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.
If you agree with him, it's puzzling that you'd rank Seattle ahead of Philadelphia. Philadelphia is very historic and that layering effect he mentioned is quite evident. Downtown Philadelphia has features that necessarily can't be quantified that collectively make for a well-rounded downtown: the uber historic Old City, the focal point that is City Hall, Independence Mall, the bohemian vibe of South Street, the grand boulevard that is Ben Franklin Parkway, the renowned urban public space that is Rittenhouse Square, etc. That's in addition to the riverfront(s), retail, residential, office space, transit, museums, cultural venues, etc. And yes, downtown Philadelphia has grocery stores, department stores, movie theaters, etc.
DC is set up a bit differently but those elements are in place in its greater downtown area as well.
I'm just saying I would rather live in a functioning downtown . I believe just because it's old and historical doesn't make it more functioning. Maybe if Philly had a full size Target at least in center city then it would be partial functioning. The Macys downtown has been stripped its only two floors. There is no movie theater complexes not multiple like other cities. The main mall downtown is mostly vacant and being remodeled. It's sad for a city philly's size to have a small downtown I really hope the new mall really takes off and spurs other development. I'm talking not land size but built environment.
I agree to a point. Philly, Boston, and even DC are more cohesively urban, and their streetscapes are better to look at. Two are more walkable.
But Seattle is putting enough towers and six-story buildings in, even while a lot of parking lots remain, that our core is a peer of those places by mathematical measures.
Well I agree with most of that except that DC checks each of the boxes you've listed and then some with regards to downtown amenities. Movie theaters, grocery stores, multiple entertainment venues, large department stores, upscale and midscale shopping, restaurants/nightlife all are present there. The only thing I'd like to see is more DT residential population added, all the other tools are currently there to the standards you've mentioned.
DC runs away from downtowns like Seattle in, public transit, tourism, museums, and day time population added. During the day it becomes a poor mans Manhattan south.
To me as a dt resident I would choose dt Seattle over dtdc. As big as DTDC is it really does need more residents. It just seems to be too big and spread out with giant streets. Dt Seattle is more compact and far more walkable. Its major shopping is much better. Whether you're doing some major shopping, buying fresh seafood or flowers, eating, drinking, seeing a play, concert or the Seattle Symphony it's all just steps away from each other. Dtdc has more office workers and blocky office bldgs and a top notch subway, but for everyday dt living I'd take Dt Seattle.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,129 posts, read 7,572,838 times
Reputation: 5786
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwright1
To me as a dt resident I would choose dt Seattle over dtdc. As big as DTDC is it really does need more residents. It just seems to be too big and spread out with giant streets. Dt Seattle is more compact and far more walkable. Its major shopping is much better. Whether you're doing some major shopping, buying fresh seafood or flowers, eating, drinking, seeing a play, concert or the Seattle Symphony it's all just steps away from each other. Dtdc has more office workers and blocky office bldgs and a top notch subway, but for everyday dt living I'd take Dt Seattle.
I agree to a point. Philly, Boston, and even DC are more cohesively urban, and their streetscapes are better to look at. Two are more walkable.
But Seattle is putting enough towers and six-story buildings in, even while a lot of parking lots remain, that our core is a peer of those places by mathematical measures.
Is it thought?
For example Seattlehas 1 rail station over 10K Boston have 3 over 20K passengers/day. Seattle has lower population density. So fewer people traveling through and fewer people living there.
I'm just saying I would rather live in a functioning downtown . I believe just because it's old and historical doesn't make it more functioning. Maybe if Philly had a full size Target at least in center city then it would be partial functioning. The Macys downtown has been stripped its only two floors. There is no movie theater complexes not multiple like other cities. The main mall downtown is mostly vacant and being remodeled. It's sad for a city philly's size to have a small downtown I really hope the new mall really takes off and spurs other development. I'm talking not land size but built environment.
Downtown Philly is both historic and highly functional and only someone who's extremely biased or ignorant would say otherwise. To say that a downtown needs malls and big box stores to be functional is pretty bizarre. Even so, downtown Philly has two Target stores, there's a multiplex movie theater with some of those big box stores you desire just to the south of downtown in Pennsport, and there's a ton of street-level retail in Rittenhouse Square and Midtown Village. You've got the Shops at Liberty Place for your small mall-type environment, and the Fashion District retail complex on Market St. opens next year but some establishments are already open.
Honestly at this point I can't tell if you're trolling or not. "It's sad for a city Philly's size to have a small downtown"????? That's among the most preposterous things I've ever heard on this forum. Philly easily has one of the most highly developed downtowns in the country which is why everyone but you has included it in their top 5 in this thread. You simply don't have a clue what you're talking about.
I'm just saying I would rather live in a functioning downtown . I believe just because it's old and historical doesn't make it more functioning. Maybe if Philly had a full size Target at least in center city then it would be partial functioning. The Macys downtown has been stripped its only two floors. There is no movie theater complexes not multiple like other cities. The main mall downtown is mostly vacant and being remodeled. It's sad for a city philly's size to have a small downtown I really hope the new mall really takes off and spurs other development. I'm talking not land size but built environment.
Sorry to say you've been misinformed. Center City now has 4 Target stores (and counting) either open or under construction (2 small-format, 2 large-format) and the Center City Macy's is easily one of the most significant/successful urban models in the US (contrary to what you've claimed, it's actually been expanded):
Quote:
Macy's has not only given the landmark John Wanamaker store the respect it deserves, it has done very well at its Center City location - so well that it is on the prowl for more space, which may have to be in another location. When Macy's took over from Lord & Taylor in the rump retail space left after the huge John Wanamaker department store space at 13th and Market streets was shrunk to its bottom three floors, many locals worried that the store would find the going rough, for rumor had it that May Department Stores' upmarket nameplate was barely breaking even. Others worried that the New York chain would fail to respect the heritage of the Daniel Burnham-designed home of one of the country's great department stores, founded by an innovative merchant prince in 1873 — the birthplace of the money-back guarantee and modern retail advertising. Macy's management assured the worried locals that it would treat the store with the respect it deserved — it would even make the store a flagship. Since then, the store has done well, expanding to occupy all the remaining retail space available in the building when it added housewares and domestics on the third floor three years ago
Philly already has multiple independent theaters (one of which is undergoing a major upgrade), and coincidentally will add a large AMC theater with the revamp of the remodeled mall to which you refer: https://www.phillymag.com/news/2017/...t-market-east/
For example Seattlehas 1 rail station over 10K Boston have 3 over 20K passengers/day. Seattle has lower population density. So fewer people traveling through and fewer people living there.
In 2017, Downtown Seattle's commute shares were 48% transit and 25% drive-alone. Most of that was buses, though rail is moving up quickly. Boston would be better, but still a peer. The Seattle numbers are for a pretty large area that includes peripheral districts...a narrower zone would of course mean better numbers.
There are no easy stats for the overall mass of a downtown, but I'd put Seattle only a bit below Boston. You could guess about mass based on unit counts, brokerages' office stats (which tend to be absurdly incomplete), hotel counts, brokerage retail stats (which are even worse), institutional master plans, your own guesses about public buildings, and so on. Here's one clue for Seattle.
On the density front, Boston would be higher than Seattle for any version of "greater Downtown," but that gap has narrowed substantially. If you compile census tracts from Washington State estimates (which include 4/1/18 estimates), a version of greater Downtown that's similar to the area used by the transportation group linked above was around 31,000/sm (2.7 sm), up more than 50% in this decade. Philly would probably beat us too, but we beat DC easily.
Downtown Philly is both historic and highly functional and only someone who's extremely biased or ignorant would say otherwise. To say that a downtown needs malls and big box stores to be functional is pretty bizarre. Even so, downtown Philly has two Target stores, there's a multiplex movie theater with some of those big box stores you desire just to the south of downtown in Pennsport, and there's a ton of street-level retail in Rittenhouse Square and Midtown Village. You've got the Shops at Liberty Place for your small mall-type environment, and the Fashion District retail complex on Market St. opens next year but some establishments are already open.
Honestly at this point I can't tell if you're trolling or not. "It's sad for a city Philly's size to have a small downtown"????? That's among the most preposterous things I've ever heard on this forum. Philly easily has one of the most highly developed downtowns in the country which is why everyone but you has included it in their top 5 in this thread. You simply don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Sounds like trolling to me at this point. Or the poster needs to get out more.
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.
