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.
Why are you telling me that boundaries are important for specific government functions, which we all already know and agree upon? The topic is whether a "neighborhood" can be defined authoratively in a broader sense, or is more subjective.
And please explain why various groups often define the same area in very different ways. The business district, the planning area, and so on.
Yes, we're arguing in circles. No sense doing more of that. But I suggest you read up on urban theory. I'll give you a hint...google "neighborhood boundaries" with words like "subjective," "adaptable," "authorative," "official," and so on. You'll find plenty. This is a pretty basic element of urban theory and related fields.
I think it depends, some neighborhoods are definite. East Boston or Charlestown, North End, Alston-Brighton, and Hyde Park in Boston have hard boundaries (partially because they used to be their own towns, or major Geographic/social lines). meanwhile the line between Chinatown DTX, FIDI, South End, Back Back Bay, Beacon Hill, and West End tend to blur.
As someone who's spent his entire life living in cities, I'm perplexed by the newfound popularity of downtown living. You can put housing and groceries in a CBD, but it will never be a true residential neighborhood. There are 25 NYC neighborhoods I'd live in before choosing Midtown or the Financial District. Fifteen Chicago hoods preferable to the loop. Ten Boston and DC neighborhoods before either of those cities' downtowns.
I always suspect that downtown living is for suburbanites who don't understand city living, and most people leave within five years.
For years, the promoters of these pointed to places like New York City without an understanding that even in NYC nobody ever lived in its core CBDs.
So these adaptive reuses of old financial district buildings are unwittingly pioneering a 'living in downtown' concept new even to the northeast. Even lower Manhattan--New York City's central business district--is seeing abandoned Class A and Class B office space retrofitted for a "downtown"-living-among-business-skyscrapers idea that never was, before now, even in NYC.
Grocery stores never existed in NYC's financial district CBD either, so a new Whole Foods in Tribeca that's 1/3 mile from Water Street is going to be no closer to a CBD pioneer in NYC, than a new one that's 1/3 mi. from any other American city's so-called "downtown" living arrangement.
Midtown is the larger central business district by about a factor of 2, employment-wise. The core parts of Midtown are almost resident-less than the edges have a high residential density and are mixed. The areas south of Midtown near Broadway are also mixed office and residential; the built density is still nearly as high as the CBD but without skyscrapers above 20 stories. Most cities don't have downtown-like built densities without being downtown.
The Financial District got a boost from having Battery Park City nearby, which is a huge residential complex. Stores catering to Battery Park City residents already existed a short walk from the Financial District, making living in the Financial District more doable when it just started to be residential.
London also has a residentless CBD, or section of its CBD. With less skyscrapers, it's harder not easier to be mixed use, as there's less room to squeeze residents without cannibalizing office space. Both London's and New York City's Financial District of course were full of residents earlier in its history; the conversion happened in the mid to late 19th century.
Midtown is the larger central business district by about a factor of 2, employment-wise. The core parts of Midtown are almost resident-less than the edges have a high residential density and are mixed. The areas south of Midtown near Broadway are also mixed office and residential; the built density is still nearly as high as the CBD but without skyscrapers above 20 stories. Most cities don't have downtown-like built densities without being downtown.
The Financial District got a boost from having Battery Park City nearby, which is a huge residential complex. Stores catering to Battery Park City residents already existed a short walk from the Financial District, making living in the Financial District more doable when it just started to be residential.
London also has a residentless CBD, or section of its CBD. With less skyscrapers, it's harder not easier to be mixed use, as there's less room to squeeze residents without cannibalizing office space. Both London's and New York City's Financial District of course were full of residents earlier in its history; the conversion happened in the mid to late 19th century.
What constitutes any of Midtown's housing is practically brand new. The few scattered 5-story 30s-era apartments across from MoMA were there before the business skyscrapers were.
Battery Park City is on the farthest edge of the downtown CBD. It's built on the dirt that was removed from the hole to construct WTC 1 and 2.
For years, the promoters of these pointed to places like New York City without an understanding that even in NYC nobody ever lived in its core CBDs.
People have lived in Midtown for ages. Downtown, not so much. Residential skyscrapers are new to Midtown, but there's plenty of residential highrises (like you'd find on the Upper East Side)
Not a victim. I talk English good. You don't seem to have any interest in understanding what our differences are; you're only interested in being perceived as right. Rather than think I might be saying something that you haven't understood, you assume that I'm just incapable of using language.
At least you've stopped trying to push the idea that neighborhood boundaries are "purely subjective". Once an authority (i.e. a city government) draws some lines on a map, the boundaries become at least partially objective. That's my only point. I understand that in many places the boundaries are not objective, but that doesn't mean that they can't ever be. It's clear you don't think the term "neighborhood" should be used in that sense, but I'm letting you know that in some places it is. Even if urban planning textbook writers don't think it should be. Just google "Back Bay" and you'll get a nice little map with pretty definitive boundaries. You can do the same for Boston, or Texas, or Azerbaijan.
And yes, I am arguing that some neighborhood boundaries are similar to state boundaries. Not because I think neighborhood boundaries are somehow extremely important, but more because I think other boundaries are only as important as the bodies that define them say they are. Nations and states and counties and cities are all on different scales, but it's roughly the same concept. Only when some function is associated with that boundary does it become important. I've certainly hiked in areas that straddled state lines. There wasn't anything magical about crossing the state line. If I were to commit a crime then that difference would be immense, but in most cases it doesn't really matter. Same with the neighborhood boundary, except the stakes are extremely low and in Boston seem mostly related to parking. If I'm not parking a car or transporting something dangerous, I can safely ignore both boundaries and generally do.
And yes, neighborhood boundaries do change. Usually more in growing cities than in older ones like in my area. Changing boundaries don't mean subjective boundaries, though. The neighborhood that people refer to as the "Back Bay" has been more rigidly defined in the last 100 years than the country we refer to as "Russia" has been in the last decade. The consequences of Russian borders are, however, far more important than those of a single neighborhood in Boston.
I'm referring to the version of "neighborhood" that most people use, which is purely subjective. It can be the same as a bureaucratic designation, because sometimes the two agree, but it's not the same thing at all.
As someone who's spent his entire life living in cities, I'm perplexed by the newfound popularity of downtown living. You can put housing and groceries in a CBD, but it will never be a true residential neighborhood. There are 25 NYC neighborhoods I'd live in before choosing Midtown or the Financial District. Fifteen Chicago hoods preferable to the loop. Ten Boston and DC neighborhoods before either of those cities' downtowns.
I always suspect that downtown living is for suburbanites who don't understand city living, and most people leave within five years.
I'd say it really depends on the city. Here in Vancouver, downtown living is not new. People have been living in apartment blocks downtown since the 1920's when the wealthy left the West End for a new neighbourhood. Their mansions torn down, and blocks put up.
This increased during the 1950's with many low rise apartments being built. In the 1960's and 1970's taller apartment blocks of 24 stories or so were the rage.
The neighbourhood though was still mainly rentals. Condo's came on the scene sometime in the 1980's.
With three shopping streets, Davie, Robson and Denman, the west end had plenty of restaurants, clubs and grocery stores. Very residential, right downtown. It can also be amazingly peaceful.
With the introduction of roundabouts and mini-parks to curtail and re-direct traffic, they were able to keep the residential feel.
Within the last 25 years with newer downtown residential neighbourhoods being built, the choices have only increased in grocery stores etc. I can easily count 13 large grocery stores in a area of only 2 k. More if you count the specialty ones. No lack of any services.
High density with the proper amenities such as plenty of parks, services and schools are true residential neighbourhoods. Just because most have no yard, doesn't change that.
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.
