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.
Rosslyn, Virginia could technically be considered Downtown DC. Foggy Bottom to Georgetown is virtually seamless. Plus, Georgetown has a lot of private sector firms. You can easily walk to Georgetown from Rossyln across the Key Bridge, which integrates Rosslyn into "Greater Downtown DC."
How about this one?
The right side of the street is downtown D.C. and the left side of the street is not?
The report talks about "Greater Center City." The boosters on here are now conflating that with "Downtown Philadelphia," which is something entirely distinct. The reports are not contradictory; it's just that some people are being disingenuous.
I agree liberties have been taken with the PR, and the assertions on what it translates to are disingenuous IMHO
It is true that Philly has the second most people that live with the areas they defined as greater "DTs" for their analysis - it is actually factually backed up
In terms of which DTS are largest, that is an entirely different discussion of which Philly is not number 2, depending on the metric is either a top 5 (or even ten depending on the criteria) or so
I agree that the boundaries put forth by the CCRA claiming that Center City is the second largest downtown is pretty bogus. Development wise, I would consider Manhattan, Chicago and San Francisco to be larger than Center City. I created a few maps a while back detailing what could be considered the "Downtown Area" for a lot of the larger US cities.
I don't live in DC or Chicago, but am familiar with both (moreso the latter) and I feel like those are ok definitions to use, from out outsider's likely misguided perspective. Probably Philly, as well.
However, I disagree with your view on what is "downtown Manhattan" or downtown SF (I think you're being generous). Manhattan itself is pretty unique in that there really can only be one "downtown", which is lower Manhattan, then there is another huge (even larger) CBD that is Midtown, and then much of what you highlighted are residential neighborhoods bordering the park that get into "Uptown" if you will, and would never be considered "downtown" even if they are dense 100-200k ppsm neighborhoods with high rises and ground floor commercial. I don't think anyone living in HK or Chelsea for instance would consider themselves to be living in a downtown, let alone "downtown" as I believe it's thought of in NYC.
Downtown Brooklyn is another one to consider. Definitely a "downtown" on the rebound, and an area that is an actual downtown, has a downtown feel, and has residents that would say "I live downtown".
Your definition of downtown San Francisco is very generous. Note that the neighborhoods to the north/west of the financial district have a very defined feel and are considered quite quintessential. People living in Nob Hill or Russian Hill do not consider themselves to be "downtown". Also note that the hills themselves are a barrier and there are literal tunnels - for instance the Broadway tunnel - Broadway goes from busy thoroughfare splitting Chinatown and North Beach into a tunnel under Russian Hill, so that's a dividing point as well.
SOMA, South Beach, Mid-Market, and Civic Center are all neighborhoods with less of an identity, are flat with the financial district, and are the neighborhoods targeted for high rise/new mid-rise development. They are also on BART/MUNI metro lines, so are connected by train (whereas Nob Hill is a walk down the hill in any direction and Russian Hill/Pac Heights are "trolley-bus" neighborhoods, which at this point is very quintessential SF).
Long story short, MY definition of downtown is generally limited to the Financial District, which is 215 Acres (1/3 of a square mile). However, the general concept of "downtown" is often extended to Mid-Market/Civic Center, exactly 2 miles down Market Street, and quite possibly into SOMA and South Beach, as well, which are neighborhoods adjacent that are just coming to be that have high rises.
I predict that within 10 years, nobody will consider Civic Center/Mid-Market or SOMA/South Beach to be "downtown" as each will be large enough with its own identity to carry on as themselves.
See below:
I couldn't figure out how to link to My Maps on Goog.
The Financial District in Green is 0.33 sq mi.
The "Greater Downtown" in Blue is 2.31 sq mi
Altogether the area is 2.64 sq mi
2000 Population was 64K (density of just over 24K ppsm)
2010 Population was 87K (density of just under 33K ppsm)
Growth of 35%
The area is exploding now, and like I said, by 2020 or 2025 most of that Blue will likely stand on its own and not be considered "downtown". I can see areas like Rincon Hill and Union Square always being considered part of "downtown", though.
In Philadelphia I feel like Center City has a much stronger brand than the financial district in SF, or "downtown" in SF. The individual neighborhoods in SF likely have a far stronger brand than the neighborhoods in Philly. So I can see how things would be different there.
In Chicago, aren't areas like the West Loop, Greektown, South Loop, Gold Coast, etc all creating or benefiting from their own somewhat strong brands?
We're just using the logic of some of the posters in this thread. Downtown BK and University City are both secondary employment nodes. You've somehow come up with a magical number for how wide a river must be before a secondary node can no longer be considered a part of "downtown." What is your authority for that?
Im confused...didn't the Center City District also create the same report you guys are now relying on to say that University City is a part of Downtown Philadelphia?
You're confusing me with other forumers guy. I was one of the ones actually going against what the CCD report claimed to be "Center City" or "Greater Center City." I actually claimed that the definition of "Downtown Philadelphia" would be Center City, from Spring Garden to South Street, River to River, and then one could include University City to 40th and Powelton Ave to the north.
Yes, the report includes University City as a secondary employment node, but does that mean separate downtown area? The report also claims Lower Manhattan and Midtown Manhattan to be two separate employment nodes. Would you consider these areas to be separate or one contiguous downtown? Would you consider the Loop and the Mag Mile in Chicago as two separate Downtown areas? Would you consider the San Francisco Financial District and the Civic Center as two different Downtowns? Because the report lists them as two separate employment nodes.
The reason the Center City District does not include University City is because they are just that, the Center City District. There is a separate University City district as well. Two separate governmental entities. If CCD starting counting the population, jobs, construction, etc. of the UCD, than the UCD would be disbanded. Maybe it will one day. We're going to take the word of the CCD who also claims Girard and Tasker on the other end are Center City? However, Center City and UCity are definitely building up and becoming one continuous downtown.
Let's take a look at the connection between Manhattan and Downtown Brooklyn vs. Center City and University City:
The width of the East River at it's shortest is only 0.379 of a mile. However, as a pedestrian, you are crossing over the Brooklyn Bridge for 1.43 miles. That's nearly two miles before you're back into the urban grid on the other side of the River. You call this one connected area? https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?m...o.kRyyCVL7xPDI
Yes. These two are completely comparable. University City is continuous with Center City and they're walkable and connected. Manhattan and Downtown Brooklyn are not in any way, shape or form connected or continuous to the extent that the former two are. Therefore, yes there is a difference and there needs to be some sort of definition regarding the distance or separation of two built up areas on either side of a larger body of water.
I don't live in DC or Chicago, but am familiar with both (moreso the latter) and I feel like those are ok definitions to use, from out outsider's likely misguided perspective. Probably Philly, as well.
However, I disagree with your view on what is "downtown Manhattan" or downtown SF (I think you're being generous). Manhattan itself is pretty unique in that there really can only be one "downtown", which is lower Manhattan, then there is another huge (even larger) CBD that is Midtown, and then much of what you highlighted are residential neighborhoods bordering the park that get into "Uptown" if you will, and would never be considered "downtown" even if they are dense 100-200k ppsm neighborhoods with high rises and ground floor commercial. I don't think anyone living in HK or Chelsea for instance would consider themselves to be living in a downtown, let alone "downtown" as I believe it's thought of in NYC.
Downtown Brooklyn is another one to consider. Definitely a "downtown" on the rebound, and an area that is an actual downtown, has a downtown feel, and has residents that would say "I live downtown".
Your definition of downtown San Francisco is very generous. Note that the neighborhoods to the north/west of the financial district have a very defined feel and are considered quite quintessential. People living in Nob Hill or Russian Hill do not consider themselves to be "downtown". Also note that the hills themselves are a barrier and there are literal tunnels - for instance the Broadway tunnel - Broadway goes from busy thoroughfare splitting Chinatown and North Beach into a tunnel under Russian Hill, so that's a dividing point as well.
SOMA, South Beach, Mid-Market, and Civic Center are all neighborhoods with less of an identity, are flat with the financial district, and are the neighborhoods targeted for high rise/new mid-rise development. They are also on BART/MUNI metro lines, so are connected by train (whereas Nob Hill is a walk down the hill in any direction and Russian Hill/Pac Heights are "trolley-bus" neighborhoods, which at this point is very quintessential SF).
Long story short, MY definition of downtown is generally limited to the Financial District, which is 215 Acres (1/3 of a square mile). However, the general concept of "downtown" is often extended to Mid-Market/Civic Center, exactly 2 miles down Market Street, and quite possibly into SOMA and South Beach, as well, which are neighborhoods adjacent that are just coming to be that have high rises.
I predict that within 10 years, nobody will consider Civic Center/Mid-Market or SOMA/South Beach to be "downtown" as each will be large enough with its own identity to carry on as themselves.
See below:
I couldn't figure out how to link to My Maps on Goog.
The Financial District in Green is 0.33 sq mi.
The "Greater Downtown" in Blue is 2.31 sq mi
Altogether the area is 2.64 sq mi
2000 Population was 64K (density of just over 24K ppsm)
2010 Population was 87K (density of just under 33K ppsm)
Growth of 35%
The area is exploding now, and like I said, by 2020 or 2025 most of that Blue will likely stand on its own and not be considered "downtown". I can see areas like Rincon Hill and Union Square always being considered part of "downtown", though.
In Philadelphia I feel like Center City has a much stronger brand than the financial district in SF, or "downtown" in SF. The individual neighborhoods in SF likely have a far stronger brand than the neighborhoods in Philly. So I can see how things would be different there.
In Chicago, aren't areas like the West Loop, Greektown, South Loop, Gold Coast, etc all creating or benefiting from their own somewhat strong brands?
actually this is a post that makes a ton of sense to me
I also think your definition of SF with the CBD (Financial District) is pretty spot on from my experience, albeit a non resident that has spent considerable time in SF - I would roughly call that the greater DT which to me has a larger footprint than does Philly with U City
I also agree that an area like North Beach i not part of the greater DT as would I not call Bella Vista in Philly part of it
The core CBD for Philly is mostly Chestnut to Race and 8th to the river to draw a compator to the Fidi
expanded DT to me is South to Vine (maybe Spring Garden) and river to 40th which to me would include U City - similar to how SF is expanding into SOMA and toward AT&T
I don't live in DC or Chicago, but am familiar with both (moreso the latter) and I feel like those are ok definitions to use, from out outsider's likely misguided perspective. Probably Philly, as well.
However, I disagree with your view on what is "downtown Manhattan" or downtown SF (I think you're being generous). Manhattan itself is pretty unique in that there really can only be one "downtown", which is lower Manhattan, then there is another huge (even larger) CBD that is Midtown, and then much of what you highlighted are residential neighborhoods bordering the park that get into "Uptown" if you will, and would never be considered "downtown" even if they are dense 100-200k ppsm neighborhoods with high rises and ground floor commercial. I don't think anyone living in HK or Chelsea for instance would consider themselves to be living in a downtown, let alone "downtown" as I believe it's thought of in NYC.
Downtown Brooklyn is another one to consider. Definitely a "downtown" on the rebound, and an area that is an actual downtown, has a downtown feel, and has residents that would say "I live downtown".
Your definition of downtown San Francisco is very generous. Note that the neighborhoods to the north/west of the financial district have a very defined feel and are considered quite quintessential. People living in Nob Hill or Russian Hill do not consider themselves to be "downtown". Also note that the hills themselves are a barrier and there are literal tunnels - for instance the Broadway tunnel - Broadway goes from busy thoroughfare splitting Chinatown and North Beach into a tunnel under Russian Hill, so that's a dividing point as well.
SOMA, South Beach, Mid-Market, and Civic Center are all neighborhoods with less of an identity, are flat with the financial district, and are the neighborhoods targeted for high rise/new mid-rise development. They are also on BART/MUNI metro lines, so are connected by train (whereas Nob Hill is a walk down the hill in any direction and Russian Hill/Pac Heights are "trolley-bus" neighborhoods, which at this point is very quintessential SF).
Long story short, MY definition of downtown is generally limited to the Financial District, which is 215 Acres (1/3 of a square mile). However, the general concept of "downtown" is often extended to Mid-Market/Civic Center, exactly 2 miles down Market Street, and quite possibly into SOMA and South Beach, as well, which are neighborhoods adjacent that are just coming to be that have high rises.
I predict that within 10 years, nobody will consider Civic Center/Mid-Market or SOMA/South Beach to be "downtown" as each will be large enough with its own identity to carry on as themselves.
See below:
I couldn't figure out how to link to My Maps on Goog.
The Financial District in Green is 0.33 sq mi.
The "Greater Downtown" in Blue is 2.31 sq mi
Altogether the area is 2.64 sq mi
2000 Population was 64K (density of just over 24K ppsm)
2010 Population was 87K (density of just under 33K ppsm)
Growth of 35%
The area is exploding now, and like I said, by 2020 or 2025 most of that Blue will likely stand on its own and not be considered "downtown". I can see areas like Rincon Hill and Union Square always being considered part of "downtown", though.
In Philadelphia I feel like Center City has a much stronger brand than the financial district in SF, or "downtown" in SF. The individual neighborhoods in SF likely have a far stronger brand than the neighborhoods in Philly. So I can see how things would be different there.
In Chicago, aren't areas like the West Loop, Greektown, South Loop, Gold Coast, etc all creating or benefiting from their own somewhat strong brands?
I completely understand what you're saying, but I feel as if you are not being generous enough. I think it is completely okay to include residential neighborhoods in the definition of Downtown, especially if they have strong Commercial/Retail strips. It doesn't need to be only commercial uses to be included Downtown. I think Downtowns are becoming more residential. Per Downtown San Francisco definition, I could see why you would cut it off at Broadway, as this is originally where I had the Northern Boundary of Downtown, but then figured the neighborhoods to the north include places like Telegraph Hill, the Aquarium, Fishermans Wharf, etc. Why not include these as a part of Downtown? I would also definitely include Nob Hill in the Downtown definition.
As for NYC, isn't most of Manhattan from 110th on down really one large continuous Downtown? If these areas were apart of another city, wouldn't you call this Downtown?: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7831...EM2mQSUkLg!2e0
All those areas would easily be Downtown in another city.
As for sharing My Maps on Google Maps, click "Share" once you are done editing, then click "Done" after naming it. Then, copy and past the URL they generate for you and post it here.
I completely understand what you're saying, but I feel as if you are not being generous enough. I think it is completely okay to include residential neighborhoods in the definition of Downtown, especially if they have strong Commercial/Retail strips. It doesn't need to be only commercial uses to be included Downtown. I think Downtowns are becoming more residential. Per Downtown San Francisco definition, I could see why you would cut it off at Broadway, as this is originally where I had the Northern Boundary of Downtown, but then figured the neighborhoods to the north include places like Telegraph Hill, the Aquarium, Fishermans Wharf, etc. Why not include these as a part of Downtown? I would also definitely include Nob Hill in the Downtown definition.
As for NYC, isn't most of Manhattan from 110th on down really one large continuous Downtown? If these areas were apart of another city, wouldn't you call this Downtown?: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7831...EM2mQSUkLg!2e0
All those areas would easily be Downtown in another city.
As for sharing My Maps on Google Maps, click "Share" once you are done editing, then click "Done" after naming it. Then, copy and past the URL they generate for you and post it here.
1) No, not at all.
2) No, not all all.
3) Maybe - that area has a lot of office space and destination retail, with lots of notable hotels...not sure if it is technically part of Midtown South, but that's kind of like Midtown South right there.
Though "Midtown" in New York is not "downtown". There is a BIG distinction.
Also, New York is on a whole different level of density. You highlighted residential neighborhoods. In SF you can limit those buildings to 5-7 floors on average (since we are talking the denser residential hoods). In Philly, maybe 3-4. In DC, 2-3. In Houston, those buildings would become single family homes.
No, Manhattan south of 96th st or whatever is not all "downtown." There are plenty of "dead" spots in Manhattan and on a typical day Center City is much more vibrant than Lower Manhattan.
No, Manhattan south of 96th st or whatever is not all "downtown." There are plenty of "dead" spots in Manhattan and on a typical day Center City is much more vibrant than Lower Manhattan.
And breakdancing pink elephants in tutus occupy the White House...
Location: East Central Pennsylvania/ Chicago for 6yrs.
2,535 posts, read 3,297,107 times
Reputation: 1483
Quote:
Originally Posted by RightonWalnut
I agree that the boundaries put forth by the CCRA claiming that Center City is the second largest downtown is pretty bogus. Development wise, I would consider Manhattan, Chicago and San Francisco to be larger than Center City. I created a few maps a while back detailing what could be considered the "Downtown Area" for a lot of the larger US cities.
I TOTALLY AGREE THAT YOUR MAP OF DOWNTOWN CHICAGO IS WHAT THE CITY SHOULD DECARE... AS ITS FULL DOWNTOWN TODAY Your Map includes the Gold Coast to Lincoln Park.... As I said in previous pages. It should, and stretch it a bit further Down....to include the new skyscrapers that developed across from Solder Field.
Compare though YOUR map of Downtown Chicago? With The OFFICIAL CITY WEBSIGHT SHOWING DOWNTOWN BOUNDARIES.
These new residential skyscrapers �� and high-rises and New Townhouses on the left of picture. Currently are NOT OFFICIALY DOWNTOWN. IN YOUR MAP IT IS INCLUDED
IN THIS PICURE.... ALL THE BUILDINGS TO START OF LINCOLN PARK AT CENTER TOP PART OF PHOTO, ARE INCLUDED IN YOUR MAP. BUT NOT OFFICIALLY BY THE CITY IN ITS MAP OF OFFICIAL DOWNTOWN CHICAGO. BUILDINGS TO RIGHT OF LINCOLN PARK. STILL WOULD NOT BE INCLUDED? ��
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.
Your Map includes the Gold Coast to Lincoln Park.... As I said in previous pages. It should, and stretch it a bit further Down....to include the new skyscrapers that developed across from Solder Field. 
