Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_denizen
Your dad has a point. Most large successful cities are multi-nodal, eg LA, SF, DC. It's centralized CBDs that require and stress infrastructure, since you need to have all kinds of roads and transit to allow people working in high-density office highrises to enter and exit the CBD in the workday. Also, in the western world we simply require too much space - even rowhouse living is not dense enough to support a CBD without enormous road and transit infrastructure.
Only in Manhattan does the CBD work in the western world, due to extreme densities of housing that are simply not found elsewhere making there no need for a commute; maybe Paris as well.
|
Manhattan must have the largest volume of inbound commuters of any CBD in the US by multiples. It has a massive population gain every weekday.
As for SF, its secondary downtowns in Oakland and San Jose aren't that major in terms of office space. There's still a sizeable focus on the main CBD.
Multiple nodes can work well for transit, in a huge fairly dense city like London. But even in London, companies like to cluster. The City is still the City for example.
Your housing point brings up another issue. Many people (like me) choose to buy condos on the edge of Downtown, and assume that they'll always work within a 20-30-minute walk at most. In a centralized city that's commonly possible. It's more risky in a multi-nodal city.
I'm confused by what you mean by "successful." I can think of several great downtowns and numerous good ones in the western world.
Even the ones that aren't "great" have an advantage...being able to grow. One of a downtown's purposes is to grow and nuture businesses or attract new ones. The best ones have limited room for this, but some that aren't great do have room, while also being desirable enough places that companies want to actually build.