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.
I said "or are developing." Along with the point my memph about critical mass, that encompasses most urban cores. Maybe I should have specified metros above a certain size.
Yes, many cities have weak urbanism surrounding their downtowns, but not everywhere is Oklahoma City or Jacksonville either.
San Francisco, New York, DC as well as Philadelphia, Boston and Chicago are the obvious exceptions.
However, Seattle, Portland, Baltimore and San Diego would be examples of other cities with nice downtowns where most of your daily needs are within walking distance.
LA, Denver, Minneapolis have fairly vibrant downtowns too, not perfect, but pretty good imo.
Some smaller cities too, like New Orleans, Richmond, Providence, Milwaukee, Sacramento, Albany have decent cores too.
Atlanta, Miami, Austin, Dallas all have rapidly growing downtowns and will probably reach a critical mass of amenities if they haven't already.
Buffalo, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Columbus, Rochester... those have slower growth rates, but most of them have decent bones at some nice urban neighbourhoods near downtown, so it wouldn't take much for them to get pretty good too.
Vegas, Oklahoma City, Jacksonville, Memphis, Tulsa... those still have a lot of work to do. But those aren't the cities a ton of people are moving to, people are mostly moving into the cities with more complete downtowns.
Nashville, Tampa, Indy, San Antonio, Phoenix, Norfolk, Orlando, Louisville, KC, Houston, St Louis, SLC, Charlotte, Detroit I'm not sure about. I suspect some of those are getting there too.
But in any case, it doesn't take that much to reach a critical mass. Most cities will have good transit access and job access at their downtowns already, and often amenities like museums and theatres, what's missing mostly - if you're looking to attract lots of childless households (still about 1/2 of all households) - is just a few specific stores like a grocery store.
Yeah, I think this is true of many Interior Northeastern and Midwestern areas around or near the great Lakes. Detroit is another one that would fit in this regard, like this part of the Virginia Park neighborhood just north of Downtown: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3750...7i13312!8i6656
I think this is totally wrong IMHO. Most cities have one of two models for their downtown.
One is the sun belt model. In these cities the old urban neighborhoods were generally very small in scope - so small that they tended to be totally obliterated when a true central business district was built. The result in the present is a relatively dense, new construction dominated downtown, which increasingly has a residential component. But as soon as you get out of Downtown, you're in neighborhoods which are streetcar suburban at best, and in some cases head straight into 1950s ranches.
The second model is the historic city which was damaged by urban renewal. In this case you have a relatively historic looking, but still mostly non-residential downtown. Surrounding this is what can only be described as a no-man's land: areas the size of neighborhoods which are dominated by parking lots, warehouses, shuttered factories, and sometimes institutional uses like hospitals. Often there's also highways in between downtown and the nearest residential neighborhoods (which can be "old urban" to "streetcar suburban" depending upon the age of the city).
Of course, there are exceptions - cities with coherent, mostly intact urban fabric. Those exceptions tend to be the cities that urbanists like the most - places like San Francisco, New York, and DC. But they certainly are not "most cities" unfortunately.
I recall a comment... ....that the liveliest downtowns have vibrant urban neighborhoods next door.
Seattle doesn't have the consistent urban fabric that many of the older cities have, but it does have some great urban neighborhoods adjacent to Downtown, including Capitol Hill, Lower Queen Anne, First Hill, and South Lake Union. Also, even within what most would consider to be Downtown, there are various sections that have more of a neighborhood-y feel, including Belltown and Pioneer Square.
Austin's downtown was empty after 6pm in the 90s. Now there are two grocery stores, movie theaters, dentists, retail districts, fast food, high end food, coffee shops, convenience stores, parks, trails, pet sitters/groomers, hair dressers, drug stores, etc. Pretty much every thing you need is downtown except for a hardware store and general home goods store, but now with Amazon that isn't much of a problem.
A truly residential downtown basically needs two things, demand for it from a segment of the buying/renting population and local government that will allow this type of development. It is also not just about traditional financial districts as a mixed use downtown area can be adjacent to an existing financial district.
You can put housing and groceries in a CBD, but it will never be a true residential neighborhood.
I don't understand this statement by the OP, it needs elaboration.
Austin's downtown was empty after 6pm in the 90s. Now there are two grocery stores, movie theaters, dentists, retail districts, fast food, high end food, coffee shops, convenience stores, parks, trails, pet sitters/groomers, hair dressers, drug stores, etc. Pretty much every thing you need is downtown except for a hardware store and general home goods store, but now with Amazon that isn't much of a problem.
A truly residential downtown basically needs two things, demand for it from a segment of the buying/renting population and local government that will allow this type of development. It is also not just about traditional financial districts as a mixed use downtown area can be adjacent to an existing financial district.
You can put housing and groceries in a CBD, but it will never be a true residential neighborhood.
I don't understand this statement by the OP, it needs elaboration.
It a neighborhood's primary function is CBD, it isn't a residential neighborhood. Residents will never have the power to change the neighborhood. I also believe a true urban residential neighborhood must have an elementary school.
It a neighborhood's primary function is CBD, it isn't a residential neighborhood. Residents will never have the power to change the neighborhood. I also believe a true urban residential neighborhood must have an elementary school.
I disagree. That is an old model of downtown that reflects decades of white flight, neglect, and subsidies for sprawl. A neighborhood can have multiple functions where the needs of all parties are balanced. Here we have the Downtown Austin Alliance whose mission statement is:
The Downtown Austin Alliance is a partnership of downtown property owners, individuals, and businesses devoted to preserving and enhancing the value and vitality of downtown Austin. We work with property owners, residents, business owners, community organizations and government officials to advance our collective vision for the future of downtown.
There is an elementary school in DT Austin: https://www.austinisd.org/schools/pease
No middle or high schools in DT itself (same as in many sububan neighborhoods), but they are in adjacent neighborhoods.
Here is a historical map of DT Austin. Then as now residential has been a component of land use, with the difference being now it is no longer single family residences but high rises.
Last edited by verybadgnome; 06-23-2016 at 11:44 AM..
Every city is different in its layout, geography and historical growth but for my city living in one of the first ring streetcar suburbs adjacent the semi-wild canyons of Balboa Park is the place to be. Sure there are some cool, right downtown and on the bay condos, and just a few remaining single family homes, mostly Victorian cottages, but you have to put up with the noise, lack of garden and parking space of the big city.
Just a couple of miles away, but still what would be considered the core of the city one can find amazing historic properties with beautiful garden space along the arroyos, from mansions to charming bungalows, and still be within a 35 minute walk to the heart of downtown. And each of these ring neighborhoods each have their own compact business, entertainment districts just steps from your house. If you desire a bit more of the city it is just a quick jaunt down the hill, walking, biking, transit or Uber, it's all available.
I don't know of many other cities that have this combination of city, bay, sea, canyons and charming village neighborhoods all within a couple of miles of eachother.
It a neighborhood's primary function is CBD, it isn't a residential neighborhood. Residents will never have the power to change the neighborhood. I also believe a true urban residential neighborhood must have an elementary school.
I don't get that concept, at all. That would mean that all mixed-use districts, by definition, aren't residential. That eliminates almost all of the best urban neighborhoods in the U.S.
And I'm not aware of neighborhoods that lack elementary schools.
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.
