Which Downtowns offers the most in relation to its metropolitan population? (state, places)

[Vincent_Adultman]

Originally Posted by btownboss4

I think those other cities that don't have top 10 Downtowns (save Atlanta) have very poor downtowns, and are so sprawled out that no one place is really a central attraction for the metro area.

Seattle I think has a Downtown that more resembles Boston/Philly/SF than say West Seattle is like Kensington or East Boston. So I think it stands out as rather Downtown Centric comparatively.

I see what you’re saying although West Seattle is a particularly suburban/single-family home oriented section of the city, and even West Seattle has walkable urban nodes at Alaska Junction, Admiral, and Alki. A better comparison for East Boston or Kensington would probably be sections of Capitol Hil, the U District, Columbia City or Downtown Ballard.

That said, of course Philly, Boston and SF have a much more consistent overall urban fabric than Seattle, but I see Seattle’s closets peers as cities with top 10 downtowns like Minneapolis, Denver, San Diego, Portland, etc. Compared to those I think Seattle has a slightly better downtown, but significantly more urban inner neighborhoods, and somewhat more urban outer neighborhoods too. So compared to those I see it as less downtown-centric, even if it has a better downtown (if that makes sense).

[Need4Camaro]

Note:

I didn’t rank the tiers based on their Downtown. I ranked them based on their metro size.

I intended for users to pick two from each tier aside from tier 1 (two from tier 2, two from tier to 3, two from tier 4)

This thread isn’t exactly about which metro has the ‘best’ downtown but rather which metro’s downtown offers the most in relation to its metro’s size.

[MarketStEl]

Originally Posted by Need4Camaro

Choose ONE from tier 1, and TWO from tier’s 2 thru 4

To elaborate, one city may have a large MSA population but it’s downtown may not offer very much in correspondence to its actual metro area, while at the same token a smaller metro may offer much more in its core. Which metros do you feel have the strongest downtown in correlation to their metro populations?

In principal, the smaller the metro while offering equal to or greater amenities than competitor cities would be the best.

Criteria:

Skyline
Amenities
Access to Public Transportation
Walkability
Vibrancy



Tier 1:

Chicago
Los Angeles
New York

Tier 2:

Atlanta
Boston
Dallas
D.C.
Houston
Miami
Philadelphia
Phoenix
San Francisco
Seattle

Tier 3:

Austin
Charlotte
Cincinnati
Cleveland
Columbus OH
Denver
Minneapolis
Nashville
Sacramento
Salt Lake City
St.Peterburg
Tampa
Pittsburgh

Tier 4:

Asheville
Boise
Chattanooga
Columbia SC
Colorado Springs
Myrtle Beach
Daytona FL
Olympia WA

Any reason several cities I'd put in Tier 3 aren't on this list?

In particular: Milwaukee, both of Missouri's large cities (Kansas City and St. Louis), Portland (Ore.) Sheesh, Indianapolis too if you're going to include Columbus.

And now that I've mentioned the bigger Portland, the smaller one (Maine) belongs in Tier 4 and IMO would mop the floor with all of the cities you include here.

[TheTimidBlueBars]

Chicago is up there. It has great neighborhoods for urbanity geeks like us who like neighborhoods, but every time I see a list of attractions to visit in Chicago, they're all downtown except for maybe Wrigley Field. When I see lists for LA, NYC, SF, New Orleans, DC, etc. the attractions are a lot more spread out throughout the city and suburbs.

[Need4Camaro]

Originally Posted by MarketStEl

Any reason several cities I'd put in Tier 3 aren't on this list?

In particular: Milwaukee, both of Missouri's large cities (Kansas City and St. Louis), Portland (Ore.) Sheesh, Indianapolis too if you're going to include Columbus.

And now that I've mentioned the bigger Portland, the smaller one (Maine) belongs in Tier 4 and IMO would mop the floor with all of the cities you include here.

Yeah I was half sleep when I made the original post after a long drive between AUS-ATL-back to DFW. I also forgot San Diego.

I had to spend time in Downtown/Midtown Atlanta as well as Dallas within a 24 hour period. What spawned the idea in general was how far ahead Atlanta’s downtown is in comparison to most southern metros. I couldn’t really think of another city with a comparably sized Downtown with a similar metropolitan population.

[TheTimidBlueBars]

Originally Posted by Vincent_Adultman

That said, of course Philly, Boston and SF have a much more consistent overall urban fabric than Seattle, but I see Seattle’s closets peers as cities with top 10 downtowns like Minneapolis, Denver, San Diego, Portland, etc. Compared to those I think Seattle has a slightly better downtown, but significantly more urban inner neighborhoods, and somewhat more urban outer neighborhoods too. So compared to those I see it as less downtown-centric, even if it has a better downtown (if that makes sense).

Agreed. Most of Portland east of 205 (half of the city) feels like Lynnwood, and most of the city's "urban" nodes outside downtown (Sellwood, Alberta, Cathedral Park, Lents, etc.) are significantly smaller and lower-key than the areas in Seattle you mentioned. It really is deceptive that Portland's city population is similar to Seattle's.

[kimumingyu]

Criteria:

Skyline
Amenities
Access to Public Transportation
Walkability
Vibrancy

Tier 1: New York

Tier 2: Boston, San Francisco

Tier 3: Cleveland, Denver

Tier 4: Asheville, Boise

[Borntoolate85]

It seems like posters are misinterpreting the OP's question. It specifically asks not which downtown is the biggest overall, but in relation to the MSA. For example, Chicago's MSA population is about 40% of NYC. That means if downtown Chicago offers more than 40% of what NYC's offers, it would be the winner in Tier 1 as mentioned, and it honestly is pretty close. I'd still go with NYC by a couple noses though, since even though what's considered "downtown Chicago" is pretty neat, it still doesn't have anything like a Times Square theater district, a jewelry row (even Philly has one), the amount of street level retail/businesses, and even the variety in "street retail" from hot dog carts to off-brand merchandise. Pretty much the entire southern 60% of Manhattan is basically what most people would envision as "downtown" in some form or another, extending deep into the UWS/UES with its museums, cultural institutions, and dense housing. That's about 14 square miles of some form of a "downtown" type environment. In Chicago, it's only around four square miles, and that's less than 40% of 14. They're pretty close though in the transit and vibrancy department though. Los Angeles of course will always lag, even if its CBD has considerably improved since the turn of this century.

Tier 2 has a pretty easy "least" response: Phoenix. The next tier, in order from least to best, would be Dallas (a Top 5 MSA but still a relatively weak core with lots of edge cities robbing of its prominence), Atlanta, Miami, and Houston. But its really a tossup between the upper half of this group: Boston, D.C., Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Seattle. I'd place San Francisco last here; it may be the biggest metro of the five, but its transportation system is weak for a city its size, and the Tenderloin hurts its vibrancy quite a bit. D.C. would be next due to its weak skyline and a lot of spots in its downtown that are mostly 9-5 oriented like Federal Triangle and the K Street area, but it does well in the transit, vibrancy, and walkability departments. Philadelphia IMO is in the middle, and has the best walkability of the bunch (no big hills like Seattle/SF and a logical grid), a competitive skyline, but transit accessibility is so-so and its downtown has spots that don't feel particularly vibrant. Boston is second overall, it scores very well in the transit and walkability sectors and above average in the vibrancy and amenities categories, but its skyline IMO is the second worst of the bunch. Once again, although its the smallest MSA (an important point for this thread), Seattle takes the cake here. Its skyline has improved the most over the past decade, while being the most vibrant and scoring very good in the amenities and walkability departments thanks to the compact blocks. ITs transit system isn't as bad as you think with the underground light rain, 3rd Ave. streetcar, and even the touristy monorail from the shopping district to Seattle Center. The MSA has Bellevue and a couple important shopping malls, but especially now that the NHL is coming to Seattle, it will continue to improve upon its downtown.

I won't go into much detail for Tiers 3, but I'll have to go with Pittsburgh. Best transit and skyline out of the bunch, while having very good walkability (the bridges DO help out here!), decent amenities, while being surprisingly vibrant for a city its age, even if Austin wins in that category. Minneapolis wins on amenities, but its transit system is disappointing and its skyline is so-so for a metro its size.

I haven't been to any Tier 4 city except Myrtle Beach, so I won't comment there.

[atadytic19]

Originally Posted by Need4Camaro

What spawned the idea in general was how far ahead Atlanta’s downtown is in comparison to most southern metros. I couldn’t really think of another city with a comparably sized Downtown with a similar metropolitan population.

Greater downtown or just the CBD.
When you say comparative size do you mean structurally or population or land area.

Comparing DT-ATL to DT-D I can see how you came up with the thread. DTA is by far more important to it's metro than DTD.

Just as city boundaries don't get the whole picture, I don't think downtown boundaries get the whole picture.
Downtown Atlanta bleeds into Midtown, the universities are part of feel, I think everything should be included.
Same with Dallas. Uptown and UT med center is right there along with the adjacent neighborhoods.

Anyway, when comparing those two by either CBD or greater downtown Atlanta is miles ahead.
I'm not sure if it was white flight, the proximity to love field, the proximity to the Trinity and it's flood plain but DTD is less built than DTA.

For its size though I think New Orleans punches above Atlanta in the greater downtown category.
Downtown, Uptown, the warehouse district, Medical District, Marigny, Treme, Mid City area and Superdome area is one huge connected area that to me trumps even the bigger metros in the South.


Taking the 2 cities you mentioned, Atlanta and Dallas and throwing in New Orleans ( which isn't even on the list of smaller cities) and comparing them using the criteria in the OP:

1. Skyline- Downtown New Orleans doesn't really have a skyline but the greater downtown area has a more impressive skyline than the other two. The density and proximity to the water wins it for me.
Atlanta and Dallas have far taller skylines but New Orleans just looks better.

2. Amenities altanta would tie New Orleans and Dallas would be a distant third among the 3. What makes ATL kill in this category are the Univerities, the parks, museums, aquarium etc. What makes New Orleans kill in this category is the tourist amenities and the ease of access to them on foot or quick trolley ride. The core is indundated by tourist accommodations. The restaurants are abundant and top notch. The waterfront is superb. The history and culture is unmatched. They also have a good aquarium downtown. The casinos, the cemeteries, the festivals... Comparing the above two I don't think I have to say much as to why I think Dallas is a distant third. Where Dallas stumbles is the lack of that uniqueness. They don't have that special something. They lack the university presence of Atlanta. The Medical center is closed but it's not right there like New Orleans. There isn't as much to do as New Orleans. It is a little sterile.

3. Public transportation goes to New Orleans.
It lacks the mass transit of ATL but it is so much more compact that you get around easily without it.
You can walk pretty much all over or hop on the trolleys.
ATL is second because the core has great coverage.
Dallas again is last. It may have the longest light rail but we are looking at coverage and the light rail mileage is spread thin. It is a system in progress but getting around the core is not as easy as the other two.

Walkability is the same as #3. The narrow streets, built environment etc gives this easily to NOLA. ATLANTA would come in second and Dallas a distant 3rd.

Vibrancy again is an easy gimme for NOLA and another distant 3rd for Dallas.

Again, after this analysis it is easy to see how you came up with this thread. ATL uses it downtown better than Dallas. It is difficult to compare DT ATL with comparably sized metros. It's an interesting idea but it has so many variables. ATL looks strong compared to similar sized Metros in the South but overall it is fairly lacking. Comparing the growth of DFW, DT Dallas has been phenomenally lagging.
I think that Austin, Fort Worth, Houston and San Antonio have all invested far more in their downtowns than Dallas. Dallas is more of the American dream city. You get a nice house in the suburbs and don't care what amenities the downtown offers. I keep saying it is the default American city. Very representative of the US as a whole. Austin and San Antonio on the otherhand feel less Anywheresville USA

[masssachoicetts]

Tier 1: New York
Tier 2: Boston, San Francisco
Tier 3: Philadelphia, Washington, Los Angeles, Seattle, Portland
Tier 4: Atlanta, Miami, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Dallas, Houston