Downtowns are back

[Yuri]

2020 arrived and the US Census (and Brazilian as I'm based) will confirm the surge of Downtowns all across the globe, specially in Americas, where the urban decline hit the hardest.

We can use this thread to post numbers, forecasts, developments and general discussions about the renaissance of the hearts of our cities.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49581537297_938fd2f6d0_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2ixmkDk)

I'll start with São Paulo, where I live. Downtown São Paulo has a loosen definition which is common in massive metropolises. I'll use as the definition the 9 most central districts, that counted 477,670 inh. (2010 Census) in 33 km² (12.7 sq miles) for a 14,400 inh./km² (37,300 inh./sqm).

It's still a rough area, where probably the largest "Crackland" (Cracolândia in Portuguese) in the world is located, all banks and big companies have migrated to new financial districts. However, on the past years new restaurants, bars, nightclubs, creative shops are popping all over the area. I wouldn't call gentrification yet, but it's definitely the coolest place to be. A bit like Kreuzberg and Neukölln in Berlin.

Let's get to the numbers:

------------------------------- 2010 --------- 2000 -------- 1991
SÃO PAULO MACRO METRO -- 31,894,697 -- 28,485,522 -- 24,032,662 --- +11.97% --- +18.21%

SÃO PAULO METRO AREA --- 19,683,975 -- 17,878,703 -- 15,444,941 --- +10.10% --- +15.76%

SÃO PAULO -------------- 11,253,503 -- 10,434,252 --- 9,646,185 ---- +7.85% ---- +8.17%

DOWNTOWN SP --------------- 477,670 ----- 413,896 ----- 513,512 --- +15.41% --- -19.40%

In the 1990's, Downtown São Paulo was in Rust Belt kind of free fall. Crime rates in São Paulo were much higher back then and the region felt the impact as the middle-class left the region in droves.

The 2000's, even though the urban decay was and still very present, we saw a completely change on the trend, with Downtown São Paulo growing faster than the city, the metro area and even the macrometropolitan area.

However, the comeback started to be felt for good only in the early 2010's, with the southern edge (Bela Vista district, bordering Paulista Avenue) recovering first and growing northwards into the core direction (Sé and República districts).

That's why the 2020 Census will be very interesting. I wouldn't be surprised, even with the crisis and weaker Brazilian general demographics, to see the region growing close to 20% between Census, reaching 570,000 inh. and a 17,000 inh./km² (44,000 inh./sqm) density.

[Yuri]

And as most forumers are from US and Canada, let's expand the discussion there as well.

I brought São Paulo as the opening example, but I'm aware Chicago, Los Angeles, Toronto central areas are undergoing explosive growth as well. Even Detroit, in a much small scale and a much lower base, will probably see its Downtown population to double between 2010-2020.

[dubu]

are trains back?

[dc_denizen]

Amen brother

[Yuri]

I came across with this very interesting article from BBC, to give us an perspective across the Atlantic:

The UK's rapid return to city centre living (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44482291)

For England and Wales, the figures are between 2002 and 2015, and it was more intense on northern England, where urban decay hit the hardest: Liverpool city centre jumped from 9,100 to 25,600 inh. (+181%), Birmingham 9,800 to 25,800 (+163%), Leeds 12,900 to 32,300 (+150%), Manchester 14,300 to 35,600 (+149%) and Bradford 1,300 to 3,200 (+146%).

London, more modest on relative terms, but still impressive on absolute terms: 268,700 to 327,200 (+22%). Cardiff, from 6,700 to 12,600 (+88%).

For Scotland and Northern Ireland, the comparison is between 2001 and 2011 Census. Glasgow 19,700 to 28,300 (+44%), Edinburgh 10,100 to 12,600 (+25%) and Belfast 3,500 to 4,600 (+31%).

According to data, the growth is fueled by young people. On Sheffield, the number of students living in the city centre grew by 300% between 2001-2011. Overall, the 20-29 y/o population grew threefold in city centres across the country.

[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

https://i.imgur.com/61Ntm1g.jpg

[MplsTodd]

here's data for two US Cities in the Midwest:

Minneapolis:
2006: 31,904
2018: 49,781
2019: 51,000, with 2500 units under construction as of Feb 2020

(Data from StarTribune & Downtown Council of Mpls)


Columbus, Ohio:
2002: 3,619
2010: 5,991
2014: 7,080
2019: 9,270
2020P: 10,700
2021P: 11,900
2022P: 14,000
https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2020/02/26/downtown-columbus-could-hit-10-000-residents-this.html?iana=hpmvp_colum_news_headline

[authentiCLE]

Downtown Cleveland

2012: 10,499
2013: 11,789
2014: 12,502
2015: 13,336
2016: 13,886
2017: 15,100
2018: 17,500
2019: 19,000 est (waiting for 2019 numbers due in March)
2020: 20,000+ est from units under construction

edit: For comparison, downtown Cleveland is about 3 square miles (~8 km2). About a third to half is vacant and underused land like surface parking and industrial.

[thoughtcriminal]

Philly: 7.7 sq. mile downtown area, 2018 estimated population = 193,000.
Probably topping 200,000 in 2020.

[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.

[KevinFromTexas]

Austin's downtown is pretty small. Only a little more than 1 1/2 square miles. From what I could find, there are around 12,000 residents living in downtown as of 2015. There has been a considerable amount more of residential construction since then. Most of the residential properties are around the river. To be clear, Austin's downtown area officially does not include the UT Campus or the West Campus neighborhood even though those two areas are immediately adjacent to downtown and form the same skyline that downtown does. There are around 7,300 students living on campus, and another 27,000 or so living in West Campus. Including the UT Campus and West Campus neighborhoods, that's around 46,000 living in a little more than 2 square miles. West Campus is the densest neighborhood in Austin with around 27,000 people inside of a little more than a quarter of a square mile.

There are as many people living in that area as there are living in my zip code which covers around 13 square miles.

Downtown

https://i.imgur.com/fTvxPPT.jpg

UT Campus

https://i.imgur.com/tWitIkv.jpg

West Campus

https://i.imgur.com/ba8G5tl.jpg

[Yuri]

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.

Not specifically about Toronto, but Downtowns are usually the most better served in transit, aside having a huge chunk of the jobs on the urban area, jobs that might even be reached on foot by those new Downtown dwellers.

Aside the reversion of urban decay, that's one of the most interesting aspects of the population boom: people will live near their jobs, reducing greatly commute times, improving economic productivity.

[MonkeyRonin]

Not specifically about Toronto, but Downtowns are usually the most better served in transit, aside having a huge chunk of the jobs on the urban area, jobs that might even be reached on foot by those new Downtown dwellers.

Aside the reversion of urban decay, that's one of the most interesting aspects of the population boom: people will live near their jobs, reducing greatly commute times, improving economic productivity.


That's one of the big things that has been fuelling the downtown boom in Toronto: commuting by transit or car is an absolutely miserable experience here - so being able to walk or bike places is a huge deal.

[Yuri]

That's one of the big things that has been fuelling the downtown boom in Toronto: commuting by transit or car is an absolutely miserable experience here - so being able to walk or bike places is a huge deal.

São Paulo still has a long way to expand its subway and railway systems (only 350 km for a 22 million metropolis), but its Downtown area is served by four subway and five railway lines, plus counting with several massive bus terminus.

Even though employment centres migrated southwest as Downtown decayed, it keeps being an important job market on its own and easy to get from anywhere in the metro area.

[Yuri]

Downtown Los Angeles

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51391621982_a1f5b3d5d6.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2miiuKY)

As the US 2020 Census numbers are available, I decided to bring some actual figures. For Los Angeles, I used a 25 census tract area, that matches with the most usual definitions for Downtown LA.


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

74,349 ---- 52,538 ---- 40,836 ---- 32,786 ---- 41.5% ---- 28.7% ---- 24.5%


It's a 14.86 km² area, for a density of 5,003 inh./km². Lots of room to densify. The growth is nothing but impressive. Almost doubled in the past 20 years.

One interesting thing I noticed while put the numbers together is the only area dropping was the census tract where Union Station is located. And dropped big: from 10,800 in 2000 to 5,500 in 2020. It represented over 1/4 of total population back then and now it's mere 7.5%.

[Doady]

Downtowns are back, but not in Canada, due to the lack of freeways. Pro-transit, anti-car attitudes in Canadian cities killed their downtowns and continues to kill any hope for their revival.

[Xing]

I was just about to bring this up. I’m still coming back to Chicago for work, but every time I do, I’m amazed at all the construction going on. Downtown Chicago in the 80’s had a population of approximately 20,000 people. Today, the population is over 110,000 and growing. Apparently it’s the fastest growing downtown in the US.

https://i1.wp.com/www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/202020506_Metro_DowntownPopBoom_Fig-03-.png?w=768&crop=0%2C0px%2C100%2C9999px&ssl=1

There’s an interesting article from a few years ago about this very subject:

https://www.brookings.edu/research/big-city-downtowns-are-booming-but-can-their-momentum-outlast-the-coronavirus/

[the urban politician]

^ I wonder what the 2020 census says about downtown growth?

For 2010 the data showed that, within a 2 mile radius of city hall, downtown Chicago was by a huge margin the fastest growing downtown in the US. Not sure if that is still true for the 2020 census though

[TimCity2000]

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

[LA21st]

Downtown Los Angeles

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51391621982_a1f5b3d5d6.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2miiuKY)

As the US 2020 Census numbers are available, I decided to bring some actual figures. For Los Angeles, I used a 25 census tract area, that matches with the most usual definitions for Downtown LA.


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

74,349 ---- 52,538 ---- 40,836 ---- 32,786 ---- 41.5% ---- 28.7% ---- 24.5%


It's a 14.86 km² area, for a density of 5,003 inh./km². Lots of room to densify. The growth is nothing but impressive. Almost doubled in the past 20 years.

One interesting thing I noticed while put the numbers together is the only area dropping was the census tract where Union Station is located. And dropped big: from 10,800 in 2000 to 5,500 in 2020. It represented over 1/4 of total population back then and now it's mere 7.5%.

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?

[10023]

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

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51392596746_2db18dfb86_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2miouwf)

---------------------- 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]

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

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


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]

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]

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

https://i.imgur.com/61Ntm1g.jpg

:stunned: That’s a really big downtown- land wise.

[MolsonExport]

there is almost no downside to intensifying downtowns

[SIGSEGV]

there is almost no downside to intensifying downtowns

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

[Steely Dan]

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]

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]

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

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51392315607_8162348156_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2min3X2)


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]

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]

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]

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

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51393964327_ce3d5b4255_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2mivv4e)

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]

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

Downtown Chicago

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51392596746_2db18dfb86_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2miouwf)

---------------------- 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]

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


https://i2.wp.com/ocpm.qc.ca/sites/ocpm.qc.ca/files/pdf/P83/strategie_centre-ville_carte.jpg


Source: https://ocpm.qc.ca/sites/ocpm.qc.ca/files/document_consultation/vmvma-16-026_strategie_centre-ville_final.pdf

[Yuri]

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”

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.



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

Go to City Population.

[LA21st]

Downtown LA's rental occupancy rate INCREASED during covid.
Wow.

And the apartments are only more expensive.

[the urban politician]

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.


Thank you, Yuriandrade, for your work on this. This is very helpful info.

[Yuri]

Thank you, Yuriandrade, for your work on this. This is very helpful info.

You're welcome, urban! It's time consuming, but it's quite enjoyable to see the results. I'm already on the 25th Downtown and counting. :)

Pretty much every US Downtown is booming, even from cities you almost don't mention here. Obviously circumstances and the scale are distinct, but it seems millions of Americans of all regions realized the urban life is amazing.

[SIGSEGV]

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%.


That's likely because https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_L._Ickes_Homes were demolished about 10 years ago (unless the souternmost census track you're considering is south of I-55?). The replacement project is just now getting built (https://www.mccafferyinc.com/portfolio/southbridge ), with 877 units.

[dktshb]

Downtown Los Angeles

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51391621982_a1f5b3d5d6.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2miiuKY)

As the US 2020 Census numbers are available, I decided to bring some actual figures. For Los Angeles, I used a 25 census tract area, that matches with the most usual definitions for Downtown LA.


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

74,349 ---- 52,538 ---- 40,836 ---- 32,786 ---- 41.5% ---- 28.7% ---- 24.5%


It's a 14.86 km² area, for a density of 5,003 inh./km². Lots of room to densify. The growth is nothing but impressive. Almost doubled in the past 20 years.

One interesting thing I noticed while put the numbers together is the only area dropping was the census tract where Union Station is located. And dropped big: from 10,800 in 2000 to 5,500 in 2020. It represented over 1/4 of total population back then and now it's mere 7.5%.

I guess that puts the density at just under 13 thousand ppsm making it higher than the overall density of LA but not nearly as dense as the densest neighborhoods. Not sure if you included City West Census tracts just to the West Northwest of the 110 Freeway. Typically included with Downtown.

[mind field]

You're welcome, urban! It's time consuming, but it's quite enjoyable to see the results. I'm already on the 25th Downtown and counting. :)

Pretty much every US Downtown is booming, even from cities you almost don't mention here. Obviously circumstances and the scale are distinct, but it seems millions of Americans of all regions realized the urban life is amazing.

Are you planning on posting more downtown data? Thanks for working on this, it's very interesting!!

[marothisu]

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%.


Not to nitpick but if you are going to count some Near West Side then you should count all of it. The population in 2020 of NWS was 67,881. The Central Area which is Near West/South/North + The Loop grew by 58,417 people or 31.4%. Total population of those 4 areas today is 244,455.



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


It is more nuanced than that and does not tell the complete story really. Besides the core (NNS, NWS, NSS, and The Loop) growing by a ton .

* The north lakefront (Lincoln Park, Lake View, North Center, Lincoln Square, Rogers Park, Edgewater, Uptown, West Ridge) grew by 25,718 people or a modest +5.48%.

* The south lakefront (Douglas, Oakland, Grand Boulevard, Washington Park, Hyde Park, Woodlawn, Kenwood, and South Shore) grew by 14,280 people or +8.06%.


Putting all of this together, the entire lakefront area from South Shore all the way north 20+ miles to the edge of the city in Rogers Park counting the greater downtown area including all of Near West Side gained 98,415 people compared to 2010. This is a growth rate of 11.82%.

To put that into further perspective, that area had a population of 832,772 in 2010 and 931,187 in 2020. That was larger than San Francisco and Boston both in 2010 and still is, and that area had a higher population growth than both of those cities from 2010 to 2020. To put it into further perspective, the city of Dallas outgained that area in the same time period by "only" 8000 people and some change.


Now for some more insights:
* The area of the city along I-55 going down to Midway (Armour Square, Garfield Ridge, Archer Heights, McKinley Park, Bridgeport, Brighton Park, West Elsdon, West Lawn, and Clearing) gained 5705 people or a modest +2.49%. Areas like Bridgeport, McKinley Park, and Brighton Park got a bit more Asian than 2010, and Archer Heights went from very little Asian population to an increasingly sizable one. The areas closest to Midway Airport like West Elsdon, West Lawn, Clearing, etc got more Hispanic and less white.


* The area of the far NW side of the city plus some others in the NW side kind of adjacent - Edison Park, Norwood Park, Forest Glen, Dunning, Montclare, and Jefferson Park gained 5661 people or a modest +3.84%. These areas gained 10,724 Hispanic people while losing 10,988 white people.

however...

* The area nearby in Portage Park, Irving Park, Belmont Cragin, Albany Park, Hermosa, and Avondale lost 10,249 people - some of this area is definitely gentrifying. Other areas of the city which lost population from 2000 to 2010 had some of the same activity happening so it'll be interesting to see if any of these areas actually turn around and gain population by 2030.


Where the city got slammed in population loss was really part of the south side and also west side:
The area of Englewood, West Englewood, Auburn Gresham, Washington Heights, Greater Grand Crossing, Roseland, West Pullman, and Pullman lost 28,486 people. That almost offsets the gains of the north lakefront and part of the NW side. Part of this area went through some big demographic shifts with areas like West Englewood going from only about 2% Hispanic in 2010 to nearly 20% Hispanic in 2020.



Then the area on the west side of Austin, North and South Lawndale, East and West Garfield Park, and Humboldt Park lost another 16,005 people. Yet again, some of these areas became a bit more Hispanic. Austin for example went from under 9% Hispanic in 2020 to nearly 20% Hispanic in 2020. We don't have the 2020 ACS data yet, but I can tell you that the loss in Austin was actually a few thousand people better than expected. My guess is in part due to an influx in Hispanic population.

In fact, Austin recorded the largest Hispanic population gain of any community area in the city with +9868 Hispanic people.
1. Austin: +9868 Hispanic people
2. Chicago Lawn: +7808
3. Garfield Ridge: +5573
4. West Englewood: +5058
5. Dunning: +5043
6. New City: +4066
7. Ashburn: +4025
8. Clearing: +3984
9. West Lawn: +2709
10. Near North Side: +2612


The city is becoming even more Hispanic, and more Asian now. The Hispanic population in the city is now greater than the Black population, and thus will be interesting to see the political battle play out. It will also be interesting to see if there can be some Asian representation now that the SW side is increasingly Asian. Bridgeport is now over 42% Asian and McKinley Park is approaching 30% now. Nearby in downtown, Near South Side and the Loop are both over 20% Asian now. Near West Side is almost 19% Asian now. Brighton Park is now nearly 11% Asian and Archer Heights went from 1% Asian in 2010 to 4.3% in 2020.

[Yuri]

That's likely because https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_L._Ickes_Homes were demolished about 10 years ago (unless the souternmost census track you're considering is south of I-55?). The replacement project is just now getting built (https://www.mccafferyinc.com/portfolio/southbridge ), with 877 units.

I believe that's the one. For Near South Side, the 5 tracts match perfectly with the official definition. And between 2010-2020 it grew a bit.


I guess that puts the density at just under 13 thousand ppsm making it higher than the overall density of LA but not nearly as dense as the densest neighborhoods. Not sure if you included City West Census tracts just to the West Northwest of the 110 Freeway. Typically included with Downtown.

No, I didn't. It's the traditional definition. West and South bordered by the freeways. Some blocks north of the freeway to include Union Station and to the east, Los Angeles River. 25 census tracts. It was one of the most challenging ones.

I intend to add more central neighbourhoods, but it's complicate as census tracts not always match with the districts definitions.

Anyway, Downtown LA has plenty of room to densify.

[Yuri]

Are you planning on posting more downtown data? Thanks for working on this, it's very interesting!!

Thank you! Well, as long as you guys are interested, I'll be posting.

It's more than 30 downtowns now, ready to be posted, and a couple dozen of adjacent central neighbourhoods.



Not to nitpick but if you are going to count some Near West Side then you should count all of it. The population in 2020 of NWS was 67,881. The Central Area which is Near West/South/North + The Loop grew by 58,417 people or 31.4%. Total population of those 4 areas today is 244,455.

Not really. The thread is about Downtowns, CBDs, and strictly speaking, only the Loop and southern half of Near North Side are traditionally seen as such.

I added the NSS and the eastern half of NWS as @the urban politician and @Steely Dan noticed there are plenty of infill adjacent to Downtown is those areas. Moreover, NWS is disproportionally large and part of the it looks like a regular neighbourhood and not "Downtown".

[marothisu]

I added the NSS and the eastern half of NWS as @the urban politician and @Steely Dan noticed there are plenty of infill adjacent to Downtown is those areas. Moreover, NWS is disproportionally large and part of the it looks like a regular neighbourhood and not "Downtown".

Just saying - consistency wise. If you are going to do that then you should be counting some of River West as part of downtown, which is part of West Town. The Grand and Chicago Blue Line stops there for example are very close to parts that anyone would count as downtown and the core. I do agree that core wise maybe you shouldn't count over where the United Center is but not counting some of the areas above in West Town doesn't make much sense.

What you also mention as The Loop + southern part of NNS is a pretty old definition as well. The core definitely now in some parts goes south of Roosevelt and also it's now pretty seamless for about 2/3 of the NNS going north through around Division St.

[Yuri]

Downtown & Midtown Atlanta

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51396738859_6ae3852f35_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2miKHPZ)



---------------------- 2020 ------ 2010 ------ 2000 ------ 1990 ---- Growth ---- Density

Midtown ------------- 32,240 ----- 20,225 ---- 13,643 ----- 9,631 ----- 59.4% ----- 48.2% ----- 41.7% ------- 5.0 km² --- 6,415.9 inh./km²

Downtown ---------- 21,026 ----- 14,615 ---- 12,089 ----- 8,635 ----- 43.9% ----- 20.9% ----- 40.0% ------- 5.1 km² --- 4,114.7 inh./km²

Atlanta ------------ 498,715 ---- 427,042 --- 418,371 --- 393,962 ----- 16.8% ------ 2.1% ------ 6.2% ----- 350.5 km² --- 1,422.9 inh./km²

Atlanta MSA --- 6,089,815 -- 5,286,728 -- 4,263,438 -- 3,082,308 ----- 15.2% ----- 24.0% ---- 38.3% -- 22,496 km²



Same pattern: explosive growth all over the Downtown and Midtown axis, much faster than either the city or metro area. It's not intense as Miami, be it in terms of density of growth, but it definitely became a busy urban hub.

For definition, I used 5 census-tracts for Downtown and 10 tracts for Midtown.

[LA21st]

I guess that puts the density at just under 13 thousand ppsm making it higher than the overall density of LA but not nearly as dense as the densest neighborhoods. Not sure if you included City West Census tracts just to the West Northwest of the 110 Freeway. Typically included with Downtown.

Yup, that's what I mentioned as well.

[isaidso]

:stunned: That’s a really big downtown- land wise.

It wasn't that long ago that what people considered downtown was a vastly smaller area: pretty much the Central Business District and a few blocks surrounding it.

Around 2008, significant construction began 3 km to the north in Yorkville. It was followed by high rise construction a few km west along the lakeshore and finally the development of a previously ignored area a few km east to the Don River. Visually and psychologically, it massively expanded 'downtown'.

It was very ambitious and initially looked like it would take generations to fill in. You could arguably fit 800+ new high-rises in there. There are still tons of places to build but, surprisingly, it already looks like one big downtown. The streetcar (tram) network is heavily concentrated in the core so that helps too. It gives the whole area a cohesive urban feel. It's currently at about 17,400 people sq km. It's nothing extreme but densifying rapidly.

[streetscaper]

great thread yuri

[Yuri]

Yup, that's what I mentioned as well.

For San Francisco, I worked with other central neighbourhoods. I pretty much covered their whole northeastern quarter.

However those traditional residential central districts in both SF and LA has been very dense for decades and therefore their population is pretty much stable or growing slowly.

Downtowns' boom, with all those residential conversions and infill, is a new phenomenon and that's what I was having in mind when opened this thread. It's not a thread about urban density per se.

But sure, as soon as I finish all Downtowns (still missing about 12 considering the metro areas above 1 million), I intend to work on other neighbourhoods in LA and elsewhere. :)

[10023]

edit: wrong thread

[edale]

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

No way. I went to USC, so I'm very familiar with the neighborhoods around campus, and the University Park area is absolutely not downtown. The residential neighborhoods around campus, especially to the north of campus toward Downtown, are leafy and quasi suburban. Figueroa is getting some substantial infill, but it is still dominated by strip malls and drive thru fast food by campus, and some car dealerships closer to the 10 freeway. Campus area feels like a different world than DTLA, in my opinion.

Btw I love to see all the development in that part of the city, and I can't wait for the Lucas Museum to open and Expo Park to get its much needed facelift.

[Labtec]

Downtown & Midtown Atlanta

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51396738859_6ae3852f35_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2miKHPZ)



---------------------- 2020 ------ 2010 ------ 2000 ------ 1990 ---- Growth ---- Density

Midtown ------------- 32,240 ----- 20,225 ---- 13,643 ----- 9,631 ----- 59.4% ----- 48.2% ----- 41.7% ------- 5.0 km² --- 6,415.9 inh./km²

Downtown ---------- 21,026 ----- 14,615 ---- 12,089 ----- 8,635 ----- 43.9% ----- 20.9% ----- 40.0% ------- 5.1 km² --- 4,114.7 inh./km²

Atlanta ------------ 498,715 ---- 427,042 --- 418,371 --- 393,962 ----- 16.8% ------ 2.1% ------ 6.2% ----- 350.5 km² --- 1,422.9 inh./km²

Atlanta MSA --- 6,089,815 -- 5,286,728 -- 4,263,438 -- 3,082,308 ----- 15.2% ----- 24.0% ---- 38.3% -- 22,496 km²



Same pattern: explosive growth all over the Downtown and Midtown axis, much faster than either the city or metro area. It's not intense as Miami, be it in terms of density of growth, but it definitely became a busy urban hub.

For definition, I used 5 census-tracts for Downtown and 10 tracts for Midtown.

Yes, many parts of midtown Atlanta is undergoing gentrification and residents are being priced out. There will be a tech influx in the city. Many tech companies opening offices in midtown (Airbnb, Facebook, Google) with Microsoft planning to build a large campus.

[Steely Dan]

It is more nuanced than that and does not tell the complete story really. Besides the core (NNS, NWS, NSS, and The Loop) growing by a ton .

* The north lakefront (Lincoln Park, Lake View, North Center, Lincoln Square, Rogers Park, Edgewater, Uptown, West Ridge) grew by 25,718 people or a modest +5.48%.

* The south lakefront (Douglas, Oakland, Grand Boulevard, Washington Park, Hyde Park, Woodlawn, Kenwood, and South Shore) grew by 14,280 people or +8.06%.


Putting all of this together, the entire lakefront area from South Shore all the way north 20+ miles to the edge of the city in Rogers Park counting the greater downtown area including all of Near West Side gained 98,415 people compared to 2010. This is a growth rate of 11.82%.

To put that into further perspective, that area had a population of 832,772 in 2010 and 931,187 in 2020. That was larger than San Francisco and Boston both in 2010 and still is, and that area had a higher population growth than both of those cities from 2010 to 2020. To put it into further perspective, the city of Dallas outgained that area in the same time period by "only" 8000 people and some change.


Now for some more insights:
* The area of the city along I-55 going down to Midway (Armour Square, Garfield Ridge, Archer Heights, McKinley Park, Bridgeport, Brighton Park, West Elsdon, West Lawn, and Clearing) gained 5705 people or a modest +2.49%. Areas like Bridgeport, McKinley Park, and Brighton Park got a bit more Asian than 2010, and Archer Heights went from very little Asian population to an increasingly sizable one. The areas closest to Midway Airport like West Elsdon, West Lawn, Clearing, etc got more Hispanic and less white.


* The area of the far NW side of the city plus some others in the NW side kind of adjacent - Edison Park, Norwood Park, Forest Glen, Dunning, Montclare, and Jefferson Park gained 5661 people or a modest +3.84%. These areas gained 10,724 Hispanic people while losing 10,988 white people.

however...

* The area nearby in Portage Park, Irving Park, Belmont Cragin, Albany Park, Hermosa, and Avondale lost 10,249 people - some of this area is definitely gentrifying. Other areas of the city which lost population from 2000 to 2010 had some of the same activity happening so it'll be interesting to see if any of these areas actually turn around and gain population by 2030.


Where the city got slammed in population loss was really part of the south side and also west side:
The area of Englewood, West Englewood, Auburn Gresham, Washington Heights, Greater Grand Crossing, Roseland, West Pullman, and Pullman lost 28,486 people. That almost offsets the gains of the north lakefront and part of the NW side. Part of this area went through some big demographic shifts with areas like West Englewood going from only about 2% Hispanic in 2010 to nearly 20% Hispanic in 2020.



Then the area on the west side of Austin, North and South Lawndale, East and West Garfield Park, and Humboldt Park lost another 16,005 people. Yet again, some of these areas became a bit more Hispanic. Austin for example went from under 9% Hispanic in 2020 to nearly 20% Hispanic in 2020. We don't have the 2020 ACS data yet, but I can tell you that the loss in Austin was actually a few thousand people better than expected. My guess is in part due to an influx in Hispanic population.





thanks for the deeper dive into the numbers. :tup:

here's the WBEZ community area growth map that basically lays out what you said in visual form, and refutes the conventional narrative of chicago that only the downtown area is growing, while the rest of the city declines.


https://i.postimg.cc/xCZHjLKn/2020-CA-map.png (https://postimages.org/)
source: https://www.wbez.org/stories/census-2020-data-in-graphics-for-chicago-and-illinois/ad8d66cb-7982-4b15-b7bf-a32ffcc724b7


yes, downtown chicago is doing absolutely great, and it is the growth leader for not just the city, but indeed the entire metro area. however, the neighborhoods are a very mixed bag, as the map above shows, with some showing pretty solid to modest growth, and others continuing to empty out, with a healthy dose of stagnant and/or 1st stage gentrification population loss areas in between.

and IMO, the best news from this census for chicago is the growth of the south lakefront. yeah, much of the far southside is still continuing to empty out due to ongoing (though decreased) black flight, but if that tide is ever going to be turned, it has to start somewhere, and it's looking like that seed has already germinated on the south lakefront.

[Yuri]

Yes, many parts of midtown Atlanta is undergoing gentrification and residents are being priced out. There will be a tech influx in the city. Many tech companies opening offices in midtown (Airbnb, Facebook, Google) with Microsoft planning to build a large campus.

And note that both Downtown and Midtown actually grew even faster in 2020-2010 compared to 2010-2000.

Those are historical times, as we're watching the reversal of almost one century of suburbanization trends in the US and most of the urbanized world.

It must have been really exciting times for a Downtown dweller in the 2010's to watch all this activity around them.

[LA21st]

No way. I went to USC, so I'm very familiar with the neighborhoods around campus, and the University Park area is absolutely not downtown. The residential neighborhoods around campus, especially to the north of campus toward Downtown, are leafy and quasi suburban. Figueroa is getting some substantial infill, but it is still dominated by strip malls and drive thru fast food by campus, and some car dealerships closer to the 10 freeway. Campus area feels like a different world than DTLA, in my opinion.

Btw I love to see all the development in that part of the city, and I can't wait for the Lucas Museum to open and Expo Park to get its much needed facelift.

I said greater downtown.

[edale]

I said greater downtown.

Still a no. USC/University Park is in South LA. The 10 is a good southern boundary for the greater downtown area.

[Yuri]

Lower Manhattan & Financial District, New York

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51399109765_40368718cc_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2miXSBF)
Francisca Urenda

That's a city where "Downtown" is actually Downtown + Midtown, taking half of Manhattan. In New York, urbanity is in a whole different level, so comparisons with other cities are pointless. For the purpose of this thread, I used 16 census tracts south of Canal, Bowery and Catherine streets as Lower Manhattan. A very small area of 3.5 km² only.

I also, used an even stricter area, south of Chambers St. and Brooklyn Bridge, to represent the Financial District. It has 2.15 km² only and that's where virtually all population growth took place.

It was where we've seen one of those big movements of residents turning CBDs into residential areas. Not directly related to it, but the it became more pronounced soon after the 9/11.

Anyway, let's see the numbers:



------------------------------------ 2020 ------ 2010 ------ 2000 ------ 1990 -------- Growth -------- Density

Financial District ------------------ 60,806 ----- 45,750 ----- 22,719 ----- 14,357 --- 32.9% ---- 101.4% ----- 58.2% ------- 2.2 km² --- 28,177.0 inh./km²

Lower Manhattan ----------------- 88,744 ----- 71,847 ----- 46,581 ----- 35,316 --- 23.5% ----- 54.2% ----- 31.9% ------- 3.5 km² --- 25,384.4 inh./km²

Manhattan --------------------- 1,694,251 -- 1,585,873 -- 1,537,195 -- 1,487,536 ---- 6.8% ------ 3.2% ------ 3.3% ------ 58.7 km² --- 28,872.7 inh./km²

New York City ----------------- 8,804,190 -- 8,175,133 -- 8,008,278 -- 7,322,564 ---- 7.7% ------ 2.1% ------ 9.4% ----- 778.2 km² --- 11,313.5 inh./km²

New York Metro Area -------- 22,692,839 - 21,358,372 - 20,675,403 - 19,083,415 ---- 6.2% ------ 3.3% ------ 8.3% ---- 21.770 km² ---- 1,042.4 inh./km²



Financial District population grew 3x (!!!) since 2000 and it's now as dense as Manhattan as a whole. They pretty much have invented "Downtown living".

[isaidso]

In Calgary's central core there were 39,958 people on 4.7 sq km in 2016. 21,958 were in the Beltline and 18,000 in the rest. Most of the downtown residential mid-rises/high-rises are being built in The Beltline. The Beltline's population of 21,958 in 2016 increased to 23,219 in 2017 and 24,887 in 2018.


Central Core of Calgary

https://www.ctvnews.ca/polopoly_fs/1.5402377.1619478393!/httpImage/image.jpeg_gen/derivatives/landscape_960/image.jpeg


2016 Population (Area)

18,000 (1.8 sq km): Downtown Core, Downtown West, East Village, Chinatown, Eau Claire
21,958 (2.9 sq km): The Beltline


Beltline: everything to the right of the Calgary Tower

http://d38zjy0x98992m.cloudfront.net/fabc8804-49aa-4c82-9155-730aff41fd43/19-04-08-028_xgaplus.jpg
https://www.stockaerialphotos.com/media/fabc8804-49aa-4c82-9155-730aff41fd43-calgary-beltline-at-sunrise


https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/city-council-approves-initial-200m-for-downtown-revitalization-effort-1.5402374
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downtown_Calgary#Demographics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltline,_Calgary

[Yuri]

I'm looking forward 2021 Canadian numbers to compare them with 2011 figures and the US metro areas.

As Canadian cities and a much higher base to begin with, in relative terms growth will be less impressive. In absolute terms, however, it seems tons of people are still moving in.

In Brazil, as trends take longer to reach here, the only city that is experiencing such phenomenon is São Paulo (thread's 1st post), starting in the 2000's but only becoming mainstream in the 2010's (I, for instance, decided to move Downtown in 2020). That's why I'm eagerly waiting local census, due to happen in 2020 but postponed to 2022 because Covid.

I guess this decade we might see this trend to reach other Brazilian major metro areas.

[isaidso]

I'm looking forward 2021 Canadian numbers to compare them with 2011 figures and the US metro areas.

As Canadian cities and a much higher base to begin with, in relative terms growth will be less impressive. In absolute terms, however, it seems tons of people are still moving in.

In Brazil, as trends take longer to reach here, the only city that is experiencing such phenomenon is São Paulo (thread's 1st post), starting in the 2000's but only becoming mainstream in the 2010's (I, for instance, decided to move Downtown in 2020). That's why I'm eagerly waiting local census, due to happen in 2020 but postponed to 2022 because Covid.

I guess this decade we might see this trend to reach other Brazilian major metro areas.

2021 Canadian Census will mask significant population fluctuations. There will likely be strong population growth 2016-2020 but weak growth 2020-2021. I doubt it affected construction much though.

In Toronto there was a 3-4 month period where construction sites were in lock down but then the previous level of activity resumed. Condos have to be majority pre-sold to move to construction so there wasn't a drop off in activity. The big question is how future construction activity will be affected. Immigration has zoomed right back up again so we'll likely just pick up where we left off.

Interest in downtown living waned a little due to COVID and expensive real estate. Lots decamped to smaller cities and towns. That said, the interest in urban living isn't going away any time soon. People, especially young people/seniors, are clamouring for walkable dense neighbourhoods. In most places that means downtown although dense pedestrian focused clusters are popping up all over the place.

[dc_denizen]

The densification of American downtowns in the latest census is shocking and belie the notion that density can only increase with high rise construction , although it certainly helps

Miami and Chicago are showing massive growth , wow

[Yuri]

Downtown, Midtown and New Center - Detroit

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51397855472_58e74f2b19_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2miRrKW)


---------------------------- 2020 ------ 2010 ------ 2000 ------ 1990 ---- Growth ---- Density

Downtown ------------------ 6,151 ------ 5,287 ------ 6,141 ------ 5,970 ---- 16.3% --- -13.9% ------ 2.9% ------- 3.7 km² --- 1,668.3 inh./km²

Midtown ------------------ 16,921 ----- 14,550 ----- 16,877 ----- 16,692 ---- 16.3% --- -13.8% ------ 1.1% ------- 5.4 km² --- 3,141.7 inh./km²

New Center ----------------- 6,484 ------ 5,675 ------ 7,843 ------ 8,146 ---- 14.3% --- -27.6% ----- -3.7% ------- 3.1 km² --- 2,123.8 inh./km²

Detroit ------------------- 639,111 ---- 713,956 ---- 951,232 -- 1,028,067 --- -10.5% --- -24.9% ----- -7.5% --- 359.3 km² --- 1,778.8 inh./km²

Detroit Metro Area ---- 5,325,319 -- 5,218,852 -- 5,357,538 -- 5,095,695 ----- 2.0% ---- -2.6% ------ 5.1% -- 14,983 km²


I guess I having mix feelings regarding Downtown Detroit numbers. Even though is very promising the consistent, double-digit growth all over this axis in a time the city is still bleeding (metro area is growing though), I guess I hoped for a higher number, specially for Downtown.

For this decade, everything indicates it will speed up as happened in other Downtowns.

[Steely Dan]

^ Yeah, I was really hoping to see more robust growth in Detroit's core too. I mean, the numerical gain for downtown was only 864 people for the entire decade. That's kinda disappointing, I guess I had my expectations set too high.

At least all three areas reversed their negative growth from the previous decade, so that's a hopeful start to the resurgence. Hopefully this current decade is when core Detroit really takes off and we see some more substantial population growth.

[galleyfox]

^ Yeah, I was hoping to see more robust growth in Detroit's core too. The numerical gain for downtown was only 864 people for the whole decade. That's pretty paltry.

Hopefully this current decade is when core Detroit really takes off and we see some massive population growth.

The true bottom was probably sometime around 2014-2015 following the bankruptcy, so any positive growth this decade is a good sign.

Also we would expect to see very small families in downtown Detroit vs. the rest of the city so households and housing units might be a better measure for now.

[Crawford]

Downtown Detroit has barely any new residential construction. There are some office-to-residential conversions, and some new lowrise residentials, but I don't think a highrise residential building has been built in downtown Detroit since Millender Center was built in 1985.

Correction - believe the last of the Riverfront Towers was built in the early 1990's. Those are three subsidized towers built just west of the downtown freeway loop, but even if technically outside the loop, I think everyone would count Riverfront Towers as "downtown" even if they're detached from downtown, and not really walkable bc of the roadway infrastructure.

[iheartthed]

Downtown, Midtown and New Center - Detroit

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51397855472_58e74f2b19_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2miRrKW)


---------------------------- 2020 ------ 2010 ------ 2000 ------ 1990 ---- Growth ---- Density

Downtown ------------------ 6,151 ------ 5,287 ------ 6,141 ------ 5,970 ---- 16.3% --- -13.9% ------ 2.9% ------- 3.7 km² --- 1,668.3 inh./km²

Midtown ------------------ 16,921 ----- 14,550 ----- 16,877 ----- 16,692 ---- 16.3% --- -13.8% ------ 1.1% ------- 5.4 km² --- 3,141.7 inh./km²

New Center ----------------- 6,484 ------ 5,675 ------ 7,843 ------ 8,146 ---- 14.3% --- -27.6% ----- -3.7% ------- 3.1 km² --- 2,123.8 inh./km²

Detroit ------------------- 639,111 ---- 713,956 ---- 951,232 -- 1,028,067 --- -10.5% --- -24.9% ----- -7.5% --- 359.3 km² --- 1,778.8 inh./km²

Detroit Metro Area ---- 5,325,319 -- 5,218,852 -- 5,357,538 -- 5,095,695 ----- 2.0% ---- -2.6% ------ 5.1% -- 14,983 km²


I guess I having mix feelings regarding Downtown Detroit numbers. Even though is very promising the consistent, double-digit growth all over this axis in a time the city is still bleeding (metro area is growing though), I guess I hoped for a higher number, specially for Downtown.

For this decade, everything indicates it will speed up as happened in other Downtowns.

In terms of the definition of the broader core of Detroit, I would probably include the east Riverfront which is located between the Renaissance Center and the Aretha Franklin Amphitheater. This area saw quite a bit of new housing construction between 2010 - 2020.

2011: https://goo.gl/maps/UK21edj1pJsFbAo76
2020: https://goo.gl/maps/6XdLW6zLTaiceH8Z6

Downtown Detroit has barely any new residential construction. There are some office-to-residential conversions, and some new lowrise residentials, but I don't think a highrise residential building has been built in downtown Detroit since Millender Center was built in 1985.

There was a parking tower built for the Book Cadillac Hotel and residences that has condos on the top level. But yeah, no new high rises that would substantially move the population needle downtown. Most of the growth over the next decade, should it happen, will probably materialize in Midtown, New Center, and along the east Riverfront.

Correction - believe the last of the Riverfront Towers was built in the early 1990's. Those are three subsidized towers built just west of the downtown freeway loop, but even if technically outside the loop, I think everyone would count Riverfront Towers as "downtown" even if they're detached from downtown, and not really walkable bc of the roadway infrastructure.

The Riverfront Towers are definitely "downtown". They have their own direct entrance to the Detroit People Mover station at the Joe Louis Arena site. They also have direct access to the Riverwalk.

[Steely Dan]

The Riverfront Towers are definitely "downtown". They have their own direct entrance to the Detroit People Mover station at the Joe Louis Arena site. They also have direct access to the Riverwalk.

Riverfront Towers are included in downtown census tract 5208, which jumps west over the lodge to capture them, along with the southeast corner of corktown.

[Yuri]

^ Yeah, I was really hoping to see more robust growth in Detroit's core too. I mean, the numerical gain for downtown was only 864 people for the entire decade. That's kinda disappointing, I guess I had my expectations set too high.

At least all three areas reversed their negative growth from the previous decade, so that's a hopeful start to the resurgence. Hopefully this current decade is when core Detroit really takes off and we see some more substantial population growth.

The true bottom was probably sometime around 2014-2015 following the bankruptcy, so any positive growth this decade is a good sign.

Also we would expect to see very small families in downtown Detroit vs. the rest of the city so households and housing units might be a better measure for now.

I'm not on the ground, but I suspect they will have a strong decade. They seem to be in the beginning of their process.

In Atlanta, for instance, we've seen both Downtown and Midtown growing even faster this decade, from a higher base than Detroit.

Another thing promising is the growth in Midtown and New Center, specially as they still have several blocks still losing population.


Riverfront Towers are included in downtown census tract 5208, which jumps west over the lodge to capture them, along with the southeast corner of corktown.

Yes. I used three tracts, the freeway loop and the riverfront.

[MolsonExport]

Lower Manhattan & Financial District, New York

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51399109765_40368718cc_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2miXSBF)
Francisca Urenda

That's a city where "Downtown" is actually Downtown + Midtown, taking half of Manhattan. In New York, urbanity is in a whole different level, so comparisons with other cities are pointless. For the purpose of this thread, I used 16 census tracts south of Canal, Bowery and Catherine streets as Lower Manhattan. A very small area of 3.5 km² only.

I also, used an even stricter area, south of Chambers St. and Brooklyn Bridge, to represent the Financial District. It has 2.15 km² only and that's where virtually all population growth took place.

It was where we've seen one of those big movements of residents turning CBDs into residential areas. Not directly related to it, but the it became more pronounced soon after the 9/11.

Anyway, let's see the numbers:



------------------------------------ 2020 ------ 2010 ------ 2000 ------ 1990 -------- Growth -------- Density

Financial District ------------------ 60,806 ----- 45,750 ----- 22,719 ----- 14,357 --- 32.9% ---- 101.4% ----- 58.2% ------- 2.2 km² --- 28,177.0 inh./km²

Lower Manhattan ----------------- 88,744 ----- 71,847 ----- 46,581 ----- 35,316 --- 23.5% ----- 54.2% ----- 31.9% ------- 3.5 km² --- 25,384.4 inh./km²

Manhattan --------------------- 1,694,251 -- 1,585,873 -- 1,537,195 -- 1,487,536 ---- 6.8% ------ 3.2% ------ 3.3% ------ 58.7 km² --- 28,872.7 inh./km²

New York City ----------------- 8,804,190 -- 8,175,133 -- 8,008,278 -- 7,322,564 ---- 7.7% ------ 2.1% ------ 9.4% ----- 778.2 km² --- 11,313.5 inh./km²

New York Metro Area -------- 22,692,839 - 21,358,372 - 20,675,403 - 19,083,415 ---- 6.2% ------ 3.3% ------ 8.3% ---- 21.770 km² ---- 1,042.4 inh./km²



Financial District population grew 3x (!!!) since 2000 and it's now as dense as Manhattan as a whole. They pretty much have invented "Downtown living".

These numbers are insane in a great way. During my first trip to NYC in 1985, I was amazed at how the financial district almost completely emptied out at 6pm, with few people on the streets. A huge difference from my most recent trip to NYC in 2017, where there were people around at all hours.

[JManc]

These numbers are insane in a great way. During my first trip to NYC in 1985, I was amazed at how the financial district almost completely emptied out at 6pm, with few people on the streets. A huge difference from my most recent trip to NYC in 2017, where there were people around at all hours.

I first visited NYC around the same time (1986 as a kid) and lower Manhattan was a depressing ghost town after hours which is night and day different than it is today. Still, compared to Midtown, it is more subdued. It was also full of contrasts, extravagant wealth right around the World Trade Center area and bombed out buildings a couple blocks away.

[iheartthed]

Riverfront Towers are included in downtown census tract 5208, which jumps west over the lodge to capture them, along with the southeast corner of corktown.

I'd say Sixth Street is the true western boundary of downtown Detroit. I wouldn't consider anything west of it as "downtown", but everything east of it seems unequivocally "downtown" to me.

[Yuri]

These numbers are insane in a great way. During my first trip to NYC in 1985, I was amazed at how the financial district almost completely emptied out at 6pm, with few people on the streets. A huge difference from my most recent trip to NYC in 2017, where there were people around at all hours.

I imagine it's an amazing place to live. I envy people there. It's incredibly dense now, full of residents, but with all the charm of a traditional Financial District: narrow streets, big old buildings, unique layout.

Inside Downtown São Paulo, there are a small area that looks like that, with much shorter buildings of course. I hope some day it becomes residential as well, as other parts of Downtown. And down here, we really need that, as banks long moved away from the region to other financial districts southwestwards.

[iheartthed]

These numbers are insane in a great way. During my first trip to NYC in 1985, I was amazed at how the financial district almost completely emptied out at 6pm, with few people on the streets. A huge difference from my most recent trip to NYC in 2017, where there were people around at all hours.

There's definitely a lot more there now, but it still has the perception of being "boring". I don't get the appeal of it as a place to live unless you actually work in FiDi.

[Crawford]

Yeah, Lower Manhattan wouldn't be high on my list of Manhattan neighborhoods for living. It was never "bombed out", BTW. Ever. Even in NYC's worst years, it never had troubled areas.

One of the big reasons you see more traditional families down there is because a bunch of elite private schools opened. Leman Prep, Blue School, Pine Street School, etc. Also, the public schools are some of the best in the city.

[JManc]

Yeah, Lower Manhattan wouldn't be high on my list of Manhattan neighborhoods for living. It was never "bombed out", BTW. Ever. Even in NYC's worst years, it never had troubled areas.

One of the big reasons you see more traditional families down there is because a bunch of elite private schools opened. Leman Prep, Blue School, Pine Street School, etc. Also, the public schools are some of the best in the city.

It wasn't the south Bronx but I saw cars being stripped and buildings in the area were worse for wear.

[jmecklenborg]

Yeah, Lower Manhattan wouldn't be high on my list of Manhattan neighborhoods for living. It was never "bombed out", BTW. Ever. Even in NYC's worst years, it never had troubled areas.

One of the big reasons you see more traditional families down there is because a bunch of elite private schools opened. Leman Prep, Blue School, Pine Street School, etc. Also, the public schools are some of the best in the city.

A guy I went to college with got a job teaching woodworking on Wall St. to kids in one of those school's art programs. So every morning he was getting off the same subway trains as the hedge fund guys, but to make wooden toys with kids.

[Yuri]

There's definitely a lot more there now, but it still has the perception of being "boring". I don't get the appeal of it as a place to live unless you actually work in FiDi.

Imagine to live in a very tall 1920's skyscraper? How cool is that?

And I imagine there are tons of good bars and restaurants on the neighbouring districts. Are Greenwich Village, East Village still interesting or did they become to wealthy and bland?

[streetscaper]

Imagine to live in a very tall 1920's skyscraper? How cool is that?

And I imagine there are tons of good bars and restaurants on the neighbouring districts. Are Greenwich Village, East Village still interesting or did they become to wealthy and bland?

They're still very interesting... they're both places that New Yorkers from all over go for a night out.

(I wouldn't necessarily say they're 'neighboring' FiDi though, they're both at least 40min walk away... not too far, but not super close either)

[Chisouthside]

It wasn't the south Bronx but I saw cars being stripped and buildings in the area were worse for wear.
This, if you google "80s lower east side" theres literally pictures of buildings bombed out down there and from stories of bands that played at CBGBs and ventured into the LES theyve also described the bombed out buildings there.

[Crawford]

Imagine to live in a very tall 1920's skyscraper? How cool is that?

And I imagine there are tons of good bars and restaurants on the neighbouring districts. Are Greenwich Village, East Village still interesting or did they become to wealthy and bland?

Wealthy people living in Lower Manhattan (and that would be most homeowners there) would mostly be dining out/hanging out in Tribeca. Tribeca is pretty seamless with the Financial District, and has a ton of amenities. Lower Manhattan, not so much.

But Lower Manhattan offers better value, and has more private schools. Plus giant prewar skyscrapers that make interesting residential conversions. Tribeca is one of the most expensive areas in Manhattan, while Lower Manhattan is one of the most affordable parts of prime Manhattan.

Amenities are pretty decent now. There will soon be two extremely large, multilevel Whole Foods, there are rumors of a Stew Leonard's (a regional supermarket with gigantic stores) and there are a fair number of destination restaurants now, like Nobu.

[Crawford]

This, if you google "80s lower east side" theres literally pictures of buildings bombed out down there and from stories of bands that played at CBGBs and ventured into the LES theyve also described the bombed out buildings there.

Correct, but the LES isn't the Financial District. The formerly sketchy parts of the LES were maybe 1.5 miles from the Financial District. It isn't like someone on Wall Street in the 1970's was gonna randomly end up walking to Avenue D.

Those neighborhoods were always separated by the Civic Center, Chinatown, Little Italy, and the shrinking Jewish enclave in the LES.

[MolsonExport]

Alphabet city late 70s, early 80s
https://i.imgur.com/sD1aJAP.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/wQcvwxh.jpg
reddit

[iheartthed]

Imagine to live in a very tall 1920's skyscraper? How cool is that?

And I imagine there are tons of good bars and restaurants on the neighbouring districts. Are Greenwich Village, East Village still interesting or did they become to wealthy and bland?

FiDi is fairly expensive, and there are just too many better options if you're looking for proximity to bars and restaurants. If you cross the bridge and live in Brooklyn you'll have more options for bars and restaurants, while being roughly the same commute to amenities in Greenwich Village or the East Village. The East Village itself is probably cheaper than FiDi. The only real selling point of FiDi, IMO, is proximity to your office if you work in FiDi, or as Crawford pointed out, if you have children and are paying for an expensive private school in that area.

[MolsonExport]

from Taxi Driver:
https://media.villagepreservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/15123112/taxi-driver.jpg

[Crawford]

All that Alphabet City sketch was as close to Midtown as to Lower Manhattan. It was basically the far eastern stretch of the East Village from Houston to 14th.

When I moved to NYC in 2001, the sketch was gone. The only reminder of Alphabet City's bad old days is the unusually large number of "community gardens", which were established on the rubble of former tenements, and which have largely remained due to extreme NIMBYism. Once you walk east of Ave. B you start to see the gardens.

[JManc]

Correct, but the LES isn't the Financial District. The formerly sketchy parts of the LES were maybe 1.5 miles from the Financial District. It isn't like someone on Wall Street in the 1970's was gonna randomly end up walking to Avenue D.

Those neighborhoods were always separated by the Civic Center, Chinatown, Little Italy, and the shrinking Jewish enclave in the LES.

I'm not talking about LES, that's on the other side of Manhattan, but the areas immediately around the financial center which were typical of New York of the 80's (dumpy) and in stark contrast of the WTC/ WFC nearby..with the gross display of wealth. Today, it's night and day nicer all over.

[iheartthed]

Prior to the West Side Highway being torn down, I can believe there were abandoned and stripped cars around Battery Park City. I doubt it was common to see that east of the highway, though, unless it was up in Tribeca or something. But all of that would've been in the 1970s or 80s, so well before my time.

[jmecklenborg]

I visited Miramax's NYC office in 2000 (no, we did not meet Harvey Weinstein!) and Tribeca was mostly intact, physically, but by no means bustling or prestigious in the way it soon became.

[Yuri]

Downtown Cleveland

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51400543863_35173429a2_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2mj6dVv)
Oberlin College

As we've discussed Detroit, I thought it would be nice to bring Cleveland as they have many things in common, for instance, both cities are still declining albeit at a much slower place.


---------------------------- 2020 ------ 2010 ------ 2000 ------ 1990 ---- Growth ---- Density

Downtown ------------------- 13,338 ------ 9,471 ------ 6,312 ------ 4,561 ---- 40.8% ---- 50.0% --- 38.4% ----- 7.8 km² --- 1,705.6 inh./km²

Cleveland ------------------ 372,624 ---- 396,831 ---- 477,450 ---- 505,629 ---- -6,1% --- -16,9% --- -5,6% --- 201.3 km² --- 1,851.1 inh./km²

Cleveland Metro Area ---- 2,790,470 -- 2,780,440 -- 2,843,103 -- 2,759,823 ----- 0.4% ---- -2.2% ---- 3.0% --- 7,509 km²


I used three tracts for Downtown Cleveland, and pretty much all the 2010's growth took place in the one where Tower City is, near the river. It was the least populated in the 1990, with only 895 people in 1990, jumped to 1,944 in 2010 and 5,524 in 2020.

One important feature it's the size, rather big (almost 8 km²), including all the docks, railway yards and even an airport, resulting im a low density. Note, however, the growth started already in the 1990's and it's been consistent and very fast since then, specially considering the city is still shrinking.

We don't often talk about it, but it's clearly a success case.

[Yuri]

Downtown San Diego

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51401341265_a73cabe3ac_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2mjaiXP)


---------------------------- 2020 ------ 2010 ------ 2000 ------ 1990 ------ Growth ------ Density

Downtown --------------------- 39,538 ----- 27,918 ----- 15,482 ----- 12,771 ---- 41.6% ---- 80.3% --- 21.2% ----- 4.7 km² --- 8,457.3 inh./km²

San Diego MSA ----------- 3,298,634 -- 3,095,313 -- 2,813,833 -- 2,498,016 ----- 6.6% ---- 10.0% --- 12.6% -- 10,904 km²


That's one of the biggest suprises for me as I was putting the list. San Diego is so under the radar, and its Downtown even more. It's not only very dense now (8,500 inh./km²), but it's still growing at a very fast pace.

Another testimony of how US Downtowns boom is taking place everywhere, from the Rust Belt to the sunny California.

[SIGSEGV]

Wow, I wonder if the census happened at more or less the worst possible time for downtown Chicago? (from https://www.chicagobusiness.com/commercial-real-estate/downtown-chicago-apartment-market-breaking-records-again)

https://s3-prod.chicagobusiness.com/styles/width_792/s3/tofw20210824-new.jpg

[Pedestrian]

San Francisco population changes:

The city
https://uniim1.shutterfly.com/render/00-TYccnrXbLVwyQ9qLIK1hL6ErtTmAV7GMDDBeRX4aMBcs_nWdqqE2KKfqWgygjLyWUnDnu4gHHWpfyYq5WwzmNg?cn=THISLIFE&res=medium&ts=1629842355
Google Earth

Downtown
https://uniim1.shutterfly.com/ng/services/mediarender/THISLIFE/001023489329/media/1709013687042430/large/1629842506/enhance
Google Earth

Population changes
https://uniim1.shutterfly.com/render/00-TYccnrXbLVwyQ9qLIK1hL6ErtTmAV7GMDDBeRX4aMBfWsYmpeLkmnhnfuwxM_ohUKwg5ydwHipy3aIZBf9dNYQ?cn=THISLIFE&res=medium&ts=1629841929
https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2021/census-sf-population/

[Steely Dan]

Wow, I wonder if the census happened at more or less the worst possible time for downtown Chicago?

i'd guess it was likely a bad time to count people in major US city downtowns across the nation, what with the whole universe of bullshit that was the utterly crap-tacular year of 2020.

[Yuri]

San Francisco population changes:

I have San Francisco done. Massive work as census tracts don't match perfectly with neighbourhoods and there are some overlaps (North Beach/Telegraph Hill).

I put together Financial District and Embarcadero as it was impossible to split them, Chinatown, North Beach, Russian Hill, Nob Hill, Tenderloin, Civic Center, Rincon Hill/South Beach and South of Market.

Pretty much the entire northeast quarter of the city. And I called "Downtown" everything minus North Beach and Russian Hill.