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.
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).
Unless you have a very constrained definition in Midtown, that's not true. Parts have seen large residential growth. The census tract north of Times Square has seen fast growth: 46th to 50th street between 6th and 8th avenues grew by 50% between 2000 to 2010. Rest of Midtown is a mixed picture, but the most office only has haven't seen much residential growth:
I think it's a safe bet that more live in Midtown than 50 years ago.
Quote:
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.
That's not quite the pattern. Tribeca has seen fast growth and its among the most expensive parts of Manhattan, the difference is there were places for residential conversion. See the map. You should post sources to back up your statements...
Unless you have a very constrained definition in Midtown, that's not true. Parts have seen large residential growth. The census tract north of Times Square has seen fast growth: 46th to 50th street between 6th and 8th avenues grew by 50% between 2000 to 2010. Rest of Midtown is a mixed picture, but the most office only has haven't seen much residential growth:
But these are tiny numbers, and outdated by this point. In 2000 one could still build regular luxury buildings in the Midtown core. Not anymore, really. I would wager that more people lived in Midtown prior to its emergence as the dominant core in the postwar era. The postwar 6th Avenue and 3rd Avenue towers replaced residential tenements in the shadow of the old 6th Ave/3rd Ave. elevated lines. The Park Ave. towers replaced older prewar residential buildings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
That's not quite the pattern. Tribeca has seen fast growth and its among the most expensive parts of Manhattan, the difference is there were places for residential conversion. See the map. You should post sources to back up your statements...
Tribeca had lots of land available from the urban renewal era, especially due north of the WTC. That land is now developed. Like with SoHo and Greenwich Village, its population growth will soon stop, because the land is all built on now, and any conversions will be for massive superluxury lofts. Landmarking, NIMBYs and land costs will keep non superluxury housing at bay.
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.
You're thinking from an American point of view. Cities like NYC, Philly, San Francisco, Chicago, Boston, etc. with the top rated downtowns in the country have healthy commercial, hotel, retail and residential markets. All cities in the US are exploding in residential growth downtown. Look at cities like LA and Seattle and Houston and DC who are building a ton of housing downtown to try to emulate the model that these other cities have.
I think most realistic Philadelphians would tell you that Philly could absolutely have a stronger economy and commercial development. I think most of the slow growth in this area has to do with archaic business and wage taxes. However, Philly is certainly building a lot of non residential now as well including the tallest building in the US outside of NYC and Chicago.
That doesn't include some big commercial developments in the making like 1901 Arch, 618 Market, Cira II, Wexford Science and Technology University City site, 3400 Market, 3800 Market, Drexel Innovation Neighborhood, Penn's new Norma Foster designed tower and 3600 Civic Center Blvd.
Walkscore gives Downtown Los Angeles a 93. That means DTLA is more walkable than Downtown Philadelphia. L.A. wins!
I agree that the boundaries put forth by the CCRA claiming that Center City is the second largest downtown is pretty bogus. Development wise, I would consider Manhattan, Chicago and San Francisco to be larger than Center City. I created a few maps a while back detailing what could be considered the "Downtown Area" for a lot of the larger US cities.
I agree that the boundaries put forth by the CCRA claiming that Center City is the second largest downtown is pretty bogus. Development wise, I would consider Manhattan, Chicago and San Francisco to be larger than Center City. I created a few maps a while back detailing what could be considered the "Downtown Area" for a lot of the larger US cities.
Why did you include U City for Philly, but didn't include Capital Riverfront, Union Market, and the Wharf/Waterfront Station for D.C.? The Wharf/Waterfront Station and Capital Riverfront touches the Federal Center which you included and Union Market touches NOMA which you included. Also, for NOMA, you cut off half the neighborhood.
I also don't get why he didn't include Downtown Brooklyn/Ft. Greene, Williamsburg and Long Island City. Those areas should be considered "Downtown" NYC too.
I agree that the boundaries put forth by the CCRA claiming that Center City is the second largest downtown is pretty bogus. Development wise, I would consider Manhattan, Chicago and San Francisco to be larger than Center City. I created a few maps a while back detailing what could be considered the "Downtown Area" for a lot of the larger US cities.
Why did you include U City for Philly, but didn't include Capital Riverfront, Union Market, and the Wharf/Waterfront Station for D.C.? The Wharf/Waterfront Station and Capital Riverfront touches the Federal Center which you included and Union Market touches NOMA which you included. Also, for NOMA, you cut off half the neighborhood.
Can't include all of the city man, lol. What would Downtown DC look like to you? It's just a rough mock-up which I made. It doesn't mean this is the 100% definitive definition of Downtown DC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
I also don't get why he didn't include Downtown Brooklyn/Ft. Greene, Williamsburg and Long Island City. Those areas should be considered "Downtown" NYC too.
Is this a joke? Probably because they're separated by the massive East River. I would consider these separate "Downtown Nodes," but they are definitely not a part of the cohesive Downtown of NYC.
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.
