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.
All major cities downtowns are good nowadays and becoming more exciting: Phoenix, Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, L.A., Detroit, Cincinnati, Cleveland, St Louis and etc. They used to be bad but not anymore.
All major cities downtowns are good nowadays and becoming more exciting: Phoenix, Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, L.A., Detroit, Cincinnati, Cleveland, St Louis and etc. They used to be bad but not anymore.
Yes. and...... waiting for it.
You need to add more like which of them cities has or is gaining the most in having a more vibrant downtown today? I just know one that falls short to you I disagree more then not. But not on this short-list to mention.
I would not call Houston's downtown street-level vibrant at all. Dallas a bit better maybe. The others definitely have improved in differing degrees. Only from what I've heard? Detroit and Cincinnati the most you mention. Atlanta, most complement its Midtown area as increased in vibrancy the most. LA's downtown is redefining itself too. All should continue on the upswing in its cores.
All major cities downtowns are good nowadays and becoming more exciting: Phoenix, Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, L.A., Detroit, Cincinnati, Cleveland, St Louis and etc. They used to be bad but not anymore.
Define "exciting" and based on what metric?
Most folks aren't routinely making the rounds to the downtowns of "all major cities" so exactly who are you trying to market this nonsense to? At best if they care at all they only care about a major city downtown near them.
Apparently the book is looking for the "why" in an effort to prevent "shrinkage".
Seems that shrinkage should just be part of the natural course of a city.
At any rate the overview seemed to miss something that seems quite obvious to many: schools. No doubt there are other factors as well.
I have no idea what "exciting" is supposed to mean but it sounds like someone is trying to hype air.
What was so bad about NYC downtown and when? When specifically did it flip from bad to good? Given, I'm not that old but Manhattan seemed not so bad at all when I first visited in the mid '90s. Last few times it was certainly bigger, not sure if I'd say it was really better though. Definitely bigger, wealthier, but also blander.
What was so bad about NYC downtown and when? When specifically did it flip from bad to good? Given, I'm not that old but Manhattan seemed not so bad at all when I first visited in the mid '90s. Last few times it was certainly bigger, not sure if I'd say it was really better though. Definitely bigger, wealthier, but also blander.
NY is good. I never said it's bad, even in the 70's, it was good.
Define "exciting" and based on what metric?
Most folks aren't routinely making the rounds to the downtowns of "all major cities" so exactly who are you trying to market this nonsense to? At best if they care at all they only care about a major city downtown near them.
Apparently the book is looking for the "why" in an effort to prevent "shrinkage".
Seems that shrinkage should just be part of the natural course of a city.
At any rate the overview seemed to miss something that seems quite obvious to many: schools. No doubt there are other factors as well.
I have no idea what "exciting" is supposed to mean but it sounds like someone is trying to hype air.
Have you been to many of those downtowns in the 80's and 90's? They were dead and horrible. Now, they're coming back to life and more lively. They all have been revitalized.
You need to add more like which of them cities has or is gaining the most in having a more vibrant downtown today? I just know one that falls short to you I disagree more then not. But not on this short-list to mention.
I would not call Houston's downtown street-level vibrant at all. Dallas a bit better maybe. The others definitely have improved in differing degrees. Only from what I've heard? Detroit and Cincinnati the most you mention. Atlanta, most complement its Midtown area as increased in vibrancy the most. LA's downtown is redefining itself too. All should continue on the upswing in its cores.
They're all alot better off these days and have bright future.
NY is good. I never said it's bad, even in the 70's, it was good.
Manhattan had plenty areas of declines in the 70s. Just search for why Times Square was like then.... The city had to plan a clean-up and won. But for unable to hide trash bags. The 70's had drastic cuts in city devices. You might still have loved Greenwich Villiage and Soho but Brooklyn Bronx especially then... fa'geta'bout'it
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.
