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.
It's also important to keep in mind that this past decade also included one of the most severe periods of job losses in decades, and this uneasy economic environment likely had an effect on companies' location decisions. Downtown office space is almost universally more expensive than suburban office space.
You also can't discount the effect of job losses in the financial/banking field, which I'm sure had a negative effect on downtowns across the country.
I think as the economy moves along in its recovery, we will see more corporate decisions to make the jump to move operations downtown as they are more willing to pay that premium for talent and infrastructure access.
^ Nice Post. I have been ignoring most posts in this thread because they don't even make sense. Like "centralized cities vs. decentralized cities"? that has nothing to do with this. I honestly feel like there are not many people on this forum that really know about urban planning and how that plays out with statistics.
There is some good info in this data, I'm sorry if some of it may make your city look bad. I'm from KC and this data shows that despite all that KC has done with its downtown over the past ten years, the corporate community of KC is simply not responding and continues to ignore and abandon downtown KC. That is something people should take a hard look at. But most people from KC will blow it off and find some reason to void or justify the data like the houston people are.
If you are going to get defensive about every perceived criticism, why post?
The numbers are interesting, but in my opinion you are drawing incorrect conclusions when you say:
Quote:
Therefore these four metros have preformed the worst when it comes to job creation/sustainability in their CBD over the past ten years. This does not mean these four have the worst downtowns, but only that they have some of the weakest Downtowns when it comes to a committed and or growing downtown corporate workforce, which could contribute to a downtown that is lacking.
That's not really what these numbers are saying at all. And, note "my" city is not on the list, so it's not like I'm being "defensive". I just think that you are extrapolating conclusions that may not be true.
For instance -- I disagree that Houston does not have a growing downtown corporate workforce. It's just that Houston has been a jobs monster, and the jobs have been growing faster throughout the MSA.
And what I meant by "centralized vs. decentralized" city (since you didn't ask, just made a snide comment) is that some metros tend to be more polycentric with many "central business districts", and some are not. That fact is very much likely to be reflected in these numbers.
I think the numbers are interesting, and thanks for bringing them up. I just think some of your conclusions are wrong.
If you are going to get defensive about every perceived criticism, why post?
The numbers are interesting, but in my opinion you are drawing incorrect conclusions when you say:
That's not really what these numbers are saying at all. And, note "my" city is not on the list, so it's not like I'm being "defensive". I just think that you are extrapolating conclusions that may not be true.
For instance -- I disagree that Houston does not have a growing downtown corporate workforce. It's just that Houston has been a jobs monster, and the jobs have been growing faster throughout the MSA.
And what I meant by "centralized vs. decentralized" city (since you didn't ask, just made a snide comment) is that some metros tend to be more polycentric with many "central business districts", and some are not. That fact is very much likely to be reflected in these numbers.
I think the numbers are interesting, and thanks for bringing them up. I just think some of your conclusions are wrong.
I wish I could rep you a million times on this post.
They are acting like people are complaining about the data.
All we are saying is that OP made incorrect conclusions about the data.
Raw numbers would work better in this case. If he had shown that one city had 501 then drop to 435, then you could say that the city was an underperformer, but just because one city core grew fast while outside the core grew faster that that city was an underperformer
No, I think you two got way too bent out of shape over some data and a post that was WIDE OPEN for interpretation. Stop back-slapping eachother and get back into the conversation on topic.
There is some good info in this data, I'm sorry if some of it may make your city look bad. I'm from KC and this data shows that despite all that KC has done with its downtown over the past ten years, the corporate community of KC is simply not responding and continues to ignore and abandon downtown KC. That is something people should take a hard look at. But most people from KC will blow it off and find some reason to void or justify the data like the houston people are.
Thanks. Your post(s) are about the relative economic importance and performance of various CBDs in relation to their corresponding metros. Some cores may still be growing while at the same time becoming less and less relevant to their overall metro as they hold a decreasing percentage of jobs. This too is data that tells a story about some of the cities you listed (despite the insistent claims the data hold no value).
I have lived in both Houston and KC (two cities I like) so have seen the point you are making up close. I can therefore understand the point you are making about these cities without taking offense.
Last edited by Pine to Vine; 06-12-2013 at 07:40 PM..
No, I think you two got way too bent out of shape over some data and a post that was WIDE OPEN for interpretation. Stop back-slapping eachother and get back into the conversation on topic.
This is on topic.
We are soeaking directly to the data.
You just like it cause it makes MSP look good. But for people that understand the data can see that you cant compare thus from city to city
This is on topic.
We are soeaking directly to the data.
You just like it cause it makes MSP look good. But for people that understand the data can see that you cant compare thus from city to city
I will bet you a large sum of money that you would be defending the data if Houston were up top on the list. You can make excuses if you want, but according to the criteria of this study, Houston is towards the bottom. If 3 miles is the measurement that they used, then 3 miles is what the cities are ranked by. Houston may have 1000% job growth 4 miles outside of the CBD, but that doesn't matter to someone who is living in the CBD, does it? This is about the CBD, not the rest of the city. This is ranking the CBD, not the entire city. Maybe if the list wrote "CBD of ______" for every city, then it would look more fair, but I'm assuming that whoever made the list hoped that people would be able to understand the data.
No, I think you two got way too bent out of shape over some data and a post that was WIDE OPEN for interpretation. Stop back-slapping eachother and get back into the conversation on topic.
Nobody is "bent out of shape", I am merely questioning the conclusion he's drawing from a very limited data set.
It is a "discussion forum", no?
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.
