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.
My point is that just because Philly's downtown is larger than SF's downtown, doesn't mean that you have to expand SF's downtown area just to make it the same size as Philly. Downtown area sizes are not created equal just as city land sizes are not created equal. Some cities can annex more land while other cities can't. Philly expanded its downtown area boundaries while other cities can't. Whether or not you think it's fair is irrelevant because Philly's downtown area is still larger than Chicago. Putting up maps of downtown SF isn't going to change that fact.
Correction:
"Just because the arbitrary geographical boundary of Philly's downtown encompasses more land than [insert other city's downtown area here]"...
Chicago's downtown is significantly larger than San Francisco's, no matter how you want to slice and dice it. Geographically, # buildings, # workers, # things to do "downtown", and # residents who actually live in an area they would naturally call "downtown" to people not from Chicago.
Conversely, San Francisco's downtown is larger than Philadelphia's, by most metrics not necessarily by much, but by some metrics significantly larger.
So it would stand to reason that if Chicago's DT is much bigger than San Francisco's, and San Francisco's is a little bigger than Philly's, then Chicago's DT is much bigger than Philly's.
The level of denial and hate on this thread is astounding. I had a feeling this thread was going to ruffle a few feathers since Chicago is so beloved on city vs city forum but I didn't expect it to be at this level.
Location: East Central Pennsylvania/ Chicago for 6yrs.
2,535 posts, read 3,279,332 times
Reputation: 1483
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly
My point is that just because Philly's downtown is larger than SF's downtown, doesn't mean that you have to expand SF's downtown area just to make it the same size as Philly. Downtown area sizes are not created equal just as city land sizes are not created equal. Some cities can annex more land while other cities can't. Philly expanded its downtown area boundaries while other cities can't. Whether or not you think it's fair is irrelevant because Philly's downtown area is still larger than Chicago. Putting up maps of downtown SF isn't going to change that fact.
Fact #1: Center City is more populated than the Chicago Loop.
Fact #2: Downtown Philadelphia(Greater Center City) is more populated than Downtown Chicago(Chicago Loop, Near North Side, Near South Side).
Can't argue with the facts.
Here we go again... Facts are HOW ONE DEFINES A DOWNTOWN? OR THEIR DOWNTOWN AND THE PARTICULAR CITY DEFINES THEIR OWN?
Chicago as the metro area with the largest numeric increase in “downtown” population between 2000 and 2010. For purposes of the report, the "US CENSUS BUREAU" defined “downtown” as the area within a 2-mile radius of the location of the city hall in the principal city in a metropolitan area.
Chicago’s downtown population grew from 133,426 to 181,714, an increase of 48,288 or 36.2%. New York came in second with a population increase of 37,422, followed by Philadelphia, San Francisco and Washington, DC. Chicago had largest downtown population growth from 2000 to 2010
SO WE SEE HOW THE GOVERNMENT DEFINES IT �� A 2-mile radius of the cities City Hall. That is TO KEEP BIG CITIES ON A MORE EQUAL BILLING? NOT HOW SOME CITIES STRETCH DOWNTOWN BOUNDARIES?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PerseusVeil
Haven't we known this for awhile? When the Census Bureau came out with the figures of populations 2 miles from city hall, Philly had more people then as well.
Chicago ............Philadelphia
2000: 133,426 ..2000: 214,760
2010: 181,714 ..2010: 235,529
Chicago's downtown saw the largest increase both in terms of raw numbers and its general percentage of any "downtown" in the country, but, using the 2 mile radius, it remained smaller than NYC, SF, and Philly https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/...c2010sr-01.pdf
Quote:
Originally Posted by emathias
Yeah, although using the 2-mile radius probably 1/3 of that area for Chicago is either water or Grant Park, and for New York close to 2/3 of that area must be water. Of those you mentioned, only San Francisco has little to no portion of that radius covering water.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly
These are the data: Commercial Downtown Population 2000-2010 %changes ➡ Within 1/2 mile % change.. Within 1 mile% change
Midtown Manhattan, NY ................78,579 ........12.5% .......378,553 ......6.7% .........586,652 .....8.9%
Downtown Manhattan, NY .............65,714 .........64.8% ......148,396 ......15.6% ........173,179 ....13.1% Center City - Philadelphia, PA ...57,239 ........16.3% ......107,853 ....16.2% .......170,467 ...8.9% Downtown Chicago, IL ..............53,832 ........95.6% ......101,885 ....45.5% ......144,051.(46.0%)
Downtown San Francisco, CA .........52,008 ........15.7% ........117,312 .....14.6%........134,312... 13.9%
Downtown Seattle, WA .................42,423 .........25.4% ........86,427 ......15.5% .......119,590 ...13.3%
the report is here - none of this is really DT - its the DT plus an extended 1 mile buffer on a radius
JOBS REPORT FROM ABOVE SIGHT ⤴ INCLUDES THE 1 mile buffer on a radius
..Total.........Downtown Chicago.... University of Illinois ...University of Chicago. 734,903............ 609,902 ......................... 94,935 ........................30,066.........
...Total....Center City, Philadelphia .....................University City 367,595..............288,227 ..........................................79,368 ...................................
% of workers living within one Mile of Downtown who work within one Mile of Downtown
Downtown Chicago, IL.. 51.8%..........................Center City - Philadelphia, PA ..40.7%
% of workers living in commercial Downtown who work in commercial Downtown..................
Downtown Chicago, IL.. 52.3% ......................... Center City - Philadelphia, PA ..36.0% __________________________________________________ _________________________________
We have to remember... for much of its history? Chicago's Downtown was not known for living areas... PHILLY WAS... but in the LAST 30 YEARS CHICAGO HAS EXPLOADED IN RESIDENTS IN HIGH-END SKYSCRAPER LIVING.... TO LOFTS TO ....HIGH-END ROW HOME DEVELOPMENTS. So going from Very Little? To nearly 200,000. Is IMPRESIVE
ALSO NOTING CHICAGO'S GOLD COAST ...IS NOT INCLUDED. THAT WOULD GREATLY INCREASE #s. PHILLY WANTS TO ADD UNIVERSITY CITY.
University City is not Downtown Philadelphia and shouldn't be considered as such. Our OP even stated this in a prior thread.
Someone made the analogy a while back (it may have been kidphilly) between University City and Center City and Kendall Square and Downtown Boston. I thought that was a good analogy.
Does it really matter whether University City is "considered" downtown? If they're adjacent to each other and seamlessly run together, would anyone really care whether its "considered" downtown? Walking, it's just one big uninterrupted area.
Does it really matter whether University City is "considered" downtown? If they're adjacent to each other and seamlessly run together, would anyone really care whether its "considered" downtown? Walking, it's just one big uninterrupted area.
The walk from Downtown DC to Capitol Hill is "one big uninterrupted area." Yet there's a clear psychological demarcation between Downtown and Capitol Hill. The same could be said for Foggy Bottom.
really? or is it the reaction of posters who are interested in threads using accurate words? "Philadelphia surpasses Chicago as 2nd most populous downtown" would be a whole lot more accurate, man. And again, since when is this recent news?
Actually it wouldn't be accurate at all - since it was pointed out that Philly's downtown population has ALWAYS been larger than Chicago's. That's what makes this thread so comical as far as the title and subject. Why was Chicago's name even thrown into this title or thread at all? It honestly has nothing to do with any of this more than San Fran as far as other cities with fairly large downtown populations. None of them are switching rank or passing anyone up, etc. This thread is a celebration of.....nothing new. Why Chicago was used in the title makes no rational sense.
What actually makes it interesting is that Chicago's downtown residential population has been growing at the fastest rate of any city in the country, so you could almost make a case that Chicago might give Philly a race for the title of the 2nd most populous at some point in the next 10-15 years if trends hold....
Here we go again... Facts are HOW ONE DEFINES A DOWNTOWN? OR THEIR DOWNTOWN AND THE PARTICULAR CITY DEFINES THEIR OWN?
Chicago as the metro area with the largest numeric increase in “downtown” population between 2000 and 2010. For purposes of the report, the "US CENSUS BUREAU" defined “downtown” as the area within a 2-mile radius of the location of the city hall in the principal city in a metropolitan area.
Chicago’s downtown population grew from 133,426 to 181,714, an increase of 48,288 or 36.2%. New York came in second with a population increase of 37,422, followed by Philadelphia, San Francisco and Washington, DC. Chicago had largest downtown population growth from 2000 to 2010
SO WE SEE HOW THE GOVERNMENT DEFINES IT �� A 2-mile radius of the cities City Hall. That is TO KEEP BIG CITIES ON A MORE EQUAL BILLING? NOT HOW SOME CITIES STRETCH DOWNTOWN BOUNDARIES?
JOBS REPORT FROM ABOVE SIGHT ⤴ INCLUDES THE 1 mile buffer on a radius
..Total.........Downtown Chicago.... University of Illinois ...University of Chicago. 734,903............ 609,902 ......................... 94,935 ........................30,066.........
...Total....Center City, Philadelphia .....................University City 367,595..............288,227 ..........................................79,368 ...................................
% of workers living within one Mile of Downtown who work within one Mile of Downtown
Downtown Chicago, IL.. 51.8%..........................Center City - Philadelphia, PA ..40.7%
% of workers living in commercial Downtown who work in commercial Downtown..................
Downtown Chicago, IL.. 52.3% ......................... Center City - Philadelphia, PA ..36.0% __________________________________________________ _______________________________
We have to remember... for much of its history? Chicago's Downtown was not known for living areas... PHILLY WAS... but in the LAST 30 YEARS CHICAGO HAS EXPLOADED IN RESIDENTS IN HIGH-END SKYSCRAPER LIVING.... TO LOFTS TO ....HIGH-END ROW HOME DEVELOPMENTS. So going from Very Little? To nearly 200,000. Is IMPRESIVE
ALSO NOTING CHICAGO'S GOLD COAST ...IS NOT INCLUDED. THAT WOULD GREATLY INCREASE #s. PHILLY WANTS TO ADD UNIVERSITY CITY.
Okay. Even going by the statistics in your post, Philly clearly has the more populated downtown area so I'm still correct as I always was going back to my OP. Your statistics were prepared nice and neat so I'll give you credit for that.
Location: East Central Pennsylvania/ Chicago for 6yrs.
2,535 posts, read 3,279,332 times
Reputation: 1483
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDAllstar
Does it really matter whether University City is "considered" downtown? If they're adjacent to each other and seamlessly run together, would anyone really care whether its "considered" downtown? Walking, it's just one big uninterrupted area.
So I say CHICAGO ADDS its Skyscraper and Victorian home "GOLD COAST" . It runs SEAMLESSLY TOO... Philly wants to add University City?
The walk from Downtown DC to Capitol Hill is "one big uninterrupted area." Yet there's a clear psychological demarcation between Downtown and Capitol Hill. The same could be said for Foggy Bottom.
I don't know if that is really a good example though. University City is urban and intensely built. It's similar to Center City. Capitol Hill on the other hand is all row houses and looks nothing like downtown DC. Now, the walk from Downtown DC to Mt. Vernon Triangle to NOMA are three neighborhoods that look similar with very little distinction between them.
Cities in this country expand all the time but when Philly does it in regards to its downtown area, now all of a sudden it's a problem?
You're using boundaries for Philly's downtown that stretch far far south of the actual downtown core, and far north of it as well. I don't care that some random civic group used the arbitrary streets as boundaries. That's where people are drawing question marks.
I like too that the boundary used for Chicago's downtown in your analysis stops about 250 feet west of the Sears Tower.
Basically none of these 10,000 people who live between the river and the expressway live in the downtown area:
The areas used for comparison are what makes this so silly. That and the fact you still keep blathering that Philly's downtown is now larger. When once again.....it's always had more residents.
8 square miles of Philly's central area is going to include a LOOOOT more residential areas than 8 square miles of Chicago's core because Chicago has a hell of a lot more business community eating up many square miles devoted to office buildings, let alone hotels, retail, government, etc. than Philly. The core residential areas are more spread to the north, south, and the west areas that you're not including at all in this arbitrary 8 square miles.
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.
