metros without their downtowns

[_Buster]

I'm not sure I get the exact meaning of the thread. Does this mean if the current downtown was somehow wiped out today and became uninhabitable for whatever reason, where would the new downtown shift to? Or does it mean if the current area that is the downtown never existed historically when the city developed, for example if the area was water instead of dry land when the city was forming?

For Pittsburgh I think it would be two different answers - today it would probably shift to Oakland, but if the downtown land never existed historically then it would probably be the North Side, which was Allegheny City over a hundred years ago. Allegheny was a fairly big place itself which eventually merged with Pittsburgh.

[the topper]

San Jose>Santana Row

[FrankInPhilly]

Originally Posted by RightonWalnut

I think University City would likely turn into the Downtown for Philadelphia if Center City didn't exist... certainly over South Philly I'm sure.

I initially thought the same thing, but then reconsidered because South Philly (south of Washington Ave) is more "city-like", whereas U City is dominated (for now, at least) by the universities and office space along the river. South Philly just feels more urban/multi-purpose to me (and checks off that all-important urban criteria: impossible to find a parking space!)

[BigLake]

Originally Posted by edsg25

UIC is considered part of the downtown area. Hyde Park would be dubious as Chicagoland is much more focused north (city and suburbs) and west (suburbs).

but wait: how can someone from Oak Park say "or wherever UIC is"....I mean, with light traffic, it's 10 minutes from where you live.

Let's play along edsg for the sake of goofing around (I agree with your previous post).


*If* Chicago had an alternative downtown if the Loop somehow did not flourish (impossible), I'd say:
Goose Island
Uptown (Irving Park and Broadway)
Lincoln Park (Fullerton and Clark)