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.
Do you know what "necessary but not sufficient" is? A physical link that maintains contiguity of the core may be a necessary prerequisite in the eyes of some, but that doesn't mean that that prerequisite is sufficient. In this case, we're talking about pedestrian links that arguably make the connection between two separate nodes relatively seamless. I think that's an argument that could be made for DT Brooklyn even though I think the East River is a more imposing and limiting boundary than the Chicago River is in the Loop or the Schuylkill dividing CC and West Philly.
If places like DT Brooklyn or LI City (to an even lesser extent IMO) only arguably qualify as part of the NYC urban core, then there's no way Jersey City should.
If you feel that Jersey City is the same as Brooklyn, then perhaps you should start a thread in the NY forum and see what folks have to say about it, then report back here.
Walking commutes are a small percentage of commutes in any city. They are a small % of commutes within Manhattan itself. This doesn't matter. The point is that if people do in fact walk or bike from their residence in Brooklyn to their place of work in Manhattan (or vice versa), then that's evidence of some degree of continuity. Since it is literally impossible to walk from Hoboken to Manhattan, there is no such evidence of contiguity between the two.
He’s literally arguing that 125th st, Harlem, Manhattan is outside of NYC’s core but parts of New Jersey are in the core. There’s no point of continuing the discussion.
125th street is absolutely part of NYC’s core, and it’s absurd to think otherwise. It seems to me as if your concept of NYC’s core is based on nothing more than demographics and the occasional skyscraper.
Here is something that you need to understand, Brooklyn and Queens are NYC. Jersey City and Hoboken are not. People who grew up there do not consider themselves New Yorkers. New Yorkers do not move there. As I said before, the average New Yorker can’t name two streets in either town. People who actually grew up in NYC remember when Hudson County was a long-distance phone call.
No one is saying that JC and Hoboken aren’t part of the metro, but they are satellites, removed from the core. I don’t know why that’s hard for you to accept.
We're sort of drifting here. I *thought* this thread was about comparing Downtown Chicago to New York's equivalent of Downtown Chicago. If that's the case, then there's no reason we should be discussing Harlem, there's a semi-valid reason we should be discussing Downtown Brooklyn, and there's no valid reason we should be discussing Jersey. A "downtown core," in my mind, is distinct from an "urban core" regularly discussed in this forum that is typically defined a bit more broadly to encompass higher-intensity nodes that are peripheral to the CBD.
We're sort of drifting here. I *thought* this thread was about comparing Downtown Chicago to New York's equivalent of Downtown Chicago. If that's the case, then there's no reason we should be discussing Harlem, there's a semi-valid reason we should be discussing Downtown Brooklyn, and there's no valid reason we should be discussing Jersey. A "downtown core," in my mind, is distinct from an "urban core" regularly discussed in this forum that is typically defined a bit more broadly to encompass higher-intensity nodes that are peripheral to the CBD.
125th street is absolutely part of NYC’s core, and it’s absurd to think otherwise. It seems to me as if your concept of NYC’s core is based on nothing more than demographics and the occasional skyscraper.
Here is something that you need to understand, Brooklyn and Queens are NYC. Jersey City and Hoboken are not. People who grew up there do not consider themselves New Yorkers. New Yorkers do not move there. As I said before, the average New Yorker can’t name two streets in either town. People who actually grew up in NYC remember when Hudson County was a long-distance phone call.
No one is saying that JC and Hoboken aren’t part of the metro, but they are satellites, removed from the core. I don’t know why that’s hard for you to accept.
To the casual observer, it does appear that JC is an extension of NYC’s core. From many angles, the JC skyline looks like an extension of the lower Manhattan skyline. All the tall buildings and the most urban areas in JC are directly across the river from lower Manhattan. And of course they are directly connected by the busy Holland Tunnel.
But it is true that JC is nowhere near as vast as Brooklyn or Queens.
Last edited by BigCityDreamer; 06-21-2019 at 09:15 AM..
To the casual observer, it does appear that JC is an extension of NYC’s core. From many angles, the JC skyline looks like an extension of the lower Manhattan skyline.
The only casual observers who would think that would be casual observers in New Jersey. And that's virtually no one since few tourists will ever bother going there.
We're sort of drifting here. I *thought* this thread was about comparing Downtown Chicago to New York's equivalent of Downtown Chicago. If that's the case, then there's no reason we should be discussing Harlem, there's a semi-valid reason we should be discussing Downtown Brooklyn, and there's no valid reason we should be discussing Jersey. A "downtown core," in my mind, is distinct from an "urban core" regularly discussed in this forum that is typically defined a bit more broadly to encompass higher-intensity nodes that are peripheral to the CBD.
Below is my earlier message that I believe kicked off this latest tangent. What you're referring to as "downtown core" is my second category and what you're referring to as "urban core" is my third category. I was only including JC and Hoboken in the lowest (third) category.
If I were to define each of these, it'd be like this:
CBD -- the main commercial/office district.
"Central Activity Zone" (aka "city center" or "downtown core") -- CBD + adjacent high-density neighborhoods with a high concentration of the city's premier retail/entertainment/cultural/tourist attractions. Basically the main "tourist zone" of the city.
Core -- downtown core + the next ring of adjacent high-density neighborhoods that, while not in the main tourist zone, offer secondary attractions/high-density nodes that pull in some spillover tourist traffic from the main tourist zone and/or serve as a destination for locals from the surrounding area.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzrovian
Jpdivola -- to add to my prior post, here are my "functional equivalents" for NYC and Chicago:
Central Business District:
Midtown Manhattan / the Loop
Central Activity Zone (aka "downtown"):
Manhattan south of 86th / Downtown Chicago [Loop, River North, Streeterville, Gold Coast and small slices of West Loop and South Loop]
Urban core:
NYC -- Manhattan + Brooklyn from Greenpoint to Prospect Park, LIC, and waterfront Jersey City and Hoboken
Chicago -- downtown + South Loop, West Loop and whatever north side neighborhoods you wanna add.
Obviously these are not meant to be "pound for pound" equivalents -- NYC is uniformaly more built up, dense and vibrant throughout. But I think these are reasonable "functional equivalents" for each city.
Below is my earlier message that I believe kicked off this latest tangent. What you're referring to as "downtown core" is my second category and what you're referring to as "urban core" is my third category. I was only including JC and Hoboken in the lowest (third) category.
If I were to define each of these, it'd be like this:
CBD -- the main commercial/office district.
"Central Activity Zone" (aka "city center" or "downtown core") -- CBD + adjacent high-density neighborhoods with a high concentration of the city's premier retail/entertainment/cultural/tourist attractions. Basically the main "tourist zone" of the city.
Core -- downtown core + the next ring of adjacent high-density neighborhoods that, while not in the main tourist zone, offer secondary attractions/high-density nodes/destination activities that pull in both tourists and locals from the surrounding area.
I don't think JC even falls into the third category by that definition. Even though it's right across the river, it feels almost the same way Baltimore feels if you live in DC. That it to say, it feels totally off the radar.
I don't think JC even falls into the third category by that definition. Even though it's right across the river, it feels almost the same way Baltimore feels if you live in DC. That it to say, it feels totally off the radar.
Sorry, I tweaked it slightly as follows (edited prior message):
"Core -- downtown core + the next ring of adjacent high-density neighborhoods that, while not in the main tourist zone, offer secondary attractions/high-density nodes that pull in some spillover tourist traffic from the main tourist zone and/or serve as a destination for locals from the surrounding area."
While downtown JC and Hoboken do not get a lot of tourist traffic, they absolutely serve as a destination for Hudson County and beyond, in the same way that LIC has become a major destination for much of western Queens. JC, of course, also has a sizable CBD itself with a lot of spillover from Manhattan.
They are also adjacent to "downtown core" and high-density (the other parts of the definition).
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.
