U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-08-2013, 11:04 AM
 
9,838 posts, read 11,426,863 times
Reputation: 2353

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Vincent View Post
San Francisco is not an island. What the hell are you talking about?
Peninsula maybe. The point was they both have land constraints that caused them to develop that way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-08-2013, 11:14 AM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,391 posts, read 24,552,631 times
Reputation: 5662
Atlanta has mostly linear development also going from DT-MT-Buckhead.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2013, 12:06 PM
 
Location: In the heights
22,102 posts, read 23,627,108 times
Reputation: 11599
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico View Post
Atlanta has mostly linear development also going from DT-MT-Buckhead.
It's linear but definitely peaks in those three different parts. It's a bit like how downtown LA then going west on Wilshire is with peaks at certain centers of employment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2013, 05:42 PM
 
Location: Thunder Bay, ON
2,610 posts, read 3,759,267 times
Reputation: 1616
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDAllstar View Post
Peninsula maybe. The point was they both have land constraints that caused them to develop that way.
I think New York could be described as a peninsula too. By the time development reached the Northern part of Manhattan, I think engineering was advanced enough that the Harlem River wasn't too much of a barrier. The effect in Manhattan would be stronger too, since the island is much narrower and the city was historically much larger so development could only expand Northwards almost immediately. San Francisco was able to expand both West and South for quite a while.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2013, 10:37 PM
 
6,816 posts, read 6,944,626 times
Reputation: 5486
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico View Post
Atlanta has mostly linear development also going from DT-MT-Buckhead.
Atlanta is super linear. Probably moreso than Miami and Chicago.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2013, 06:29 PM
 
9,520 posts, read 14,812,547 times
Reputation: 9769
I'm not sure geography was the prime constraint in Manhattan's two CBDs. Midtown ends at about 34th street for no geographical reason at all (the north end is Central Park), and the financial district's north end is similarly not geographically constrained.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2013, 06:58 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,983 posts, read 41,921,149 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler View Post
I'm not sure geography was the prime constraint in Manhattan's two CBDs. Midtown ends at about 34th street for no geographical reason at all (the north end is Central Park), and the financial district's north end is similarly not geographically constrained.
Agreed. But checking a population density map, the island shape probably encouraged higher residential density than otherwise. The very high population densities extend northward to the tip of Manhattan and beyond to sections of the West Bronx, but most of Brooklyn and Queens even though it's nearer to the CBDs is quite a bit lower on average. Probably because direct rapid transit (subway or el) connections to Manhattan from Brooklyn/Queens to the center city happened later than Upper Manhattan or The Bronx. Same situation encourage an additional CBD in Brooklyn that later lost most of its reason to exist.

I don't think it affected San Francisco's CBD either, its clustered in one corner of the city but it could have grown larger. Looking at the population of the county to the south, San Francisco didn't really grow much past its city limits until around the 30s, before that it had enough room to expand within its city limits, so I don't think the peninsula shape affected the old city much. The geography shape probably encouraged the growth of satellite cities like Oakland. And Oakland is far enough away that its CBD probably survived better than Brooklyn's (don't know enough about Oakland to be sure).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top