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 think the post-COVID definition of vitality is going to be different. I was in San Diego recently and it was busier than downtown SF is these days. It doesn't have the extent of the homeless problem and DT Portland, once a walkable gem, is now an overflowing dumpster with more traffic lights than pedestrians.
L.A. is light years behind Chicago in terms of the urban cores and in 5 years Chicago will have a much taller and denser Fulton Market to contend with as well as a densified South Loop. Not to mention The 78, Halsted Pointe, North Union and Lincoln Yards all going vertical. Then there's the natural infill that will keep coming based on being a city with a deeply ingrained, historic skyscraper/high-rise culture. Our real estate development landscape is an industry that is second only to NY. It's simply in the DNA. Some cities look like they are doing more impressive building but that's because projects are much shorter and they started a lot further behind. You can't just double Chicago's footprint or add an entire new wing to the skyline in a decade like Seattle, S.F. Miami, etc. The expansion of Chicago's urban core is deceptive in that boundaries aren't being totally redefined yet more 800'+ buildings were added over the last 5 years than in our entire history. They are simply absorbed rather than having transformative qualities.
LA would be fine being in a third place status in a few years if it isn't already. DTLA is booming but it still has to complete with other parts of town like Hollywood, Santa Monica, Manhattan Beach, Beverly Hills, Old Town Pasadena, DT Long Beach, etc. Most downtowns of major cities have the metro all to themselves when it comes to being a destination and entertainment hub. DTLA doesn't have that luxury
Philly has a nice downtown, but in terms of scale I'd put it below SF at least, and equal to Boston. DC I'm not sure where to put but it's pretty good. Seattle is #7 in my book.
Qualitatively, I'd put SD and Portland next, but DTLA gets credit for mass and might be #8.
Philly has a nice downtown, but in terms of scale I'd put it below SF at least, and equal to Boston. DC I'm not sure where to put but it's pretty good. Seattle is #7 in my book.
Qualitatively, I'd put SD and Portland next, but DTLA gets credit for mass and might be #8.
Here is a map showing the population difference by tract from 1950 when DC had 800,000 people versus each tract population in 2010. As you can see, the areas where DC needs to add people to get back to 800,000 people and beyond to 1,000,000 people is downtown where many of the office to residential conversions are happening.
Of all these CBD downtown comparisons, downtown DC has the greatest potential for improvement because of the impact the office to residential conversions will have on the area. Right now, all the other downtowns under considerations already have a mix between office and residential.
DC's downtown has always been two to three times larger in land area of all these cities outside of New York and Chicago obviously, but the limitation has always been the office centric use of all the buildings in the miles upon miles of urban canyons in all directions. The conversion of many of those office buildings to residential is going to cause the CBD in DC to explode.
The residential strength has been in new emerging downtown neighborhoods that surround the CBD like NOMA, Mt. Vernon Triangle, Northwest One, Union Market, Navy Yard, Buzzard Point, and The Wharf/Waterfront Station. They joined established residential neighborhoods Logan Circle, Foggy Bottom, and Dupont Circle.
Adding the Golden Triangle, Midtown, Penn Quarter, Gallery Place, Downtown East, Federal Triangle, and SW Federal Center to the list of residential heavy downtown neighborhoods is going to push the feel of DC closer to its European counterparts when it comes to vibrancy.
Here is a map showing the population difference by tract from 1950 when DC had 800,000 people versus each tract population in 2010. As you can see, the areas where DC needs to add people to get back to 800,000 people and beyond to 1,000,000 people is downtown where many of the office to residential conversions are happening.
Of all these CBD downtown comparisons, downtown DC has the greatest potential for improvement because of the impact the office to residential conversions will have on the area. Right now, all the other downtowns under considerations already have a mix between office and residential.
DC's downtown has always been two to three times larger in land area of all these cities outside of New York and Chicago obviously, but the limitation has always been the office centric use of all the buildings in the miles upon miles of urban canyons in all directions. The conversion of many of those office buildings to residential is going to cause the CBD in DC to explode.
The residential strength has been in new emerging downtown neighborhoods that surround the CBD like NOMA, Mt. Vernon Triangle, Northwest One, Union Market, Navy Yard, Buzzard Point, and The Wharf/Waterfront Station. They joined established residential neighborhoods Logan Circle, Foggy Bottom, and Dupont Circle.
Adding the Golden Triangle, Midtown, Penn Quarter, Gallery Place, Downtown East, Federal Triangle, and SW Federal Center to the list of residential heavy downtown neighborhoods is going to push the feel of DC closer to its European counterparts when it comes to vibrancy.
I think that's the first time I've seen the phrase "Center City" used to refer to anything in Washington, and I note that it and "Greater Downtown" overlap but are not coterminous.
I'd also estimate that what the map labels as "Downtown" is smaller than Center City Philadelphia, which IIRC contains about 2.2 square miles of land within its boundaries. "Greater Downtown" appears larger than that, but if the DC folks are using the same distinctions the Center City District here does, that would conform to what the CCD/CPDC (Central Philadelphia Development Corporation) calls "Greater Center City."
The huge Federal complex (counting the Smithsonian museums) next door to downtown, however, I'd include as part of the "downtown." It is, after all, in the central core of the city, and it has a higher daytime population than a nighttime one (another traditional metric used to distinguish a central business district from the rest of a city).
Center City DC is simply a planning concept to demarcate the areas where 10 story midrises are allowed. Nobody actually refers to it as Center City. Downtown is fairly oddly defined as it leaves out much of the K Street corridor. I guess that's technically the Golder Triangle BID, but in practice it's hard to distinguish any real difference between the two office districts.
L.A. is light years behind Chicago in terms of the urban cores and in 5 years Chicago will have a much taller and denser Fulton Market to contend with as well as a densified South Loop. Not to mention The 78, Halsted Pointe, North Union and Lincoln Yards all going vertical. Then there's the natural infill that will keep coming based on being a city with a deeply ingrained, historic skyscraper/high-rise culture. Our real estate development landscape is an industry that is second only to NY. It's simply in the DNA. Some cities look like they are doing more impressive building but that's because projects are much shorter and they started a lot further behind. You can't just double Chicago's footprint or add an entire new wing to the skyline in a decade like Seattle, S.F. Miami, etc. The expansion of Chicago's urban core is deceptive in that boundaries aren't being totally redefined yet more 800'+ buildings were added over the last 5 years than in our entire history. They are simply absorbed rather than having transformative qualities.
To put into context just far ahead it is from well, everything... Chicago has as many 150m buildings as
The tallest building outside of Chicago in the US is Philly's Comcast Tech Center at 1121'. It's 650' shorter than the Willis Tower and the tip of its spire wouldn't even reach the roof of Chicago's 5th tallest building; the former John Hancock Center
Chicago has 135 completed buildings over 150m and 230 completed buildings over 400'. Outside of NYC it's eons a head of the next closest city lol
Philly has a nice downtown, but in terms of scale I'd put it below SF at least, and equal to Boston. DC I'm not sure where to put but it's pretty good. Seattle is #7 in my book.
Qualitatively, I'd put SD and Portland next, but DTLA gets credit for mass and might be #8.
I'd put Pittsburgh ahead of SD or Portland in terms of DT's
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.
