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.
Location: East Central Pennsylvania/ Chicago for 6yrs.
2,535 posts, read 3,280,624 times
Reputation: 1483
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perfect Stranger
Grid doesn't mean ****. I know Americans associate grid with density and non-grid with suburban cul-de-sacs, but there is no actual correlation. Would you say London is not dense and vibrant because it's not built on a grid?
I agree with .... bballniket ... in the previous reply to you. I will add this Boastful... yet COMMICAL REPLY but true, published commentary on some other USA cities street grids and non-grids VS that of CHICAGO'S street Grid and numbering system. First is a question... second begins comment for locals and rest addresses differences ⤵
I definitely don't associate non-grid with suburban cul-de-sacs, and contend that London is clearly both dense and vibrant, as is Sydney. Sydney's CBD is certainly very vibrant/active, but the total number of blocks of vibrancy in the Sydney CBD is imo still pretty small compared to the downtowns of Chicago, San Francisco and Montreal...the downtowns of these latter 3 cities *happen* to be set up on grids, which extends the scope of vibrant pedestrian-scape to numerous contiguous cross-streets, which Sydney's CBD doesn't have to as much of an extent because it's geographically hemmed in and doesn't cover a ton of area.
As I understand San Francisco's downtown flows out of that central high rise cluster into areas such as Chinatown and Union Square. Note though in Sydney crowds flow out pretty consistently into The Rocks to the north, Kings Cross on William street and Taylor Square through Oxford street to the east, past Central station to Broadway shopping centre to the south and Darling Harbour, which itself is quite a large precinct, to the west. Still I agree that Sydney's downtown could be larger, but perhaps it's not as small as you might seem to be suggesting? Would at least seem very comparable to San Francisco. As for crowd levels traffic is pretty consistently heavy from north to south and it does flow out to the cross streets throughout the downtown, but then much of the cross streets especially at the southern end aren't too long as you can see.
As I understand San Francisco's downtown flows out of that central high rise cluster into areas such as Chinatown and Union Square. Note though in Sydney crowds flow out pretty consistently into The Rocks to the north, Kings Cross on William street and Taylor Square through Oxford street to the east, past Central station to Broadway shopping centre to the south and Darling Harbour, which itself is quite a large precinct, to the west. Still I agree that Sydney's downtown could be larger, but perhaps it's not as small as you might seem to be suggesting? Would at least seem very comparable to San Francisco. As for crowd levels traffic is pretty consistently heavy from north to south and it does flow out to the cross streets throughout the downtown, but then much of the cross streets especially at the southern end aren't too long as you can see.
As you can see in the satellite image, Sydney's downtown is more compacted and tight, whilst the other ones have buildings which are more widespread and scattered (i.e. San Francisco, Boston). All of these cities, including Sydney, may have the same amount of skyscrapers, downtown centers and such, but the illusion somehow shows that Sydney is less dense and smaller.
Btw, the regions that I circled down there are pretty much part of the 'greater' downtown of Sydney. One area, to the left, is Pyrmont (Darling Harbour) and the other is Kings Cross (densely populated red-light district):
As I understand San Francisco's downtown flows out of that central high rise cluster into areas such as Chinatown and Union Square. Note though in Sydney crowds flow out pretty consistently into The Rocks to the north, Kings Cross on William street and Taylor Square through Oxford street to the east, past Central station to Broadway shopping centre to the south and Darling Harbour, which itself is quite a large precinct, to the west. Still I agree that Sydney's downtown could be larger, but perhaps it's not as small as you might seem to be suggesting? Would at least seem very comparable to San Francisco. As for crowd levels traffic is pretty consistently heavy from north to south and it does flow out to the cross streets throughout the downtown, but then much of the cross streets especially at the southern end aren't too long as you can see.[/quote]
Quote:
Here's downtown Sydney:
This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is sized 1920$sx1080$s.
As I understand San Francisco's downtown flows out of that central high rise cluster into areas such as Chinatown and Union Square. Note though in Sydney crowds flow out pretty consistently into The Rocks to the north, Kings Cross on William street and Taylor Square through Oxford street to the east, past Central station to Broadway shopping centre to the south and Darling Harbour, which itself is quite a large precinct, to the west. Still I agree that Sydney's downtown could be larger, but perhaps it's not as small as you might seem to be suggesting? Would at least seem very comparable to San Francisco. As for crowd levels traffic is pretty consistently heavy from north to south and it does flow out to the cross streets throughout the downtown, but then much of the cross streets especially at the southern end aren't too long as you can see.
I stand corrected- Sydney's "downtown" definitely extends beyond the official CBD north to the Rocks and Millers Point, south to Haymarket and then northwest from there to Pyrmont/Darling Harbour, as well as east to Darlinghurst/Kings Cross. Even though Sydney has an official "CBD" I think its development pattern in the core resembles inner London (ignore the building height, differing topography, differing architectural style, etc.) more than it does anything in North America. The "central Sydney vibe" spreads over a pretty large area- heck, it even is apparent along A36 in Newtown and Enmore! But in a way, Sydney kind of fools you regarding its level of vibrancy due to all the meandering/winding streets, because if you walk up a cross street, they often dead-end. So at some level, inner Sydney does feel more vibrant outside its CBD than even Chicago or San Francisco do outside their CBDs, but in a way those cities' vibrancy levels are more "predictable." Inner Sydney from what I've seen feels even more tight/packed in than inner Chicago/inner SF/inner Boston due to complete lack of a grid (downtown Boston doesn't have a grid, but Back Bay does) and presence of alleys and really narrow streets meandering in all directions.
Well I think you can say that activity nodes in Sydney are kind of fragmented compared with cities that are more linear/gridded. In cities like Chicago and even Melbourne you can have streets that start within the downtown that are lined consistently with retail stretching for kilometres away from the downtown. While you can say the same thing in Sydney for a few streets (such as Oxford street from the CBD to Darlinghurst, or King street in Newtown perhaps), retail is generally clustered into tight pockets every here and there - a pattern which is repeated throughout the metro area.
Location: East Central Pennsylvania/ Chicago for 6yrs.
2,535 posts, read 3,280,624 times
Reputation: 1483
I am still waiting for the US city that wins?
Only a couple people .... said which US city works best for them ? For the OP's question...to Sydney? Most argue a city another mentions is a no? Some just deny vibrancy is even close of Sydney.... to US cities? The only US city I did not see others. Say no to is NYC?
I merely posted in reply to a street grid comment about US cities. I Knew Chicago is one of the most set up US cities on a Grid. Then thought on seeing scenes of Sydney's harbor? I would throw in a couple Chicago Lakefront pictures showing harbors and beaches downtown and topography? But apparently the OP did not ask for that kind of comparison? Also Chicago has virtually all retail and businesses on its main streets. Off the main streets, it is quite tree-lined neighborhoods. Half the city gets pretty suburban-like for especially its largest growth period...for its Bungalow era.... still managing good densities. But that has nothing to do with downtowns.
Perhaps it should have been a poll choice of US cities?? With then asking voters, to post reasons why?
It should be noted.....US cities had declining downtowns in the 60s and 70s. Even NYC. There was a time even Times Square got very seedy in that era. But since then, many US cities downtowns have been reviving, increasing residences in their downtowns and surrounding neighborhoods. Under the term..... Gentrification. Some not at their goals yet for reviving.... from their cores outward.
Pardon me for bringing up an old thread but I just found a few foot traffic figures for Sydney CBD which would relate very well to this topic. They are on page 33-37 of the document here:
According to that, the pedestrian counts were taken during December 2012. On a 1.6km stretch on George st, the city's main street, the 5 busiest intersections (out of the 6 they listed) on a weekday would be:
- George at Liverpool - 86 900
- George at Bathurst - 76 200
- George at Goulburn - 64 300
- George at Market - 61 900
- George at King - 53 200
On saturday they would be:
George at Liverpool - 73 000
George at Bathurst - 72 200
George at Market - 59 800
George at Goulburn - 51 100
George at King - 35 700
Though it's funny how they didn't list George and Park since it's the largest scramble crossing intersection in the CBD.
Also included in the document are hourly counts.
There's another site which lists the busiest locations in Sydney CBD by street sections:
According to that, the 5 busiest weekday locations in Sydney CBD taking during May 2014 are as follows:
- George Street, between King and Hunter Street - 72,264
- Railway Square, between Quay and Harris Streets – 71,208
- Park Street, between George and Pitt Streets – 63,456
- George Street, between Martin Place and Hunter Street – 62,670
- George Street, between Bond and Margaret Streets – 60,720
The 5 busiest weekend locations would be:
- George Street, between Park and Bathurst Street – 72,984
- Pitt Street Mall, between King and Market Streets – 54,720
- Circular Quay, Eastern Pontoon near the Opera House – 52,644
- George Street, between Goulburn and Liverpool Streets – 46,842
- George Street, between Central and Liverpool Streets – 44,220
Are there any comparable stats for other cities?
Last edited by ciTydude123; 06-26-2015 at 11:55 AM..
Looking at the methodology used, it would seem to be fairly comparable to the 2nd set of counts for Sydney CBD I posted.
From page 12 of the market st document:
'Counts were taken on both sides of Market Street at or near the middle of the block. Pedestrian flow was recorded between 8AM and 10PM using 10-minute count intervals sometime within the hour. Hourly pedestrian traffic was deduced from these counts.'
From the second link in my last post:
'Foot traffic is measured for ten minutes every hour by manual counters and by video cameras at complex intersections.'
From page 13 of the Market street document, on a 3km stretch of the street the 4 busiest weekday sections would seem to be:
Between Powell and Ellis - 56430
Post and Kearny - 37500
Spear and Steuart - 34090
Battery and Front - 27310
On George st the 4 busiest weekday sections would be :
Between King and Hunter - 72264
Quay and Harris - 71208 (Railway Square is on George st)
Martin Place and Hunter - 62670
Bond and Margaret - 60720
These are all within a 2.5km stretch of the street.
Similarly for Saturday:
Market st:
Powell and Ellis - 63210
Spear and Steuart - 32094
Kearny and Post - 27084
George st:
Park and Bathurst - 72984
Goulburn and Liverpool - 46842
Central and Liverpool - 44220
Admittedly though there's one small difference. For Market street the count was taken between 8am-10pm, while this is what is said on the George street website:
'City of Sydney will conduct walking surveys twice a year in May and October, logging the number of pedestrian movements between 7am and 11pm one day mid-week and on a Saturday.'
So assuming the counts for George street were taken between 7am-11pm, you'll have to factor in the extra two hours it's getting. Still I don't expect an extra hour in the early hours of the morning and another one late at night would make that much of a difference.
So going by this George st would seem to be considerably busier than Market st throughout a longer stretch on both weekdays and weekends - if this comparison is believable. Though as I understand San Francisco has Powell street and Chinatown would be pretty busy as well.
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.
