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.
Just an fyi, this isn't strictly a downtown comparison. While urban core can be subjective, I imagined the downtown plus surrounding urban/commercial neighborhoods. I feel like many of the urban/commercial cores spill over from the downtown area of each city.
Philadelphia is somewhat interesting here in that just about everyone agrees on what territory constitutes its "downtown" or urban core: it's the original city William Penn and his surveyor Thomas Holme laid out in 1682, bounded by the rivers on the east and west, Vine Street on the north and South Street on the south.
But the Central Philadelphia Development Corporation (Center City District, the city core's business improvement district) began referring to something it calls "Greater Center City" about seven or eight years ago. This is the territory immediately to the north and south of Center City that's gotten the spillover from the sharp rise in the residential population of the core. All of the neighborhoods in these two bands (north from Vine Street to Girard Avenue, south from South Street to Tasker Street) have experienced significant redevelopment and population gains; you could call these Center City's "bedroom communities."
Philadelphia's "second downtown" lies across the Schuylkill River from the first one. It now has two significant high-rises (the FMC Tower, right by the river, being the most noticeable) and several other mid-rises; it has the region's rail transit hub, 30th Street Station (Amtrak's second busiest after New York Penn Station); and it has two of the city's largest private employers, the University of Pennsylvania (#1) and Drexel University, as the employment hubs. University City is even generating some spillover employment, most notably the Pennovation Works campus southeast of it (and southwest of Greater Center City) in Grays Ferry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the resident09
Boston has tighter knit streets, that are closer together. The back streets and alleys are tighter and closer in. In that respect no DC doesn't compare. But honestly most cities don't compare in that exact format. Lower Manhattan has some similarity to it, parts of Philadelphia, and not even the whole island of Manhattan are built with the same level of tight close streets.
Chicago, DT DC, and most of Manhattan have this broader feel of urban canyons with high rise density for miles. This is what I'm getting at, and DC does extremely well here. DC has the third biggest "Downtown" with NYC and Chicago, 4th if you separate Lower and Midtown Manhattan, and DC's creating it's own 2nd quasi-downtown as we speak. Both Boston and DC are building lots of buildings, but DC is actually transforming completely, and at a high level, entire areas are being created with minimum 12 story buildings outside of Downtown DC. Think like Seattle, that's the level of rapid construction we have been seeing for 15 years.
(emphasis added)
In what sense? Commercial space (retail and office combined) or residential population?
I've long heard that Center City Philadelphia has the nation's third-largest downtown residential population after New York and Chicago. (In the urban core proper, it's about 65,000 now; in "greater Center City," it's about 190,000, which would make that territory a mid-sized city unto itself.)
And here's where that definitional ambiguity creeps in. In a post upthread, I located Dupont Circle outside that "urban core," but the dense office development along Connecticut Avenue extends right up to it, which would make it part of "downtown" DC IMO in most people's eyes.
On my previous visits to DC, I just didn't detect the level of city vitality (people strolling the streets) at night in the center of the downtown (E through I streets, 4th to 16th NW, and the adjacent federal office district to its south) that I do in Center City Philly, Chicago's Mag Mile or even most of the Loop, or Boston's Back Bay. I suspect that hasn't changed much since spring of last year. (I should still visit, but my visits won't be as frequent now that a dear friend of mine has left DC for North Jersey.)
Edited to add: I see that in the polling, Philadelphia is running a distant second to Chicago, with Toronto close behind it. Facts Kill Rhetoric: I'm aware of your preference for what I'd call "global cities," and Philadelphia hasn't traditionally ranked high on that scale (though GaWC puts it in the second tier of global city economies). But I do invite you to take a look around, if only virtually. I'm spending a bit too much time here and not enough on some stories I have to write, but if you don't have time to wander around some Google Street Views, I'll get some for you later this evening.
Last edited by MarketStEl; 06-29-2018 at 04:26 AM..
How much is “a bunch†the area I mentioned is actually by itself like three separate nodes adjacent to each other. Navy/Capital Riverfront SE, Buzzard Point SW, and The SW Waterfront are each their own Mega developed individual neighborhoods. The SW waterfront development called the Wharf alone is the largest single mixed used development in the country the last half of this decade. Then there’s NOMA, Union Market, Walter Reed etc all not just new high rise developments, but new entire neighborhoods that take up many many blocks.
I guess like 10 or 15. I didn't think I was gonna get push back, I thought it was known that Boston was putting up buildings.
How much is “a bunch†the area I mentioned is actually by itself like three separate nodes adjacent to each other. Navy/Capital Riverfront SE, Buzzard Point SW, and The SW Waterfront are each their own Mega developed individual neighborhoods. The SW waterfront development called the Wharf alone is the largest single mixed used development in the country the last half of this decade. Then there’s NOMA, Union Market, Walter Reed etc all not just new high rise developments, but new entire neighborhoods that take up many many blocks.
The seaport is a new neighborhood and business district adjacent to and extending Boston’s downtown. It improves in vibrancy with each new building. Once m parcels, l parcels and harborway is complete it will really be impressive. Essentially new neighborhood built around Fenway on Boylston, the south end Albany and Harrison street developments extend the urban fabric. The government center redevelopment is truly transformational as it creates an inviting walkable link from downtown to north station. With the developmebt around north station downtown Boston is essentially being extended south into the seaport and north to north station. Development is humming along at assembly Rowe in Sommerville, Kendall square in Cambridge and soon to start creating new neighborhoods at Suffolk downs, down Dorchester ave, and widett circle. Boston is increasing its urban fabric.
A somewhat tangential thought, but I think it's a very important topic for urban cores in general and how they're judged (at least by many people).
One of my concerns from an urban planning perspective is the fact that developments like the Seaport (and believe me, it's not just Boston--every single major city has very similar types of "innovation neighborhood" projects in planning/ongoing) is that these super modern, almost-entirely glass structures aren't the best at being intimately designed for the human experience. And that's essentially the only style that's being built nowadays. There's actually very little architectural diversity--just slightly different variations of the same concept.
They're pretty to look at for sure, but they come off as very devoid of soul and the "finely-grained" organic feel that made cities so interesting and vibrant in the first place. For example, I'd MUCH rather wander around the North End than the Seaport. Of course, that type of architectural craftsmanship is almost entirely extinct nowadays, but it doesn't have to be.
Again, not picking on Boston whatsoever, just using it as an example. But as our cities continue to densify and modernize, all of them need to be very careful how they proceed, lest they entirely lose their sense of identity and humanity.
Note: I've been to all of these within the last few years except Toronto. It's been a good decade and a half since I've been there.
Vibrancy: Philly
Shopping: Chicago
Number of residents: Philly
Number of jobs: Chicago
Amentities and attractions: Philly
Walkability: Philly
Public transportation: DC
Nightlife: Philly
Philly's core is great for its livability, residential population, nightlife and bar scene. Chicago's is great for being its business, job and shopping center of the metro. A lot of Chicago's nightlife is distant from its core. I personally love Philly's downtown for its intimacy, walkability, and neighborhood upon neighborhood of vibrant nightlife.
A somewhat tangential thought, but I think it's a very important topic for urban cores in general and how they're judged (at least by many people).
One of my concerns from an urban planning perspective is the fact that developments like the Seaport (and believe me, it's not just Boston--every single major city has very similar types of "innovation neighborhood" projects in planning/ongoing) is that these super modern, almost-entirely glass structures aren't the best at being intimately designed for the human experience. And that's essentially the only style that's being built nowadays. There's actually very little architectural diversity--just slightly different variations of the same concept.
They're pretty to look at for sure, but they come off as very devoid of soul and the "finely-grained" organic feel that made cities so interesting and vibrant in the first place. For example, I'd MUCH rather wander around the North End than the Seaport. Of course, that type of architectural craftsmanship is almost entirely extinct nowadays, but it doesn't have to be.
Again, not picking on Boston whatsoever, just using it as an example. But as our cities continue to densify and modernize, all of them need to be very careful how they proceed, lest they entirely lose their sense of identity and humanity.
Yeah but what are you gonna do? They don't build brick buildings like 1875.
I guess like 10 or 15. I didn't think I was gonna get push back, I thought it was known that Boston was putting up buildings.
I don’t think the question was meant to be malicious. I think it was actually for clarity in the comparison. Just so you know the level of construction you’re comparing, DC’s Capital Riverfront/Navy Yard currently has 17 highrise buildings between 12-14 stories under construction. The amount of residential units in those buildings under construction is over 6,000 units I believe. A few of them are hotels and office buildings too.
The All Star Baseball game is going to be in that neighborhood so everyone will see it all over the world. That’s not even including Buzzard Point, Waterfront Station/Wharf, or the SW Eco District which all make up the new downtown DC to the south being referenced. This neighborhood will have census tracts that eclipse 100k ppsm in a few years.
Last edited by MDAllstar; 06-30-2018 at 06:36 AM..
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.
