Population of your city's central core?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I think the commercial area of Manhattan definitely flows into Brooklynn now. I can't think of anything north of Lincoln Center that even remotely compares to City Point, or even Atlantic Center which is technically not downtown Brooklyn.

Maybe 86th & Lex? That's a very busy neighborhood, with tons of retail and on top of one of the busiest subway hubs in the city.

I think 86th-Lex pedestrian counts might be higher than at any Brooklyn intersection.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Maybe 86th & Lex? That's a very busy neighborhood, with tons of retail and on top of one of the busiest subway hubs in the city.

I think 86th-Lex pedestrian counts might be higher than at any Brooklyn intersection.

Maybe... 86th and Lex would've been the clear winner just five years ago, but now I don't know.

[liat91]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I would put it at 100th Street on the East Side and 125th Street on the West Side. 110th & Broadway isn't notably less intense than 80th and Broadway.

DT Brooklyn is much denser/busier than significant geographies in Manhattan, but I think for simplicity's sake, it's easier to say the City is the core, and everything else isn't.

I kind of see where your going. Seems important to you to have Columbia included in the core.

With “core”, I’m thinking “heartbeat”. Nothing about the places you mentioned feels that way in relation to NYC. When I’m around Columbia, I don’t feel like I’m within the core of the city. It’s a busy area for sure, but not central. You could argue that the immediate parts of Brooklyn including DUMBO stretching through DT Brooklyn around to Williamsburg. But even that doesn’t feel like it to me.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by liat91

I kind of see where your going. Seems important to you to have Columbia included in the core.

I don't particularly care where boundaries are drawn, as the "core" isn't clear-cut with NYC as in most North American cities.

But the West Side is generally denser/busier than the East Side north of 96th, in part due to all the major institutions, Columbia included. South of 96th, the East Side is probably denser/busier, in part because of all the medical institutions and research institutes on the far East Side.

Originally Posted by liat91

With “core”, I’m thinking “heartbeat”. Nothing about the places you mentioned feels that way in relation to NYC.

The true commercial core of NYC is 60th street southwards, and especially hugging the interior of the island.

And I'm not sure I agree re. "heartbeat"; the UWS is quintessential NYC and a walk up Broadway north of 60th will not be less busy than south of 60th (except for Times Square and Herald Square). But south of 60th will be more commercial, and north will be more residential.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Helsinki is the same way ( as Stockholm). After the war it was all garden cities and no extension of the grid .

But this seems more logical since Helsinki is a far younger city and was never the capital of a superpower like Sweden . Plus it was much more impoverished. There seem to be more 19th century towns in suburban Boston than in suburban Helsinki

Not sure about Oslo

Copenhagen is a completely different animal with it’s European style blocks

Sweden's a superpower now?

[niwell]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Sweden's a superpower now?

Key word being "was". I'm not sure the term "superpower" is the best term as that really refers to the post WWII era, but it was certainly a great power with significant influence beyond it's borders.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Empire

[liat91]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I don't particularly care where boundaries are drawn, as the "core" isn't clear-cut with NYC as in most North American cities.

But the West Side is generally denser/busier than the East Side north of 96th, in part due to all the major institutions, Columbia included. South of 96th, the East Side is probably denser/busier, in part because of all the medical institutions and research institutes on the far East Side.


The true commercial core of NYC is 60th street southwards, and especially hugging the interior of the island.

And I'm not sure I agree re. "heartbeat"; the UWS is quintessential NYC and a walk up Broadway north of 60th will not be less busy than south of 60th (except for Times Square and Herald Square). But south of 60th will be more commercial, and north will be more residential.

To your point, I would consider the core of a city to have substantial commercial or commercial/residential components. Either way, Broadway north of 60th is most definitely busy, but so is Fordham in the Bronx or Flushing in Queens. If we use Herald Square as the heart of NYC, and radiate outwards within Manhattan, 125 st on the west side seems pretty far out and away, quintessential or not.

Going past 86th st in general, and you start feeling like your leaving the core area. DT Brooklyn feels more central than anywhere uptown.

I wouldn’t consider the Temple University area or Rosslyn within the core area of their respective cities either.

[muertecaza]

Phoenix's "core" is very small, roughly 4 square miles. The easiest approximation of the core is zip codes 85003 and 85004. These zip codes include some areas, especially to the south of downtown, that most would consider outside the core, but it's close enough. Those two zip codes have a population of ~14,000. If you wanted to expand the core to include Midtown, you would include zip codes 85012 and 85013; the total area would increase to roughly 10 square miles, and the population would be up to 40,000.

So based on either definition, it's a pretty pitiful density of 3,500 - 4,000 people per square mile. That said, those are 2010 numbers. I expect those numbers to significantly increase in the 2020 census--the true "core" zip codes of 85003 and 85004 will probably double.

[FtGreeneNY]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I can't think of anything north of Lincoln Center that even remotely compares to City Point, or even Atlantic Center which is technically not downtown Brooklyn.

Yeah, I'd definitely cut the Manhattan piece of the core off at 59th Street on the West Side and maaaaybe 72nd Street on the East Side (but even then only west of 3rd Avenue); very dense residential with attendant commercial strips does not a "central core" make.

And of course, at this point, NYC is clearly multi-modal: Downtown Manhattan, Midtown Manhattan, Downtown Brooklyn, Jersey City, and rapidly-emerging LIC, with the two Manhattan Districts still pulling more gravity than the other three combined.

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by isaidso

How much of that would be 'downtown'?

Shanghai doesn't have a 'downtown' in the North American sense.

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by niwell

Key word being "was". I'm not sure the term "superpower" is the best term as that really refers to the post WWII era, but it was certainly a great power with significant influence beyond it's borders.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Empire

I assumed the use of superpower was referring to the Swedish Empire circa 1600-1700. They controlled most of the Baltic and it would explain the relative grandeur of the old city compared to Helsinki which historically would have been more provincial.

Edit: just saw you already linked to that page...


from wikipedia

[Minato Ku]

Originally Posted by The Chemist

Shanghai doesn't have a 'downtown' in the North American sense.

Same for Paris.
That's the problem of defining a city core.

I would go as far as saying that the city core of Paris is the whole City of Paris.
Everything inside the Boulevard Periphique beltway. 84.45 km² or 32.6 sq mi (excluding the two big wood at eastern and western extremities, Bois de Boulogne and Bois de Vincennes).
2.19 million inhabitants. 2 million jobs.

[emathias]

Since people are talking about jobs, too, according to Crain's Chicago Business, there were around 613,000 jobs in downtown Chicago in 2018, up from around 480,000 in 2010. It's possible that 2020 will end up with around 640,000 jobs. They don't define the borders, but it's definitely more than just the Loop itself. If the 78 gets built out substantially by 2030, along with additional grown in the Fulton Market area, if that's included as part of Downtown, downtown should exceed 750,000 jobs by 2030. If Chicago's Central Area continues to build out and add jobs and population density, there's a possibility of it hitting a population of 400,000 and 1,000,000 jobs by 2050. That would be pretty fantastic, although to reach that number of jobs would require the City to build one or two more rail lines serving downtown, in my opinion.

Lincoln Yards is less than a mile North of the North border of the Central Area, so if the definition of the Central Area were changed to include Lincoln Yards, there's be teens of thousands of additional jobs added by that if it builds out in full.

By any definition, Chicago has a very healthy downtown, in contrast to many of it's outer neighborhoods. If Mayor Lightfoot succeeds in turning around some of the worst neighborhoods, that would also help downtown, because it would mean more people in the city, making locating offices in Downtown even more attractive to draw from City-based workers. But as I said, the rail infrastructure is already stretched to it's max for trains coming from the North side. There is some capacity for trains coming from the West and South, so populating those areas and creating more transit demand on those sides of the City would enable downtown jobs growth without additional rail investment, but, still, there really needs to be additional rail investment downtown, especially once the Red Line extension past 95th is complete.

[BnaBreaker]

The inner core of Nashville is typically categorized as the area which borders the I-40 loop to the west and south, the Cumberland River to the east, and Jefferson Street to the north. Inside this area, which is right around 2 square miles, as of today there are about 15,000 people living there which translates to a fairly abysmal 7,500 ppsm. However, considering the fact that there were essentially just a handful of people living downtown just a couple decades ago, the current figures aren't all that surprising. The city also has over 5,000 units either under construction or proposed in that area, so we could see a population of closer to 25,000 by 2023. In other words, we're getting there...

[Failte]

Originally Posted by emathias

We'll have better numbers for Chicago next year, once this year's Census is complete.

It also depends on exactly how you define Central Chicago. One definition would be to use these ZIP codes: 60601, 60602, 60603, 60604, 60605, 60606, 60607, 60610, 60611, 60616, 60642, and 60654, which basically includes the Loop, The Near North Side (which includes River North, Streeterville, the Gold Coast, and most of Old Town), most of the West Loop, and most of the Near South Side, which includes the South Loop. The population of those zip codes summed is a little over 190,000 people in around 12.8 square miles or around 16 square km, in 2010, and around 241,000 in 2017. Those are densities of 15k and almost 19k.

Those numbers are fairly well accepted, however the inclusion of 60616 is a little disputed because it's further south than some think should be included. Plus, the area called the "Central Area" by The City of Chicago is closer to the area without 60616.

So, without 60616, the area is 8.8 square miles with a population of 145,569 in 2010 and 186,982 in 2017, and densities of 16.5k sq/mi and 21.25k sq/mi.

Similarly, we could use the official, City-defined community areas of the Loop, Near North Side, Near South Side, and Near West Side. That area had a population of 145,219 in 2000, 186,038 in 2010, and about 204,045 in 2015 in an area of 11.8 sq/mi. Density would be 12.3k, 15.8k, and 17.3k, respectively.

But including the Near West Side is a little tricky because it is huge and includes areas definitely not part of downtown. So without the Near West Side, the Central Area would have a population of 98,800 in 2000, 131,157 in 2010, and 142,277 in 2015, in an area of 6.05 sq/mi. That leaves densities of 16.3, 21.7, and 23.5 sq/mi, in 2000, 2010, and 2015.

Personally, I think the estimates using the ZIP codes without 60616 are closest to what most Chicagoans would consider to be the Central Area or downtown. And since 2017, all those areas have added considerable numbers of apartments, and I think the total population downtown has likely increased by 25k since 2017, leaving us with a population of about 210,000 in 8.8 sq/mi or maybe 170,000 in 6.05 square miles using community areas without the Near West, implying densities of 23.9k sq/mi or 28.1k sq/mi.

So somewhere around 200,000 people in 7-8 square miles with density around 25,000 per square mile.

And, I think there's a good chance that by 2030 Central Chicago aka greater downtown could hit a quarter million people. And if we create a more nuanced set of borders maybe even more. With any luck, 2050 should see the population loss in the outer neighborhoods end and the population growth in and near downtown should result in positive growth, maybe enough to reach 3 million for the city and over 300,000 in the Central Area by then

Chicago defines its CBD as North Avenue south to Roosevelt; lakefront west to Halsted Street.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Failte

Chicago defines its CBD as North Avenue south to Roosevelt; lakefront west to Halsted Street.

At times, and for various purposes, it's been more nuanced than that.

[mhays]

Oh the internet. Neighborhood boundaries are always subjective.

Yes, that's despite the fact that city governments and others break districts into chunks for planning etc.

[brian_b]

Originally Posted by emathias

At times, and for various purposes, it's been more nuanced than that.

Sure. And we're awfully close to needing to define it as being north of Cermak, especially once the 78 development gets going. But then, why not just define it as being north of I-55 and include McCormick Place?

The 78 site is entirely in 60616, which demonstrates the challenge of using zip codes to define "downtown". I'd bet that most other cities will have similar issues with arbitrarily-shaped postal codes in dense city areas.

[McBane]

Originally Posted by muertecaza

Phoenix's "core" is very small, roughly 4 square miles. The easiest approximation of the core is zip codes 85003 and 85004. These zip codes include some areas, especially to the south of downtown, that most would consider outside the core, but it's close enough. Those two zip codes have a population of ~14,000. If you wanted to expand the core to include Midtown, you would include zip codes 85012 and 85013; the total area would increase to roughly 10 square miles, and the population would be up to 40,000.

So based on either definition, it's a pretty pitiful density of 3,500 - 4,000 people per square mile. That said, those are 2010 numbers. I expect those numbers to significantly increase in the 2020 census--the true "core" zip codes of 85003 and 85004 will probably double.

This seems off. Four square miles for a central core seems huge, even for a sprawly city like Phoenix. And 10 square miles? This definition does not seem to align with common understandings of a city's central core.

[fonzi]

Originally Posted by McBane

This seems off. Four square miles for a central core seems huge, even for a sprawly city like Phoenix. And 10 square miles? This definition does not seem to align with common understandings of a city's central core.

4 sq mi is about right. 7th ave to 7th st are the usual E/W boundaries but by no means do mid/high rises go out that far. The N/S boundaries are up to interpretation but I would say Roosevelt on the N and Jackson to the S. Including uptown, I would shrink E/W boundary between 3rd st and 3rd ave and run up to Indian School rd. That would be adding maybe 3-4 sq mi, but would be a legit addition in my opinion, due to many high rises, both for business and residential.