Downtowns are back

[10023]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

How is this sustainable without growth in transit to serve a growing population? The loss in downtown populations in the past matched the loss of streetcars and bus service in the 40s, 50s and 60s. Are we really prepared to spend to provide real transit improvements rather than just vanity projects.

Even Toronto is struggling with growing congestion. Who knows when the proposed Ontario Line will actually be built.

Depending on how one defines downtown, then you might not even need much transit.

If Toronto’s downtown area is 17 sq km, then that’s a pretty walkable area really. If it was a circle the radius would be about 2.3km, which is like a 25 min walk. Just get some bikes and scooters and you’re good. You certainly don’t need heavy rail.

[Yuri]

As you guys mentioned Chicago, I decided to put its numbers together:

Downtown Chicago



---------------------- 2020 ------ 2010 ------ 2000 ------ 1990

Near North Side --- 105,481 ---- 80,484 ---- 72,811 ---- 62,842 ----- 31.1% ----- 10.5% ----- 15.9%

Loop ----------------- 42,298 ---- 29,283 ---- 16,388 ---- 11,954 ----- 44.4% ----- 78.7% ----- 37.1%

Near North Side has 6.8 km² for a density of 15,500 inh./km² and Loop 2.9 km² and 10,800 inh./km². 20 and 6 census tracts, respectively.

Loop, from a CBD, turned into a very dense residential area. Ditto for the southern tracts of Near North Side, which are the ones growing like crazy. The other areas are more stable as they've always been residential.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by TimCity2000

is there an official definition of "downtown" that can be used to compare cities?

No. There are barely local definitions, depending on the place.

Originally Posted by LA21st

The Union Station might be the jail related lol.
I can't think of another reason why it would drop. There isn't much housing in that tract...yet.
I wonder if you counted the tracts west of downtown and around USC?

I used a 25 census-tract definition. I'd go with 20 at first, to respect freeway limits and Alameda St., but I'd left out areas that it's usually regarded as Downtown, like the Union Station and the west bank of Los Angeles River. So, nothing west or south the freeway loop. Just three ones north of the loop (because Union Station), but leaving Chinatown out.

And I'm using City Population as source, because it's much easier to navigate on it.

[Xing]

Originally Posted by TimCity2000

is there an official definition of "downtown" that can be used to compare cities?

I don’t believe there is. So, we should probably take some of these numbers with a grain of salt.

[Xing]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Downtown Toronto (17 sqkm)

1971: 115,070
1981: 106,498
1991: 133,836
2001: 154,149
2011: 199,330
2016: 250,000
2021 estimate: 295,000
2041 estimate: 475,000

That’s a really big downtown- land wise.

[MolsonExport]

there is almost no downside to intensifying downtowns

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

there is almost no downside to intensifying downtowns

just wait until you have nimbys complaining about tall buildings downtown.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by TimCity2000

is there an official definition of "downtown" that can be used to compare cities?

No, there is no official definition of a given city's "downtown", so this exercise is always open to lots of interpretation, and makes direct comparisons quite challenging, and usually meaningless.

The closest thing you can get to a somewhat direct apples-to-apples comparison is the census bureau's calculations of "x" number of people living withing "y" miles of a city's city hall, though that is also quite imperfect as most downtowns don't spread out from their city's city hall in perfect concentric rings. Water, topography, industrial zones/corridors, non-CBD city halls, and many other factors can greatly complicate that particular measure.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

just wait until you have nimbys complaining about tall buildings downtown.

In earthquake country, there is at least a reason to oppose tall buildings having to do with the inability of fire departments and other "first responders" to really cope with disasters involving them.

I mean "The Towering Inferno" is a real issue as was 9/11.

I'm not saying I think this issue is enough reason to keep downtowns short and stubby. I don't. I'm a real skyscraper fan. But in San Francisco, at least, the issue always comes up when a new building, especially one taller than 400 or 500 ft, is proposed. And the Fire Dept. is usually asked to weigh in.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

No, there is no official definition of a given city's "downtown", so this exercise is always open to lots of interpretation, and makes direct comparisons quite challenging, and usually meaningless.

The closest thing you can get to a somewhat direct apples-to-apples comparison is the census bureau's calculations of "x" number of people living withing "y" miles of a city's city hall, though that is also quite imperfect as most downtowns don't spread out from their city's city hall in perfect concentric rings. Water, topography, industrial zones/corridors, non-CBD city halls, and many other factors can greatly complicate that particular measure.

My purpose in this thread was to compare Downtown with the rest of the city/metro area than comparing Downtown X to Downtown Y, so the lack of an universal definition doesn't matter much.

What really stands out here is Downtowns, are booming pretty much everywhere. Some starting in the late 1990's, others in the late 2000's, but the trend is very clear.

[Yuri]

Downtown Miami




Downtown Miami growth is nothing short of spectacular:

---------------------- 2020 ------ 2010 ------ 2000 ------ 1990

Downtown Miami ------- 58,439 ---- 31,697 ----- 12,885 ----- 9,218 ----- 84,4% --- 146,0% ---- 39,8%

Miami-Miami Beach --- 525,131 --- 486,880 --- 449,743 --- 451,533 ------ 7,9% ----- 8,3% ---- -0,4%


Almost 2/3 of the absolute growth of Miami-Miami Beach in the past 20 years took place there. It has a 4.34 km² area for a 13,500 inh./km² density.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

No. There are barely local definitions, depending on the place.




I used a 25 census-tract definition. I'd go with 20 at first, to respect freeway limits and Alameda St., but I'd left out areas that it's usually regarded as Downtown, like the Union Station and the west bank of Los Angeles River. So, nothing west or south the freeway loop. Just three ones north of the loop (because Union Station), but leaving Chinatown out.

And I'm using City Population as source, because it's much easier to navigate on it.

That makes sense. But I think if you counted city west, it would be closer to 100k. It sounds like you left out the Arts District,
which is becoming a part of downtown for office and residential.
North of USC (south of the freeway) has probably added 5k, if not more.

Imo, USC is part of the greater downtown area, as it has the museum campus and several light rail stops.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by LA21st

That makes sense. But I think if you counted city west, it would be closer to 100k. It sounds like you left out the Arts District,
which is becoming a part of downtown for office and residential.
North of USC (south of the freeway) has probably added 5k, if not more.

Imo, USC is part of the greater downtown area, as it has the museum campus and several light rail stops.

Arts District is in. Freeways bordering South and West, Los Angeles River at East and Chinatown/Alpine St. at North.

[Manitopiaaa]

Originally Posted by LA21st

The Union Station might be the jail related lol.
I can't think of another reason why it would drop. There isn't much housing in that tract...yet.
I wonder if you counted the tracts west of downtown and around USC?

Could it be homeless related? I visited Los Angeles on vacation last week (on a 3-day layover before Honolulu) and Hollywood is mobbed with homeless as is most of Downtown east of Grand Central. I couldn't even walk from the metro to the Last Bookstore because there were dozens of homeless and ghetto all over the street eyeing valuables.

I could definitely see the west side of LA's downtown booming since that area seemed very safe. But maybe there's some homeless/Skid Row counting effect? I walked from LA City Hall to Union Station on a previous trip and there are tent encampments all around there too.

[Yuri]

Downtown Philadephia



Philadelphia is often discussed here in this section, but not its City Center specifically. I used a 29 census tract definition, roughky the area between South St., Spring Garden St. and the two rivers.


-------------------- 2020 ------ 2010 ------ 2000 ------ 1990

City Center --------- 91,510 ----- 68,836 ----- 57,552 ----- 51,302 ----- 32.9% --- 19.6% --- 12.2%

Philadelphia ----- 1,603,797 -- 1,526,006 -- 1,517,550 -- 1,585,577 ---- 5.1% ---- 0.6% --- -4.3%


The area has 8.92 km² and a density of 10,300 inh./km². Growth has been insane, with population almost doubling in the past 20 years. It's even more impressive as the area is pretty much built up for ages.

For comparison, Chicago Loop & Near North Side (posted above), with a much higher profile, is not so far ahead, with 148k inh. in a 10.7 km² area. Or Downtown LA, often discussed, with 74k inh. in a 14.9 km² area.

P.S. Guys, to convert the area and density to sq miles, just multiply by 2.59

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

As you guys mentioned Chicago, I decided to put its numbers together:

Downtown Chicago



---------------------- 2020 ------ 2010 ------ 2000 ------ 1990

Near North Side --- 105,481 ---- 80,484 ---- 72,811 ---- 62,842 ----- 31.1% ----- 10.5% ----- 15.9%

Loop ----------------- 42,298 ---- 29,283 ---- 16,388 ---- 11,954 ----- 44.4% ----- 78.7% ----- 37.1%

Near North Side has 6.8 km² for a density of 15,500 inh./km² and Loop 2.9 km² and 10,800 inh./km². 20 and 6 census tracts, respectively.

Loop, from a CBD, turned into a very dense residential area. Ditto for the southern tracts of Near North Side, which are the ones growing like crazy. The other areas are more stable as they've always been residential.

Thanks for posting these. What this shows is that the near north side’s growth accelerated—big time—from 2010-2020. Wow.

However you are only getting half the picture here. We also need to see data from the near south and near west sides, as those are also considered a part of what is now described as Chicago’s “central area”

[Lobotomizer]

Can someone please help me find the census tract data from the 2010 census? Thank you!

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

However you are only getting half the picture here. We also need to see data from the near south and near west sides, as those are also considered a part of what is now described as Chicago’s “central area”

Yes, most Chicagoans would probably now agree that "Downtown Chicago", at its most generous, has expanded west and south of the loop into the near west and near south community areas.

The problem with using community areas though is that they can be awfully large. The near west side, for example, stretches west all the way past western avenue! I don't think many urban observers here here would consider an intersection like Madison/Western to be "downtown". At most you can probably make an argument for going west to Ashland, but once you get out to the moonscape parking lots of the united center, "downtown" is definitely over.

It's an exercise probably better executed with census tracts, but that's tedious and time consuming to add up.

[Djesus777]

Since downtown T.O was posted, I'll do the same for Montreal (although data is lacking compared to other cities)

Downtown Montreal: 17km^2

Population

1966: 136,600
1990: 82,700
2006: ~94,000
2011: 100,000
2016: Estimated 120,000





Source: https://ocpm.qc.ca/sites/ocpm.qc.ca/...ille_final.pdf

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Thanks for posting these. What this shows is that the near north side’s growth accelerated—big time—from 2010-2020. Wow.

However you are only getting half the picture here. We also need to see data from the near south and near west sides, as those are also considered a part of what is now described as Chicago’s “central area”

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Yes, most Chicagoans would probably now agree that "Downtown Chicago", at its most generous, has expanded west and south of the loop into the near west and near south community areas.

The problem with using community areas though is that they can be awfully large. The near west side, for example, stretches west all the way past western avenue! I don't think many urban observers here here would consider an intersection like Madison/Western to be "downtown". At most you can probably make an argument for going west to Ashland, but once you get out to the moonscape parking lots of the united center, "downtown" is definitely over.

It's an exercise probably better executed with census tracts, but that's tedious and time consuming to add up.

Here you are:

---------------------- 2020 ------ 2010 ------ 2000 ------ 1990

Near North Side ------ 105,481 ----- 80,484 ---- 72,811 ---- 62,842 ----- 31.1% ----- 10.5% ----- 15.9% ------ 6.8 km²

Loop -------------------- 42,298 ----- 29,283 ---- 16,388 ---- 11,954 ----- 44.4% ----- 78.7% ----- 37.1% ------ 3.9 km²

Near South Side ------- 28,795 ----- 21,390 ----- 9,509 ----- 6,828 ----- 34.6% ---- 124.9% ----- 39.3% ------ 4.6 km²

Near West Side -------- 48,719 ----- 36,789 ---- 21,689 ---- 17,978 ----- 32.4% ----- 69.6% ----- 20.6% ------ 7.4 km²

Central Chicago ---- 225,293 --- 167,946 --- 120,397 ---- 99,602 ----- 34.1% ----- 39.5% ----- 20.9% ------ 22.8 km²

Chicago MSA ----- 9,618,502 - 9,461,105 - 9,098,314 - 8,182,076 ------ 1.7% ------ 4.0% ----- 11.2% -- 18,634 km²


For Near West Side, as it's way too big, I considered only the eastern half of it, using 10 censos tracts.

As it happens in Near North Side, it's the census tracts near Loop the ones booming, in both NSS an NWS. In fact, the southernmost census tract in NSS, majority Black, is actually collapsing. In 1990, it made up 40% of NSS population. Today, it represents mere 4%.

Another thing: Chicago city proper minus Central Chicago declined by 7,000 people.

Originally Posted by Lobotomizer

Can someone please help me find the census tract data from the 2010 census? Thank you!

Go to City Population.