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.
Atlanta has mostly linear development also going from DT-MT-Buckhead.
It's linear but definitely peaks in those three different parts. It's a bit like how downtown LA then going west on Wilshire is with peaks at certain centers of employment.
Peninsula maybe. The point was they both have land constraints that caused them to develop that way.
I think New York could be described as a peninsula too. By the time development reached the Northern part of Manhattan, I think engineering was advanced enough that the Harlem River wasn't too much of a barrier. The effect in Manhattan would be stronger too, since the island is much narrower and the city was historically much larger so development could only expand Northwards almost immediately. San Francisco was able to expand both West and South for quite a while.
I'm not sure geography was the prime constraint in Manhattan's two CBDs. Midtown ends at about 34th street for no geographical reason at all (the north end is Central Park), and the financial district's north end is similarly not geographically constrained.
I'm not sure geography was the prime constraint in Manhattan's two CBDs. Midtown ends at about 34th street for no geographical reason at all (the north end is Central Park), and the financial district's north end is similarly not geographically constrained.
Agreed. But checking a population density map, the island shape probably encouraged higher residential density than otherwise. The very high population densities extend northward to the tip of Manhattan and beyond to sections of the West Bronx, but most of Brooklyn and Queens even though it's nearer to the CBDs is quite a bit lower on average. Probably because direct rapid transit (subway or el) connections to Manhattan from Brooklyn/Queens to the center city happened later than Upper Manhattan or The Bronx. Same situation encourage an additional CBD in Brooklyn that later lost most of its reason to exist.
I don't think it affected San Francisco's CBD either, its clustered in one corner of the city but it could have grown larger. Looking at the population of the county to the south, San Francisco didn't really grow much past its city limits until around the 30s, before that it had enough room to expand within its city limits, so I don't think the peninsula shape affected the old city much. The geography shape probably encouraged the growth of satellite cities like Oakland. And Oakland is far enough away that its CBD probably survived better than Brooklyn's (don't know enough about Oakland to be sure).
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.
