midtowns and uptowns

[MidTenn1]

Originally Posted by BnaBreaker

Nashville also has a Midtown, in the sense that it actually functions as a second distinct urban commercial district, and not just a 'trendy' name.

Nashville's Midtown is anchored by Centennial Park with it's full sized replica of the Parthenon, Music Row, the Hospital district and most of all Vanderbilt University.

This picture is a little dated and exaggerates due to telephoto lens, a little, the urban density in that part of town.



This photo from the Tennessean, gives a view of some of the mid-rise to low rise density in a portion of Midtown. This is looking west away from downtown.



The ceiling for developments is still at about 300', although one lot has been approved for 400' +. But there are plenty of buildings planned or under construction which will change the character of the district into a high rise residential area.



This gives a perspective of current and proposed development in the Music Row area.

[10023]

Not sure if anyone has mentioned it, but little known to me (or 99% of Londoners as far as I can tell), there's a part of London that property developers have been trying to re-brand as Midtown.

I've only just heard of this from the below article re: office construction (the chart of new space by area shows a Midtown), but apparently they've been trying for about 5 years:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/319d1116-8...619fa707c.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11305340



It's nonsense of course, no one calls it that, but not surprising that developers would try since that area of London is kind of a no man's land despite being central. Everyone knows where the City is, and the areas that comprise the West End (Covent Garden, Soho, Mayfair and St James) are pretty well delineated. People usually know what's meant by Clerkenwell or Marylebone.

Everything in between those two is a bit fuzzy... people seem to just refer to Fitzrovia by streets (principally Tottenham Court Road, Goodge St or Charlotte St), they're as likely to say Russell Square as Bloomsbury, and King's Cross and Holborn refer to a train station and a big road, respectively, plus a loosely defined surrounding area.

Much of Bloomsbury is either part of UCL or residential, so presumably the "Midtown" office district really just means Holborn, which people continue to refer to as Holborn.

[Labtec]

Originally Posted by Ant131531

Midtown Atlanta is easily one of the best examples outside of Manhattan itself in which the midtown neighborhood encompasses highrise/midrise urban living, office district, arts district, and a hub for Georgia Tech.

While we're at it, here's Buckhead or "Uptown:"


Atlanta by brandon walker, on Flickr


Buckhead Skyline by Casey Colomb, on Flickr

[NorthernDancer]

Originally Posted by Gantz

This is still not true, even if you use that dubious definition. IRT Flushing is only 7 train "service" and it has higher ridership than the Toronto line.

No. What's dubious is combining 2-3 lines sharing the same tracks for a length (like the 4/5/6 in NYC) and counting them as "one line". The Lexington Avenue "line" isn't one line. It's three lines. The 8th Avenue "line" serves A/C/E for a stretch, and A/B/C/D for a stretch. The 7th Avenue "line" serves three lines - 1/2/3.

You don't get to combine multiple lines and count them as one. That's nonsense.

[Tuckerman]

Thanks Labtec - these are nice shots of Midtown and Buckhead Atlanta. What is particularly nice, but not revealed in these photographs, is that Midtown is spreading horizontally as well as in the linear way pictured here. The development on the Westside as well as that towards Ponce City Market and Poncey-Highlands is giving the Midtown some needed depth. In addition, although not in Atlanta City proper, the development at Perimeter (not pictured) is really a kind of extension of the Uptown of Buckhead and is connected by a major expressway (400) and a subway (MARTA) stop just two stops from Buckhead. So, although many might argue that the Atlanta Downtown is rather diminutive, one can also argue that the whole linear strip from Downtown to the Perimeter is almost a continuous development of a "Downtown". This continuity has become more and more apparent to Atlantans in the last few years. While it may look like sprawl, one can also see it as a "tightening-up" of the high rise picture of Atlanta as these different developing areas start to connect with each other. .

[chris08876]

I agree that Atlanta is a nice example of clearly defined downtown/midtown and uptown. The tree canopy in the summer does so much to really show the impact and striking nature of its skyline. A city in a forest. Its a cool effect.


Aerial Atlanta II by Chris Carr, on Flickr

[mrsmartman]

This is an interesting thread.

[kcexpress69]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

even though midwestern cities sort of bled out, lakes and rivers determined a dominant direction of growth. kansas city also has a defined midtown, as you head away from the river (in this case due south, instead of west like st. louis). many midwestern cities have midtowns, minneapolis comes to mind, too. so does memphis, for that matter.

Kansas City's Midtown generally begins south of 31st street and stops at around 44th-45th st. State line to the west, and The Paseo to the east. The Plaza district which lies directly south is separate, although some might include it. Westport is included. Here, you will find a very diverse building stock ranging from neighborhoods of single family homes, to 3-4 story apartment buildings, to 7-12 story apartments situated along Linwood Blvd (32nd st) and Armour Blvd (35th st.)

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by McBane

Happily, Philadelphia bucked the trend.

Our downtown, which encompasses many neighborhoods, including our CBD, is Center City.

When people who live outside of Center City (regardless of if they are coming from the suburbs or other parts of the city) say they are going to Center City, many say, "Town" as in "I have a doctor's appointment in town." Which I find rather unique.

"In town" is a pretty common saying, especially for anyone living outside the city, everywhere I've ever lived. Sorry but it's definitely not unique to Philadelphia.

[tdawg]

NorthernDancer, the 7 train is different from the Seventh Avenue line(s). The 7 train runs from Hudson Yards to Flushing Queens and is the "line" he's referring to.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by tdawg

NorthernDancer, the 7 train is different from the Seventh Avenue line(s). The 7 train runs from Hudson Yards to Flushing Queens and is the "line" he's referring to.

And the 7 train is probably about 1/3-1/4 the length of the Yonge-University line in Toronto.

The 7 only runs Manhattan-Flushing; the Yonge-University line runs from Toronto suburbia to downtown, and then back out along a different route to suburbia. It's functionally two longer lines in comparison to the 7.

[NorthernDancer]

Originally Posted by tdawg

NorthernDancer, the 7 train is different from the Seventh Avenue line(s). The 7 train runs from Hudson Yards to Flushing Queens and is the "line" he's referring to.

I know that. I wasn't talking about the 7. I was talking about the other "lines" mentioned.

[NorthernDancer]

Originally Posted by Crawford

And the 7 train is probably about 1/3-1/4 the length of the Yonge-University line in Toronto.

Wrong. The 7 train is about 11 miles. The Yonge-University line is 18.8 miles. It's nearly 2/3 as long.

[Gantz]

Originally Posted by NorthernDancer

No. What's dubious is combining 2-3 lines sharing the same tracks for a length (like the 4/5/6 in NYC) and counting them as "one line". The Lexington Avenue "line" isn't one line. It's three lines. The 8th Avenue "line" serves A/C/E for a stretch, and A/B/C/D for a stretch. The 7th Avenue "line" serves three lines - 1/2/3.

You don't get to combine multiple lines and count them as one. That's nonsense.

You do know that they DO NOT count those sections that get split from IRT Lexington line in the outer boroughs, right? The IRT Lexington line ridership numbers only count the main "trunk". If you want to count the whole "green" line of NYC you get:

IRT Lexington line - ridership: 1,289,338
IRT Jerome line (the Bronx 4 train split) - ridership: 242,460
IRT White Plains Road line (the Bronx 5 train split): 307,666
IRT Pelham line (the Bronx 6 train split) - ridership: 205,590
IRT Eastern Parkway line (Brooklyn 4,5 train split) - ridership: 214,906
IRT New Lots line (Brooklyn 2,3,4,5 train split) - ridership: 73,760

Total ridership for the whole "green" line of NYC subway with all the split offs combined: 2,128,130.

Again, the IRT Lexington line is just the Manhattan segment of the line where all the green trains are running on the same line with the same route.

Regardless, like I said before the IRT Flushing line just uses one number for their train, 7. If you are counting ridership based on the similarity of the train numbering system and not the similarity of the actual physical route (like IRT Lexington), the IRT Flushing line would still qualify.

Originally Posted by NorthernDancer

Wrong. The 7 train is about 11 miles. The Yonge-University line is 18.8 miles. It's nearly 2/3 as long.

The 7 train is ~ 9 miles long. It was 8 miles long before this recent extension (the ridership numbers for the line is when it was only 8 miles long).

[NorthernDancer]

Originally Posted by Gantz

You do know that they DO NOT count those sections that get split from IRT Lexington line in the outer boroughs, right?

Yes, but you're still combining multiple lines and counting them as one "line". That is not apples-to-apples when comparing to other cities that don't do that.

Regardless, like I said before the IRT Flushing line just uses one number for their train, 7.

I know that. I already made it clear that I know that. I wasn't responding to the comment about the 7 train. I was responding to the comment about the Lexington Ave, Broadway, 8th Ave., and 7th Ave. "lines". Those numbers are all the combined totals of multiple lines.

If you are counting ridership based on the similarity of the train numbering system and not the similarity of the actual physical route (like IRT Lexington), the IRT Flushing line would still qualify.

Again, I was not responding to any claims about that line.

The 7 train is ~ 9 miles long. It was 8 miles long before this recent extension (the ridership numbers for the line is when it was only 8 miles long).

It was about 10 miles before the recent extension, and is close to 11 miles now. The distance you're referring to is the distance as the crow flies, not the actualy distance of the route.

If your numbers were correct, it would make what appears to be an already incredibly slow route even slower. 39 minutes to traverse 8 miles (which is what the published schedules show for most of the day for the non-express trains) is just 12.3 MPH. Even the "express" trains would only be averaging 16.6 MPH (29 minutes to traverse 8 miles) by your numbers:

http://web.mta.info/nyct/service/pdf/t7cur.pdf

[Crawford]

The NYC subway has nearly twice the ridership per mile than the Toronto subway. Route naming is irrelevent to a comparison of relative ridership per mile.

And the ratio of ridership on the 7 train relative to that of the Yonge-University line is higher still. The Yonge-University line is like 3x the length of the 7, yet the 7 has higher ridership.

[NorthernDancer]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The NYC subway has nearly twice the ridership per mile than the Toronto subway.

No. I never said anything about the ridership per mile between the two cities. I was commenting on the stupidity of combining the ridership of multiple "lines" into one "line". Try to keep up with the conversation.

Route naming is irrelevent to a comparison of relative ridership per mile.

Wrong. We're not talking about "ridership per mile". We're talking about pretending that multiple lines are one "line". Again, try to keep up with the conversation.

And the ratio of ridership on the 7 train relative to that of the Yonge-University line is higher still.

Nope. I wasn't talking about the ridership of the 7 train. I was talking about combining the ridership on the Lexington, 8th Ave., 7th Ave., and Broadway "lines". I said nothing about the ridership of the 7 train compared to any of Toronto's lines.

You seem to have tremendous difficulty with reading comprehension Crawford.

The Yonge-University line is like 3x the length of the 7,

No. The 7 is about 11 miles. The Yonge-University line is 18.8 miles. Not that that has anything to do with the conversation. But this extraneous claim of yours that the Yonge-University lines is 3-4 times the length of the 7 line is grossly inaccurate. It's not even twice as long.

[sbarn]

Originally Posted by NorthernDancer

Yes, but you're still combining multiple lines and counting them as one "line". That is not apples-to-apples when comparing to other cities that don't do that.

Whether or not you think the Lexington IRT Line is one line or three, it is ONE line of track that handles a substantially higher passenger volume than the Yonge line in Toronto. Same goes for the 8th Avenue IND, 7th Avenue IRT and the Broadway BMT, which are the lines that carry the express / local services within Manhattan. No one is "combining" lines, the various services utilizing the lines I just mentioned share the same tracks and stations.

[NorthernDancer]

Originally Posted by sbarn

Whether or not you think the Lexington IRT Line is one line or three, it is ONE line of track

No it's not. It's two lines of track, because there are local and express lines in each direction. The Yonge-University line is only one track in each direction. So it's still not apples to apples.

No one is "combining" lines

If you're combining ridership numbers for three different lines (4/5/6), than you ARE combining lines.

[sbarn]

Originally Posted by NorthernDancer

No it's not. It's two lines of track, because there are local and express lines in each direction. The Yonge-University line is only one track in each direction. So it's still not apples to apples.

Now you're just splitting hairs. That's like saying the 401 in Toronto can't be compared to other highways because it has a local and express configuration.

Originally Posted by NorthernDancer

If you're combining ridership numbers for three different lines (4/5/6), than you ARE combining lines.

It doesn't seem like a very difficult concept, the 4,5,6 trains share the same tracks and stations within Manhattan (the Lexington Line). The numbered routes are due to the fact that the different trains splinter in the outer boroughs. The ridership along those lines is not included in the numbers of the Lexington Line.