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 get all of that, but going by what you said previously, it draws a huge part of the UES and UWS which I think is excessive. Everything you said about the different axes where NYC is dense and bustling in those parts makes sense, but not all of that makes for a good argument of what downtown is. I think what marothisu and gladhands has said is still sensible. The only thing with that is that those considerations may pick out part of the UES and UWS, but concurrently open the argument for including parts of downtown Brooklyn and DUMBO.
First, lets stipulate that this debate about the boundaries of NY's "downtown" is purely philosophical and not particularly germane to the topic of this thread. Because it doesn't matter if you draw the line at 96th, 59th, 14th or even Houston -- NY would still easily have the best "downtown" in the country. That's just my opinion, of course, and it depends on what attributes are important to you. I value density, vibrancy and amount of things to do above aesthetics, and by those metrics even a small fraction of Manhattan is leagues above any other downtown in the country.
But if you do want to engage in the philosophical discussion, we have to agree on the baseline.
I go back to what I said before -- is "downtown" synonymous with CBD in the strict sense, or is it more akin to "city center"? I don't have a problem with people jumping on either side as long as they apply their criteria consistently to all cities.
That said, as I noted upthread, drawing the lines restrictively is problematic for cities like NY:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzrovian
This rigid distinction doesn't really apply very well to older cities with large high density cores that flow seamlessly from predominatly commercial areas (with some residential) to predominatly residential areas (with a lot of mixed use) without a dramatic change in urban intensity.
Chicago is a bit easier because, as others have noted, as you leave the Downtown core -- whether you go south, west or north -- the change in urban character and vibrancy is pretty quick so it's easier to draw those lines.
In NY, on the other hand, if you are walking up any Avenue east of 5th or west of 8th, at what point would you notice a big change? Maybe that's one way to think about it.
NY is more similar to London in this sense. What is "downtown London"? Is it just the City (1 sq mile)? Is it just the West End?
I would say it should roughly correspond with entire Zone 1. That is what the City of London for planning purposes calls the 'Central Acitivities Zone' (https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/defa...web_0606_0.pdf). Take a look at the description and note how it goes well beyond the City and West End and also takes into account a wide variety of other factors, including population density, cultural amenities, retail and iconic tourist attractions. This is basically London's "tourist zone".
What would be NY's equivalent to this area? What is NY's "tourist zone"?
And Astoria, Sunnyside, LIC, Woodside, Ridgewood, and several others. However, I wasn’t under the impression that’s what you were arguing. It is undeniable that a much greater area in thr NYC was more vibrant than that of Chicago. That’s certainly true if you wete going to go by something like pedestrian count at any time of day. However, that’s not the rubric I though wr were going by. You should at least be consistent in what you are arguing.
I’m not going by pedestrian count. I guess I’m thinking of a more nebulous “reasons to be there” and “stuff going on”. Sunnysde is a great example. I lived in Sunnyside and I loved it. It has all of the amenities you need any New York neighborhood: subways supermarkets, drugstores, banks, drycleaner, neighborhood bars and restaurants. It also has absolutely nothing to draw you in from another neighborhood. If you’ve been to Sunnyside, it’s probably because you knew someone who lived there, or because you lived in a directly adjacent neighborhood.
Queens has a few neighborhoods that are major transit hubs, retail centers, dining destinations or “village downtowns”, namely Jackson Heights, Flushing, Elmhurst, and Jamaica, but only Jackson Heights and Flushing routinely draw people from outside of Queens. They certainly aren’t “Downtown NYC”, And they are lesser draws within their city than Chicago neighborhoods like Logan Square, Lincoln Park, Bucktown, Wicker Park, Lakeview, River West, etc. Those Chicago neighborhoods are more functionally similar to UWS, UES, West Village, Williamsburg, Greenpoint etc. than they are to Ridgewood, Bay Ridge or Rego Park.
First, lets stipulate that this debate about the boundaries of NY's "downtown" is purely philosophical and not particularly germane to the topic of this thread. Because it doesn't matter if you draw the line at 96th, 59th, 14th or even Houston -- NY would still easily have the best "downtown" in the country. That's just my opinion, of course, and it depends on what attributes are important to you. I value density, vibrancy and amount of things to do above aesthetics, and by those metrics even a small fraction of Manhattan is leagues above any other downtown in the country.
But if you do want to engage in the philosophical discussion, we have to agree on the baseline.
I go back to what I said before -- is "downtown" synonymous with CBD in the strict sense, or is it more akin to "city center"? I don't have a problem with people jumping on either side as long as they apply their criteria consistently to all cities.
That said, as I noted upthread, drawing the lines restrictively is problematic for cities like NY:
Chicago is a bit easier because, as others have noted, as you leave the Downtown core -- whether you go south, west or north -- the change in urban character and vibrancy is pretty quick so it's easier to draw those lines.
In NY, on the other hand, if you are walking up any Avenue east of 5th or west of 8th, at what point would you notice a big change? Maybe that's one way to think about it.
NY is more similar to London in this sense. What is "downtown London"? Is it just the City (1 sq mile)? Is it just the West End?
I would say it should roughly correspond with entire Zone 1. That is what the City of London for planning purposes calls the 'Central Acitivities Zone' (https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/defa...web_0606_0.pdf). Take a look at the description and note how it goes well beyond the City and West End and also takes into account a wide variety of other factors, including population density, cultural amenities, retail and iconic tourist attractions. This is basically London's "tourist zone".
What would be NY's equivalent to this area? What is NY's "tourist zone"?
It’s the streets, not the avenues that tell the tale, in Manhattan. There’s a world of difference between, say 45th St. and 73rd St. The avenues guide you through neighborhoods, but the streets represent the neighborhoods themselves. It’s the same in the Chicago neighborhoods that you seem to dismiss. The major arteries are clearly thriving and urban, but they often give way to quiet, residential side streets. In Chicago, every eighth street is a main corridor. This is true of both North-South streets and East-West streets. In some neighborhoods, the intervening streets will have more commercial or mixed use. In others, they’re more routinely residential. There are also a handful of streets the crisscross the grid diagonally. These are also dedicated as a major arteries.
Last edited by gladhands; 11-11-2017 at 06:13 AM..
Lots of numbers being thrown around. To me upper west side passes the eye test as being "downtown" moreso than Lincoln park. Mostly because of the cultural attractions.
I think I have a working definition for downtown. For me, downtown is the central business district and those contiguous neighborhoods that function as major employment centers or destinations for shopping or nightlife. Also, size matters. One tourist destination doesn’t elevate a 200 square block neighborhood out of residential status.
I think I have a working definition for downtown. For me, downtown is the central business district and those contiguous neighborhoods that function as major employment centers or destinations for shopping or nightlife. Also, size matters. One tourist destination doesn’t elevate a 200 square block neighborhood out of residential status.
Of course it depends on how you define "major" and "destinations" but I would argue that UES and UWS easily meet your test. Given the concentration of non-residential amenities present there -- hospitals, colleges, museums, shops and restaurants -- it almost certainly has the highest employment density of any non-CBD neighborhood in the country outside of NYC. Also, with EIGHT extremely dense retails corridors running through it, it is also an important destination for shopping and entertainment. So it actually meets both of your alternative prongs, not just one.
I think I have a working definition for downtown. For me, downtown is the central business district and those contiguous neighborhoods that function as major employment centers or destinations for shopping or nightlife. Also, size matters. One tourist destination doesn’t elevate a 200 square block neighborhood out of residential status.
I agree for the most part. I think this would allow for back bay in Boston to be considered "downtown" which I clearly think it is but others have argued otherwise. I would also say that upper west side fits bill as it is home to far more than one tourist destination. You'd have to draw the line at some point as you go north towards wash heights etc.
I think I have a working definition for downtown. For me, downtown is the central business district and those contiguous neighborhoods that function as major employment centers or destinations for shopping or nightlife. Also, size matters. One tourist destination doesn’t elevate a 200 square block neighborhood out of residential status.
By this definition, would Wicker Park fit the criteria? Go there on a Saturday, and there's plenty of foot traffic along its famed 6-corners corridor of Milwaukee/North/Damen Avenue. Minus tall buildings, it didn't feel like I left "downtown" as far as vibrancy and how touristy and congested it felt, though it's 2 miles from the loop.
Westport, CT, haha, my hometown!
What you're saying about Lincoln Park, however, is patently false.
There is nothing I wrote re. Lincoln Park that is patently false. I think it's pretty clear, based on your response, that you're a Chicago homer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Codederick
There are no major attractions in Lincoln Park? LOL
Lincoln Park has the 3rd most visited park and the 2nd most visited zoo in the entire nation. These are GLOBAL attractions.
We're talking neighborhoods, not parks. I'm not counting Central Park for the UWS, and I'm obviously doing the same for LP. Otherwise, I could count the Met and all the attractions in CP as UWS, which makes no sense. Yes, there are no major attractions in LP.
And you're making up stuff re. the park itself. The zoo is very small (main Chicago zoo is in suburban Brookfield) and nowhere near the second most visited. And Lincoln Park is nowhere near the third most visited park.
Lincoln Park Zoo is free, and has no gates or anything. Have you ever been there? There is no possible way to pinpoint attendance at a free zoo or park and rank against others. It's fakenews.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Codederick
Lincoln Park also is neither suburban nor has strip malls. It's kind of pointless to post here if you're just going to make up things that aren't true. I question if you've ever been to LP. What next? Downtown LA is rural?
This is simply a lie. I'm not gonna waste my time posting the billion strip malls in Lincoln Park, but anyone who knows Chicago is well aware that there are countless strip malls and suburban-type developments.
There's obviously no such concentration on the Upper West Side, or even in Park Slope, or even in Brighton Beach, 15 miles from Manhattan. That's the whole point. There's an enormous difference in term of urbanity.
LP isn't even as urban as many places 15 miles from Manhattan, so how can it be as urban as the densest places in Manhattan? It's like saying that Schaumburg is as urban as Gold Coast.
By this definition, would Wicker Park fit the criteria? Go there on a Saturday, and there's plenty of foot traffic along its famed 6-corners corridor of Milwaukee/North/Damen. Minus tall buildings, it didn't feel like I left "downtown" as far as vibrancy and how touristy and congested it felt, though it's 2 miles from the loop.
There's also a giant strip mall with a KMart and huge parking lot right on the main corridor in Wicker Park. There are many suburban-style developments in Wicker Park.
Yes, right around the main L stop is fairly busy, but I wouldn't call it "downtown". It's just a healthy neighborhood commercial center, unremarkable in the context of NYC or outside the U.S., but, yes, very vibrant for general U.S. neighborhood standards.
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.
