Purpose of a CBD?

[GlassCity]

My dad and I talk a lot about urbanity, and he often brings up CBDs. He agrees that there should be a cultural centre in a city where people go for fun and stuff, but that offices should be spread out over an entire region because having hundreds of thousands of people going to one spot from all over creates horrible commuting issues. I always tell him, no, you need a CBD and point to examples of many cities trying to strengthen theirs as opposed to having downtown become just a high-density residential area. But after this, he always asks me: why? And I never have an answer.

So SSP, tell me: What are the benefits of having a CBD?

[nei]

A CBD makes commuting easier if your commute is by public transit. It's easier to have a transit that sends lots of people to one point rather than scattered locations around a region.

[inSaeculaSaeculorum]

CBD is a location for a city to purpot it's civic and economic hardon and nothing else

[inSaeculaSaeculorum]

Originally Posted by nei

A CBD makes commuting easier if your commute is by public transit. It's easier to have a transit that sends lots of people to one point rather than scattered locations around a region.

This is the lie we've all been told.

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

My dad and I talk a lot about urbanity, and he often brings up CBDs. He agrees that there should be a cultural centre in a city where people go for fun and stuff, but that offices should be spread out over an entire region because having hundreds of thousands of people going to one spot from all over creates horrible commuting issues. I always tell him, no, you need a CBD and point to examples of many cities trying to strengthen theirs as opposed to having downtown become just a high-density residential area. But after this, he always asks me: why? And I never have an answer.

So SSP, tell me: What are the benefits of having a CBD?

Simple answer. Spatial dispersion of job centers throws massive loads on infrastructure. You spend immense amount of resources on accommodating cross commuting and other travel. More freeways, more trains, wider roads that would otherwise be streamlined with major commercial nodes and avenues.

[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.

[nei]

Originally Posted by inSaeculaSaeculorum

This is the lie we've all been told.

What's wrong with it? Transit-wise, a CBD requires the least infrastructure

[nei]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

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.

Except the majority of workers in Manhattan don't live in Manhattan, some of whom face quite long commutes.

Barcelona, Madrid has similar densities to Paris. Many northern European cities are less dense but dense enough (cores are usually apartment buildings rather than row houses) that if the city isn't too big, a commute to the city center isn't that onerous. A single CBD-oriented is probably more convenient in a metro of 2 or 3 million rather than 19 million.

[dc_denizen]

Originally Posted by nei

Except the majority of workers in Manhattan don't live in Manhattan, some of whom face quite long commutes.

Barcelona, Madrid has similar densities to Paris. Many northern European cities are less dense but dense enough (cores are usually apartment buildings rather than row houses) that if the city isn't too big, a commute to the city center isn't that onerous. A single CBD-oriented is probably more convenient in a metro of 2 or 3 million rather than 19 million.

Most northern European cities are highly multi-nodal though, and thoroughly car-friendly (freeways with bike paths model). Most Swedes live in garden apartments or SFH/rowhomes and work a biking, bus or short auto commute from their jobs, not necessarily in the core. Nokia's HQ in helsinki is (was) in the suburbs, as is KONE, the technical university is the western suburbs too; lots of jobs on the major ring roads around Helsinki as well (Keha I, Keha III). Germany is similar.

Manhattan has the transit density of a city like Paris, thus can swing the huge population influx.

[nei]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Most northern European cities are highly multi-nodal though, and thoroughly car-friendly (freeways with bike paths model). Most Swedes live in garden apartments or SFH/rowhomes and work a biking, bus or short auto commute from their jobs, not necessarily in the core. Nokia's HQ in helsinki is (was) in the suburbs, as is KONE, the technical university is the western suburbs too; lots of jobs on the major ring roads around Helsinki as well (Keha I, Keha III). Germany is similar.

Manhattan has the transit density of a city like Paris, thus can swing the huge population influx.

NYC is a poor comparison as it's so much larger, even a modest sized (by % of metro) CBD would appear large. While multi-nodal, I suspect as a % of jobs northern European would still rank rather high for American standards. As for Stockholm, it has a higher rail ridership than Chicago, despite being much, much smaller. So rail is a significant proportion of commutes. And judging from the metro and commuter rail system map, it's a fairly radial system, so probably a high portion of those commutes are CBD-based.

[nei]

As to the purpose of a CBD, businesses sometimes like to be near lots of similar businesses in close proximity. Media companies might congregate, while have finance nearby is good, too. Connections are a plus.

[mhays]

I'll speak as marketing guy and trend-watcher for a contractor that builds pretty much everything in a downtown -- offices, hotels, housing, retail, etc., from little buildouts to major new buildings.

Many businesses relate to each other, and want to be within walking distance. Law firms like to be near courts, other law firms, and their customers for example. As a contactor (located downtown of course) we want to be near architects, engineers, and clients.

In the typical successful city, office tenants locate in the center as a recruitment/retainage tool. Companies also want to be near hotels and restaurants.

Regionally the transit point is absolutely correct. As a public matter, concentrating jobs is more efficient because the hub and spoke system is efficient and simple to use. Developers like being able to build a fraction of the parking or even none in some cases.

Restaurants like mixing uses nearby. It's helpful to have the office lunch crowd, the resident/event/drinking night and weekend crowds, and tourists to liven up all of those times.

A downtown is really a giant symbiotic relationship.

[GlassCity]

Thanks guys, you've all made a lot of good points. I would have thought people on here would all unanimously vote for CBD's. Quite surprised!

[mhays]

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.

[SunDevil]

Think of it as industry synergy but on a micro scale. Detroit has perpetuated as the center of the US auto industry largely because in it's heyday there were not just the big 3, GM, Ford, and Chrysler, but there were hundreds and hundreds of smaller manufacturers who supplied parts. That made it easy to make changes on the fly on the production line. Say your supplier of hinges runs out, you could go down the street a couple blocks to another hinge manufacturer, give them the specs, and they could be making you more hinges by the end of the day (this is also why China currently remains the manufacturing center of the world).

Downtown's in the US largely pair law firms, government, finance, and corporate offices. All of these have synergistic affect. It's easier for government to have oversight when the CEO of a business is across the street rather than an hour commute away. It's easier to schedule a meeting with between the bank and it's corporate clients when they are around the corner from each other. The law firm can get a lot more done when attorneys don't have a long commute between the court house and the office.

[Matthew]

In Winston-Salem, they speak of downtown being a ready-to-go site for offices, residential, and other uses. They don't have to extend anything. Everything is already in place and ready. I seem to remember they also said the city can make significantly more tax money from construction downtown, due to this. If this is true in Winston-Salem, it's likely true elsewhere too. Maybe another forum member involved in city government or office construction can go more in-depth on this?

[fflint]

Originally Posted by mhays

Many businesses relate to each other, and want to be within walking distance. Law firms like to be near courts, other law firms, and their customers for example.

This. CBDs allow for proximity and, in turn, "critical mass," which for certain sectors increases efficiency as well as enabling the serendipitous interactions that oftentimes fuel innovation.

The legal industry is a good example, and can be expanded further: document services, filing services, courier services, bail bondsmen, and legal employment agencies all like to be close to the jails, courts, law firms and clients. Having basically the entire legal food chain within walking/biking/cabbing distance is often critical to meeting hard deadlines imposed by the courts. And that's just one sector of a strong CBD economy.

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by nei

What's wrong with it? Transit-wise, a CBD requires the least infrastructure

No, CBDs need the most infrastructure. But that is what makes them so useful.

[montréaliste]

Cities need CBD's on account of them being real practical for whosoever wants to connect with other individuals of the same ilk or, notwithstanding, those of another denomination or tendency or call it what you will, so to speak, somehow.

CBD's offer opportunities à la power of ten, in a manner of speaking.

[10023]

Originally Posted by fflint

This. CBDs allow for proximity and, in turn, "critical mass," which for certain sectors increases efficiency as well as enabling the serendipitous interactions that oftentimes fuel innovation.

The legal industry is a good example, and can be expanded further: document services, filing services, courier services, bail bondsmen, and legal employment agencies all like to be close to the jails, courts, law firms and clients. Having basically the entire legal food chain within walking/biking/cabbing distance is often critical to meeting hard deadlines imposed by the courts. And that's just one sector of a strong CBD economy.

Originally Posted by montréaliste

Cities need CBD's on account of them being real practical for whosoever wants to connect with other individuals of the same ilk or, notwithstanding, those of another denomination or tendency or call it what you will, so to speak, somehow.

CBD's offer opportunities à la power of ten, in a manner of speaking.

This.

Suburban office parks tend to house big corporate headquarters. The nature of how these organizations function requires them to have a lot of people in one place, and most of the work and interactions are internal. To the extent they need to meet with their lawyers, or bankers, or ad guys, those people will come to them because they are the client.

But sectors like law, banking, accounting, etc have to cluster in CBDs. These guys are constantly shuttling around places like Midtown Manhattan or central London by taxi to meet at each others' offices. It simply wouldn't work for them to de-centralize.