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.
Of course it does. Everyone knows Chicago has more highrises than SF. But what does this have to do with anything?
We're talking about urban cores. Highrises have nothing to do with urban core size or vitality. Dallas doesn't have a bigger or better urban core than Paris because it has far more highrises.
European cities are structurally different than American ones, so that argument is flawed
9.5/10 times in High-rise count is directly correlated to the size of an urban area in the U.S.
European cities are structurally different than American ones, so that argument is flawed
Why is that argument flawed? NYC is structurally different than other American cities, which is why it has vastly better urbanity than other American cities. Has nothing to do with highrises. In fact the best parts of NYC have relatively few highrises.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joakim3
9.5/10 times in High-rise count is directly correlated to the size of an urban area in the U.S.
It is? Miami has the third best urban core in the U.S.? DC has the worst urban core? Houston and Dallas have better urban cores than Philly and Boston?
Birmingham, Manchester, Frankfurt, Munich, Hamburg, even Rome are not significantly denser than the likes of Boston, Washington, Philadelphia, and the more urban crop of American cities.
Boston, Washington, Philly, Seattle, Baltimore etc.. are more exceptions than the norms. The majority of European cities are more geographically compressed and denser than their American counterparts when Europe has x2 the population of the US but less space to play with.
The Loop is the second largest CBD after Midtown Manhattan. It's x2 the size of Lower Manhattan by building sq/ft and SF doesn't even approach that. Chicago operates on a completely different scale than SF.
No, you're confusing all sorts of things. Downtown Chicago (not the Loop) is the second or third largest office core in the U.S. (some sources say DC, some say Chicago). The Loop itself is quite small and only covers a few blocks. Most Chicago office space is probably outside the physical Loop these days.
And Lower Manhattan is multiple times larger than the Loop. It's probably around 4-5x the geographic size, as Lower Manhattan is everything south of Canal. Lower Manhattan is primarily residential, and the Loop is almost entirely commercial, and you keep conflating geographic size with amount of office space, so I'm not sure what you're trying to convey with this comparison.
SF has the fourth largest office core in the U.S., right behind Chicago/DC. There isn't a vast difference. But what does amount of office space have to do with the discussion? Downtown vitality is more than just amount of office space.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joakim3
Second was asking the core size of each city respectively not how busy they are... Sure San Fran has narrower streets and can feel claustrophobic at times, but its downtown simply lacks the breadth of Chicago. Chicago is going to blow SF completely out the water just on sheer residential population residing in its core
SF is to Chicago as Chicago is to NYC when it comes to sheer urbanity and scope... all three operate on different scales.
No, this is all absurd. NYC's core is much bigger than the next ten city cores combined. There are over 2 million New Yorkers living in extreme densities and no other U.S. city has even 100k. Chicago's core is maybe 20-30% larger than that of SF. They're both roughly in the same weight class.
Why is that argument flawed? NYC is structurally different than other American cities, which is why it has vastly better urbanity than other American cities. Has nothing to do with highrises. In fact the best parts of NYC have relatively few highrises.
NYC geographically different but structurally.. it is no different than Chicago, Philly, Baltimore or any other city legacy city that uses a grid system.
American & Asian cities do high-rises... that's how they achieve their densities. Outside of London or Moscow... you are not going to see any European cities throwing up 600' apartment buildings left and right
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101
It is? Miami has the third best urban core in the U.S.? DC has the worst urban core? Houston and Dallas have better urban cores than Philly and Boston?
We are talking about largest not which one is best. The largest cores tend to throw up the most buildings because thats how they maintain their populations. Miami's cores is massive and is indicative of metro of ~6 million people.... DC has more high-rises than Philly & San Francisco. Philly & Boston are physically compacted hence why their downtown/urbanity looks different than Dallas & Houston
NYC geographically different but structurally.. it is no different than Chicago, Philly, Baltimore or any other city legacy city that uses a grid system.
No. You either aren't being honest or have never been to these cities.
NYC has a very different street level feel than, say, Chicago. No one would mistake the two. The NE Corridor cities are much older than Chicago and NYC is vastly denser than any other U.S. city. I cannot imagine someone confusing a typical Baltimore neighborhood with one in Chicago; they look totally different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joakim3
American & Asian cities do high-rises... that's how they achieve their densities.
No. NYC's high density has nothing to do with highrises.
In fact the most highrise-filled part of NYC (Midtown) has relatively low density, and many of NYC's densest neighborhoods are in Western Queens and the Bronx, with few highrises.
No, you're confusing all sorts of things. Downtown Chicago (not the Loop) is the second or third largest office core in the U.S. (some sources say DC, some say Chicago). The Loop itself is quite small and only covers a few blocks. Most Chicago office space is probably outside the physical Loop these days.
....... I'm not confusing anything... no just the loop is the 2nd largest CBD (DC is larger if government buildings are included). River North/The Magnificent Mile is not calculated into those numbers the same way Lower Manhattan isn't calculated in Midtown's numbers.
Let me put it this way... The Willis Tower is 25% larger than 1 WTC or as much the floor space as the 4 tallest buildings in SF combined.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101
And Lower Manhattan is multiple times larger than the Loop. It's probably around 4-5x the geographic size, as Lower Manhattan is everything south of Canal. Lower Manhattan is primarily residential, and the Loop is almost entirely commercial, and you keep conflating geographic size with amount of office space, so I'm not sure what you're trying to convey with this comparison.
Do you I really need to make another over shot. The loop by every metric is larger than Lower Manhattan. Lower Manhattan is the financial center of NYC, it's not a heavy residential district by any means, that nod goes to Midtown. Midtown is the commercial & residential center of NYC hence why its largest CBD by an ocean
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101
SF has the fourth largest office core in the U.S., right behind Chicago/DC. There isn't a vast difference. But what does amount of office space have to do with the discussion? Downtown vitality is more than just amount of office space.
There is a VAST gap between Chicago/DC and SF in terms of downtown scope and size. You are right downtown vitality has nothing to do with office space, but office space has everything to do with size, scope and economic output of a cities core.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101
No, this is all absurd. NYC's core is much bigger than the next ten city cores combined. There are over 2 million New Yorkers living in extreme densities and no other U.S. city has even 100k. Chicago's core is maybe 20-30% larger than that of SF. They're both roughly in the same weight class.
Everyone agrees SF is the more cosmopolitan city... you are the only one pushing that they are remotely in the same weight class when it comes to urban scope, size & scale.
No. You either aren't being honest or have never been to these cities.
NYC has a very different street level feel than, say, Chicago. No one would mistake the two. The NE Corridor cities are much older than Chicago and NYC is vastly denser than any other U.S. city. I cannot imagine someone confusing a typical Baltimore neighborhood with one in Chicago; they look totally different.
I lived in between Baltimore & DC for ~20 years... and I have been to every city I just named more times than I can count.
They are all structually grid cities. The End.
Whats different about NYC is the scale and scope of how much structure it has, not the structure itself. You could take take a brownstone in NYC drop it in Balton Hill, Baltimore and no one the wiser would know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101
No. NYC's high density has nothing to do with highrises.
In fact the most highrise-filled part of NYC (Midtown) has relatively low density, and many of NYC's densest neighborhoods are in Western Queens and the Bronx, with few highrises.
Ok.... let try this. Do you think NYC could have the population it has without building high-rises/skyscrapers?
No, you're confusing all sorts of things. Downtown Chicago (not the Loop) is the second or third largest office core in the U.S. (some sources say DC, some say Chicago). The Loop itself is quite small and only covers a few blocks. Most Chicago office space is probably outside the physical Loop these days.
And Lower Manhattan is multiple times larger than the Loop. It's probably around 4-5x the geographic size, as Lower Manhattan is everything south of Canal. Lower Manhattan is primarily residential, and the Loop is almost entirely commercial, and you keep conflating geographic size with amount of office space, so I'm not sure what you're trying to convey with this comparison.
SF has the fourth largest office core in the U.S., right behind Chicago/DC. There isn't a vast difference. But what does amount of office space have to do with the discussion? Downtown vitality is more than just amount of office space.
No, this is all absurd. NYC's core is much bigger than the next ten city cores combined. There are over 2 million New Yorkers living in extreme densities and no other U.S. city has even 100k. Chicago's core is maybe 20-30% larger than that of SF. They're both roughly in the same weight class.
You are baaaack arguing with everyone as if idiots, calling them absurd, confused etc.
Glad they all dished it right back. Then this endless NYC added every time. From best housing to everything. We all put NYC in its own class. Mentioning Lower Manhattan ALONE and Chicago's Loop (not just its CBC alone today either, by the city itself) . You act as if Lower Manhattan separately, is soooo massive on its own. No city should dare think even remotely another financial district could be compared.
If one mentions it..... The thread did not become on NYC's massiveness and lessen every other city then in comparison.
Really, THEY DID GIVE IT TO YOU ..... as NOT ALWAYS RIGHT, JUST BY DEMANDING IT.
How did we get to this consensus that we crown San Francisco as the more "cosmopolitan" city (whatever that means)? Just because it is on the west coast? Tech economy? If it is, it's be the length of a fingernail. I'm certainly not convinced that it is.
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.
Then this endless NYC added every time. From best housing to everything. We all put NYC in its own class. Mentioning Lower Manhattan ALONE and Chicago's Loop (not just its CBC alone today either, by the city itself) . You act as if Lower Manhattan separately, is soooo massive on its own. No city should dare think even remotely another financial district could be compared. 
