects east of broad and south of girard, income disparity is really not that much different. Things really begin to change going farther north at that point.
I am still pretty certain that Walkscore gives the entire "greater center city" area a 90 or above score.
It's quite funny to see people make excuses. Look, we all know Chicago is a great city but you gotta give credit to Philly on this one. Center City has improved so dramatically over the last 20 years. It was inevitable that it was going to surpass downtown Chicago in population. It was only a matter of time.
This is just like the Phoenix thread, only opposite. Arbitrary definitions are being used to create a specific narrative.
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.
