How Important is "Downtown"?

[mhays]

London has great transit infrastructure by US standards, but the locals complain incessantly. It's falling apart, capacity is way too low, the regional trains stop short of the center and don't meet (which Crossrail is addressing), there are too many breakdowns...

But yet NY would run much better with a few more lines, for proximity and capacity.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by sbarn

I don't think Manhattan really that geographically small, it is more just very densely populated. As someone who lives in NY, I am very jealous of London's transit infrastructure.

Manhattan is not small in the sense of walking the expanse of a (wait for it) downtown in a large city but it is geographically small and it is possible to walk the geographical expanse of the island in a matter of a few hours (yes, even north-south). By comparison, I wouldn't dream of walking from my childhood home miles from Johnson Space Center to Downtown Houston.

Speaking of where I grew up, my Houston/Galveston suburb is about two and half times larger (excluding water) in land size, including the parts not connected to Manhattan itself. I couldn't imagine that much humanity in just part of where I lived.

[Quixote]

On LA…

One thing that can be said for Downtown is that it's located at the geographic center of the sprawling megalopolis that is the Greater LA CSA. It's also the region's clear transportation hub where all HRT, LRT, and commuter rail lines converge at a Union Station preparing for expansion. I'd give LA a few more decades to grow its rail system and for CAHSR to finally come to fruition. That in conjunction with shifting generational demographics could prove to be the tipping point.

But getting back to the present day, it's indisputable that 'Downtown' (and everything east of La Brea, for that matter) is now part of the Angeleno's psyche to a far greater degree than before Villaraigosa's first mayoral term. It started with Staples Center and Disney Hall; then the rebirth of the Historic Core and Arts District; and now the explosive residential growth of South Park. At this point, it's only a matter of time before the inevitable onslaught of mainstream retailers (Old Town Pasadena wasn't always the way it's today). For instance, the hot rumor floating around is that Apple is reportedly interesting in setting up shop down on south Broadway.

The Westside will likely always be the most desirable part of LA by virtue of its weather and proximity to the Pacific. But the expensive cost of living and rampant NIMBYism all but ensure that future residential development and economic growth will take place elsewhere. Downtown's vast expanse of developable land (with little to no NIMBY opposition), cultural amenities, and walkability will prove to be too attractive to pass up.

[hipster duck]

While Manhattan has by far the best transit system on the continent, it still suffers from the fact that the main long-distance/suburban corridor runs perpendicular to the island, in general, and there are only 2 major long-distance/suburban rail hubs - both in Midtown.

A lot of this problem has to do with the shape of the island. Of course, it would have been extremely useful if they would have built Grand Central as a through station, so that there would be a high capacity north-south mainline rail axis through Manhattan and further into Brooklyn and out into Long Island.

[Gantz]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

While Manhattan has by far the best transit system on the continent, it still suffers from the fact that the main long-distance/suburban corridor runs perpendicular to the island, in general, and there are only 2 major long-distance/suburban rail hubs - both in Midtown.

NYC has 3 suburban rail systems from 3 directions - West, North, and East. (South is the ocean).
Also, the city and metro area has multiple hub stations such as Jamaica station, Atlantic Terminal, Hoboken Terminal, WTC/Fulton Hub, etc, not just Penn and Grand Central, those are just the Hollywood movie famous ones.

A lot of this problem has to do with the shape of the island. Of course, it would have been extremely useful if they would have built Grand Central as a through station, so that there would be a high capacity north-south mainline rail axis through Manhattan and further into Brooklyn and out into Long Island.

I don't even know what this means.

[nito]

Originally Posted by mhays

London has great transit infrastructure by US standards, but the locals complain incessantly. It's falling apart, capacity is way too low, the regional trains stop short of the center and don't meet (which Crossrail is addressing), there are too many breakdowns...

But yet NY would run much better with a few more lines, for proximity and capacity.

Us Brits will moan about anything, and a decade or two ago there was a legitimate point to be made about issues over the standard of the system which had lacked investment for a period of time. Today it is a pretty different story as witnessed by the London Transport thread.

One interesting point of curiosity is that the composition of London’s railways could very well have resembled a lot like those of New York City (i.e. the placement of Grand Central and Pennsylvania) had there not been a Royal Commission in the 1840’s. Prevented from running into the area that is now Central London, the various termini (Victoria, Paddington, Marylebone, Euston, St Pancras, King's Cross, Moorgate, Liverpool Street, Fenchurch Street, London Bridge, Cannon Street, Blackfriars, Charing Cross, and Waterloo arose on the outskirts. A direct consequence of this was the emergence of the London Underground to connect the various termini, allow through running of services and onward dispersal of passengers across Central London.

[pdxtex]

downtown's importance is relative to city size id say. for a metro under 4 million, its probably the epicenter of culture and the regional economy. above that population, it probably matters less and less as suburban centers probably take on meaningful regional roles as well.

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by pdxtex

downtown's importance is relative to city size id say. for a metro under 4 million, its probably the epicenter of culture and the regional economy. above that population, it probably matters less and less as suburban centers probably take on meaningful regional roles as well.

I agree...downtown in a city of 4 million and up is still important in the sense of a lot of centralized districts - CBD, government, entertainment, etc. But there are usually several other large centers both in the city and in the suburbs that act as business and entertainment centers.

I think downtown will always be important in the identity of a large city.