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.
So what was it about my original post that you wanted to debate? My post:
"Every downtown has way more residents than it used to, and has probably grown with some offices, amenities, etc.
The bottom 10 downtowns out of the 50 biggest cities have probably improved a lot. But we're grading on a curve."
Your statement about every downtown has added way more residents than it used to is not true. Cities such as St. Louis, Cincinnati, and Detrot have lost substantial amounts of people downtown. This is not about development. I recognize the development going out n in those cities. There are other examples as well beyond economic decline that include urban renewal that wiped out downtown residents. There are even more examples when you consider the uprooting of low income and minorities from various downtowns, in addition.
Your statement about every downtown has added way more residents than it used to is not true. Cities such as St. Louis, Cincinnati, and Detrot have lost substantial amounts of people downtown. This is not about development. I recognize the development going out n in those cities. There are other examples as well beyond economic decline that include urban renewal that wiped out downtown residents. There are even more examples when you consider the uprooting of low income and minorities from various downtowns, in addition.
Maybe you guys are talking about different timeframes here.
You're right when you're talking about the mid 20th century where the urban cores were massive for several cities and then had a drastic drop in the decades following.
mhays25 is right in talking about since the beginning of this decade or so, longer for some, where a lot of city downtowns had reach their nadir earlier and have since been on a tear in regards to moving people into what was a decade or two ago fairly barren downtowns.
Maybe you guys are talking about different timeframes here.
You're right when you're talking about the mid 20th century where the urban cores were massive for several cities and then had a drastic drop in the decades following.
mhays25 is right in talking about since the beginning of this decade or so, longer for some, where a lot of city downtowns had reach their nadir earlier and have since been on a tear in regards to moving people into what was a decade or two ago fairly barren downtowns.
Yes, since the nadir in the 80s or 90s perhaps, basically all downtowns have added residents. In some cases abandonment/teardowns continued on the downtown fringes even while growth happened in other spots, but generally every downtown has been building for a decade or two. Or three.
I wouldn't say DT Houston is sterile.
It's kinda gritty.
It's population is increasing and you are seeing more nighttime activity but sterile is not the word I would use
There's a huge range between "gritty" and "sterile". VERY few downtowns are at those extremes. "Gritty" can be a little subjective, but "sterile" can be extremely subjective. So most of this thread is pretty much left up to one's own personal taste and preferences for the most part.
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.
