I'm looking forward to San Francisco, especially if it's the highest density for any downtown you're tracking.

ChiSox, I'll leave this superb work tracking densities for you. :)

I don't want to open this can of worms trying to come up with a coherent definition for completely different metro areas.

I was just curious about how was the Financial District really. But then, a census tract doesn't match exactly, a bit of Chinatown here, some parts out together with the Embarcadero, and one thing led to another, and when I saw I was at Wikipedia reading articles after articles on SF districts and adding them up to my table.

My approach on San Francisco is similar to New York or Chicago: cities that have a great urban fabric for ages, and the story here is how their tiny Financial Districts suddenly became residential, and as such, they have their place in ths thread.

But anyway, the highest density goes to Tenderloin. Census tracts matched rather good there and we have 29,638 people living in 0.697 km² for an astounding density of 42,500 inh./km² (multiply for 2.59 for miles).

And then Chinatown boxed up between Financial District, Telegraph Hill, Russian Hill and Nob Hill. Census tracts didn't match perfectly, but it works: 10,821 people, 0.299 km², 26,200 inh./km².

I'll make the San Francisco post soon.

Downtown Denver

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...fcc2548d_z.jpg


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

Downtown ---------------------- 15,198 ------- 7,998 ------ 4,181 ------ 2,795 ---- 90.0% ---- 91.3% --- 49.6% ------- 2.3 km² --- 6,736.7 inh./km²

Central Denver ----------------- 74,256 ----- 49,710 ----- 38,836 ----- 33,612 ---- 49.4% ---- 28.0% --- 15.5% ------ 15.4 km² --- 4,872.1 inh./km²

Denver CSA ---------------- 3,623,560 -- 3,090,874 -- 2,610,343 -- 2,008,684 ---- 17.2% ---- 18.4% --- 30.0% -- 33,815 km²


Not so much here in SSP, but one of the most hyped cities around. I worked with two definitions here, one more strict (Union Station + CBD), that serves better the purpose of this thread, and a broader one (CBD, Union Station, Auraria, Lincoln Park, Civic Center, Capitol Hill, North Capitol Hill and Five Points. As census tracts match perfectly with the official neighbourhoods, we have pretty exact figures.

Downtown (CBD + Union) is growing at insane rates, following the national trend. I imagine there are lots of infill going on, maybe parking lots turned into highrises, etc.

For the broader area, we have some traditional residential districts (Capitol Hill, N. Capital Hill) where density was already high from the beginning, so growth doesn't seem that spectacular. On the other hand, Five Points (according to Google and Wikipedia it's "the coolest district"), growth is like fire, specially on the census tract where the railyards are. This one had 8 (!!!) people in 1990, 140 in 2000, 1,257 in 2010 and 5,167 in 2020.

I said I'd avoid to make comparisons, but it caught my attention how this broader definition for Central Denver have so many similarities with Downtown Los Angeles (regarding numbers only). They have the same size, pretty much the same population in 2000, 2010 and 2020 and the same growth rates. Obviously, on the ground, things are completely different as they have distinct weight and function inside their metro areas.

Wise move as it is a can of worms. ;)

To save you some time and effort, the corresponding figures for Toronto's financial district are a little meaningless. It was strictly an office zone up till very recently. The Financial District is Census Tract 0014.00 and 0.47 sq km.

Around 15 years ago, a decision was made to create a permanent residential population in the financial district. By 2011 there were 644 people living there which roughly equates to 1 large residential building. By the 2016 Census, the number had reached 1,242 or roughly 2 large residential buildings. There really aren't many places one can put a big condo tower as its pretty much all built out. I suspect the number has risen to about 2,000 today though.

The only residential I can think of are the following: St. Regis (formerly Trump), 1 King West, Shangri-La, INDX, Empire Plaza Apartments, and some random residential building east of Roy Thompson Hall. So it's really just a few buildings.

An argument in favor of Chicago over San Francisco re. relative urban density - Chicago's densest tracts are (arguably) its best neighborhoods; SF's densest tracts are (arguably) its worst neighborhoods. This means the attributes urbanists most value are more evident in Chicago's top tracts. Tenderloin and Gold Coast are quite distinct.

What would it be this tract? I checked on Google Maps 3D and I noticed a very clear square formed by University, Front, Yonge and Queen streets. Is that the case?

Toronto, as a very big North American city, is a relatively recent phenomenon, so it's only natural its traditional Financial District to be smaller than New York or Chicago, and that's why it looks smallish.

San Francisco's is quite tiny as well (0.75 km²), although much denser than Toronto's. It only got bigger because I added two tracts of Embarcadero and one immediately south of Market St., totalling 2.2 km². And the bulk of growth took place in those extra tracts where it seems there are plenty of new buildings.


For what I learned on my research, Nob Hill is wealthy and very dense.

Downtown Boston

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...4225058e6d.jpg
Landslides Aerial Photographies


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

Downtown -------------------- 47,825 ----- 39,046 ----- 33,151 ----- 28,800 ---- 22.5% ---- 17.8% ---- 15.1% ------- 3.9 km² -- 12,332.4 inh./km²

Boston* --------------------- 997,384 ---- 902,871 ---- 868,758 ---- 835,597 ---- 10.5% ----- 3.9% ----- 4.0% ----- 178.1 km² --- 5,598.9 inh./km²

Boston** ------------------ 4,496,567 -- 4,134,036 -- 4,001,752 -- 3,783,817 ----- 8.8% ----- 3.3% ----- 5.8% --- 6,277 km²

Boston*** ----------------- 6,095,791 -- 5,628,532 -- 5,410,915 -- 5,075,440 ----- 8.3% ----- 4.0% ----- 6.6% -- 14,621 km²

* Suffolk County, Cambridge and Sommerville
** The five core counties
*** The five counties plus Worcester, Hillsborough and Rockingham counties


Another Downtown that doesn't get lots of attention here in SSP, but I guess everybody is aware that it's a very healthy (and wealthy) area.

High density (12,300 inh./km²) from the very beginning, but that hasn't stopped growth, reaching 22.5% last decade.

About Downtown definition, it's that peninsula, formed by 18 census tracts, including not only the Financial District, but traditional neighbourhoods as well (Beacon Hill and North End).

And Boston itself is one of the stars of this Census, with its metro area growing above national average (I haven't checked, but it might be the first time since 19th century) and faster than it grew on the previous intercensus comparison.

The Chronicle took a look at it somewhat the same way:

https://uniim1.shutterfly.com/ng/ser...858225/enhance
https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects...sf-population/

Much more comparable to Cicago's Gold Coast is the recently carved out and named "East Cut":

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/31/r...kes-a-bow.html

https://uniim1.shutterfly.com/ng/ser...859130/enhance
Google Earth

Since this area is almost all high rises, it should be quite dense but I really don't know how dense. Maybe yuriandrade can tell us.

Those boundaries for Census Tract 0014.00 are pretty much correct. Online gives the boundaries you mentioned while Statistics Canada uses Simcoe instead of University. It's literally a square only 50m wider.

You're right that Toronto as a big North American city is relatively recent but Toronto has always had a big financial services sector. It's grown but from a substantially large base: those black bank towers in the photo were built in the 1960s. The sector moved from 5th biggest in North America to 2nd biggest after NYC. The footprint is tiny because it's incredibly tightly packed. Every usable lot has a tower on it. Due to those constraints, the financial services sector has had to expand beyond its historic borders. You're not going to see much residential growth in Census Tract 0014.00 because there's nowhere to put a tower.

In the photo that road on the right in front of the Royal York Hotel is Front Street (southern boundary), the bank tower with the green logo on the spire is Yonge Street (eastern boundary), between City Hall and the Sheraton Centre is Queen Street (northern boundary), and you can see Front Street curve north and become University Avenue (western boundary). Practically every building is a bank, insurance company, or other financial services firm. The photo shows that it's completely built out. The only way to add residential is to knock a sizeable office building down.

If you wanted to add tracts to gauge residential growth for people looking to move to the financial services core I'd add tracts directly east, west, and south of Census Tract 0014.00 but exclude the one to the north of it. To the north is City Hall, government buildings, a big shopping mall, and a hospital helicopter flight path that limits how tall one can go. There's not alot of residential being built directly north of the financial district for these reasons. There's lots being built in the other 3 directions.


Financial District: Census Tract 0014.00

https://cdn.skyrisecities.com/sites/...0281-69153.jpg
https://skyrisecities.com/news/2016/...iness-district


The space constrained Financial District has expanded south of Front Street to this area in the 2nd photo below. That new tower with the diamond shaped facade is CIBC, Canada's #5 bank. Royal Bank and Sun Life just built new towers here too. This area (Census Tract 0013.01 and Census Tract 0013.02) has seen its residential population explode. It was all vacant land just 15 years ago. The area to the east and west of the old Financial District have seen huge spikes in residential too. There's some office as well but I think its tech. To get your bearings, the building on the extreme right in both photos is the same building.


Financial District has expanded south to this area

https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/attach...9-jpeg.341413/
https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/thread...e.674/page-457


Population: Census Tract 0014.00 (0.47 sq km)
2006: 550
2011: 644
2016: 1,242

Population: Census Tract 0013.01 (0.34 sq km)
2006: zero
2011: 4,739
2016: 6,290

Population: Census Tract 0013.02 (0.42 sq km)
2006: zero
2011: 5,862
2016: 8,126

These 3 tracts had 15,658 people in 2016 or 12,730 inhabitant per sq km. Mind you, alot of the condos in the photo above were built in 2016 or later so won't show up in these numbers. That said, I can't see these tracts ever going much beyond 30,000 inhabitants per sq km. Census Tract 0014.00 has no space to build anything, rail infrastructure makes up almost half of Census Tract 0013.01 while boardwalk and parks make up about half of Census Tract 0013.02.

https://www.citypopulation.de/en/can...1__ct_0013_01/
https://www.citypopulation.de/en/can...2__ct_0013_02/
https://www.citypopulation.de/en/can...toronto/admin/

Most of the high rises in the gold coast chicago are older, I think the eastcut is more similar to Streeterville in Chicago as both have alot of shiny newer skyrises.

Could you expand the limits of Center City to include everything from Girard to Tasker (with the same E/W borders)? Philadelphia City Hall defines this as “Greater Center City,” and in 2018 estimated it to be more dense than Chicago (or for that matter, anywhere outside of Manhattan). It had ~174K residents in 2010.

I went only to Van Ness Avenue, and they went further, Fillmore maybe?. And for Downtown, I excluded Russian Hill and North Beach, keep the districts neighbouring the Financial District.


My "Financial District" took the traditional Triangle, most of Embarcadero and this rectangle immediatelly south of Market St. where Salesforce Tower and all new buildings are being built.

I promise I'll include San Francisco in today's evening updates. :)

We have the same pattern in San Francisco, south of Market Street, where the new towers are up, and even in Chicago. They still have room for conversions on the Loop and the southern portions of Near North Side, but plenty of those condos are popping up on the borders, near rail yards, the lake, the river, etc.


I'll try to put it together later. Center City, the way it is, had almost 30 census tracts to sum up. It's very time consuming.

I prefer to take one of those Downtowns on Sunbelt, with only one or two tracts. Make my life easier. :)

Downtown San Francisco

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...ba955977_z.jpg



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

Financial District/Embarcadero ---- 10,991 ------ 8,512 ------ 6,369 ----- 11,734 ---- 29.1% ---- 33.6% -- -45.7% ------- 2.2 km² --- 5,030.2 inh./km²

Downtown San Francisco --------- 134,974 ---- 110,719 ----- 97,737 ----- 88,944 ---- 21.9% ---- 13.3% ---- 9.9% ------- 8.0 km² -- 16,886.5 inh./km²

Downtown Oakland ---------------- 21,616 ----- 18,547 ----- 13,652 ----- 11,357 ---- 16.5% ---- 35.9% --- 20.2% ------- 3.6 km² --- 6,044.7 inh./km²

Downtown San Jose --------------- 14,589 ----- 10,656 ----- 10,145 ------ 9,249 ---- 36.9% ----- 5.0% ---- 9.7% ------- 5.7 km² --- 2,549.2 inh./km²

San Francisco --------------------- 873,965 ---- 805,235 ---- 776,733 ---- 723,959 ----- 8.5% ----- 3.7% ---- 7.3% ----- 121.5 km² --- 7,193.1 inh./km²

Oakland-Alam-Pied-Emer --------- 543,101 ---- 485,387 ---- 489,509 ---- 462,473 ---- 11.9% ---- -0.8% ---- 5.8% ----- 179.7 km² --- 3,022.3 inh./km²

San Francisco Metro Area ----- 8,036,501 -- 7,413,121 -- 7,039,362 -- 6,253,311 ----- 8.4% ----- 5.3% --- 12.6% -- 19,943 km²


As we've discussed the last few pages, here we have San Francisco. The strict definition, matches almost perfectly with the skyscrapers zone on the Pedestrian's post above. Density is relatively low because there are plenty of office towers in this area while the bulk of the growth is happening south of Market Street, around Salesforce Tower up to the docks.

Downtown San Francisco, the broader definition, also encompasses Chinatown, Nob Hill, Tenderloin, Civic Center, Rincon Hill/South Beach and South of Market. Very dense and populated area, comparable to Chicago's Loop + Near North Side, posted on Page 2.

And as a bonus, Downtowns of Oakland and San Jose. Their performance, compared to the boom everywhere and the very strong performance of the metro area, it's relatively underwhelming.

^ Thanks for putting this together! Looks like SF is still solidly holding on to a very distant 2nd place (behind only NYC).

In terms of just California cities, it's also interesting to see that DTSD and DT Oakland, as well as SF as a whole are more dense than DTLA.

Underwhelming maybe, but remember we're talking history here.

A building fully occupied on 4/1/20 was probably completed by mid-2019, and broke ground in 2017 or in some cases 2016.

On SSP we watch groundbreakings and sometimes get ahead of ourselves in our expectations. Or at least I do.

I posted Downtown San Diego on Page 5. One of the biggest surprises to me.


Yes, but comparing to other Downtowns I posted, I expected more of them, specially Oakland, which is more urban and taking full advantage of San Francisco's booming economy.

Would be interesting to see the numbers for Downtown Brooklyn or Downtown Jersey City

That is interesting. It looks like the densest part of SF grew the fastest.

Somewhat reminiscent of the incredible growth of NYC.

Probably due to that bit industrial area in la where nobody lives.
For now anyway.
At some point it will be bulldozed

On the ground though, it obviously isn't...

The fact that yuriandrade defines DTLA as being nearly twice the area of downtown SF reveals the problem here (reality on the ground - downtown SF feels like it covers a significantly larger area). The freeway loop only serves as a convenient border for DTLA and it should be used cautiously for any comparisons or detailed analysis of populations. It's a huge area. How many other downtown definitions include a 1.4 square mile census tract with 2,591 people in it? The east bank of the river + everything south of 4th st and east of Los Angeles st (more than half the area of the freeway loop) is an industrial district where very few people live.

That's a good point. DTLA is very expansive, and it seems like out of the downtowns that have been calculated so far, it has the largest area included.

What do the numbers look like if you subtract that area?

Downtown Houston

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...85d531db_z.jpg


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

Downtown --------------------- 17,138 ----- 14,342 ----- 11,882 ------ 7,029 ---- 19.5% ---- 20.7% --- 69.0% ------- 4.5 km² --- 3,834.9 inh./km²

Midtown ------------------------ 10,820 ------ 7,441 ------ 4,710 ------ 2,761 ---- 45.4% ---- 58.0% --- 70.6% ------- 2.8 km² --- 3,861.5 inh./km²

Houston MSA --------------- 7,122,240 -- 5,920,416 -- 4,693,161 -- 3,750,883 ---- 20.3% ---- 26.1% --- 25.1% -- 21,416 km²


Downtown Houston is the freeway loop and the 3 census tracts match perfectly with the definition.

Each one of them tells a completely different story: one is the norwestern corner, where all the tall buildings are; the other embraced the first, in an L shape, where all the parking lots are; and the third is the bit northern of the river. Apparently they've built an university campus there and population went from zero in 1990 to 8,200 now, but it actually decreased this decade, making Downtown numbers not looking that spectacular. In fact, it's actually lower than the Houston MSA, making one of the very few in the list to grow slower than its metro area.

About Midtown, located immediately south of Downtown, it's the typical central neighbourhood that's taking advantage from Downtown's boom. I brought its numbers just to register.

Again, thanks for putting together the data, yuriandrade. I took the liberty of compiling your data into a list, sorted by most dense to least.

City ---- 2020 ---- 2010 ---- 2000 ---- 1990 ---- Area ---- Density

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

San Francisco ---- 134,974 ---- 110,719 ---- 97,737 ---- 88,944 ---- 21.9% ---- 13.3% ---- 9.9% ---- 8.0 km² ---- 16,886.5 inh./km²

Chicago Near North Side ---- 105,481 ---- 80,484 ---- 72,811 ---- 62,842 ----- 31.1% ----- 10.5% ----- 15.9% ---- 6.8 km² ---- 15,500 inh./km²

Miami ---- 58,439 ---- 31,697 ---- 12,885 ---- 9,218 ---- 84.4% ---- 146.0% ---- 39.8% ---- 4.34 km² ---- 13,500 inh./km²

Boston ---- 47,825 ---- 39,046 ---- 33,151 ---- 28,800 ---- 22.5% ---- 17.8% ---- 15.1% ---- 3.9 km² ---- 12,332.4 inh./km²

Chicago Loop ---- 42,298 ---- 29,283 ---- 16,388 ---- 11,954 ---- 44.4% ---- 78.7% ---- 37.1% ---- 2.9 km² ---- 10,800 inh./km²

Philadelphia ---- 91,510 ---- 68,836 ---- 57,552 ---- 51,302 ---- 32.9% ---- 19.6% ---- 12.2% ---- 8.92 km² ---- 10,300 inh./km².

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

Denver ---- 15,198 ---- 7,998 ---- 4,181 ---- 2,795 ---- 90.0% ---- 91.3% ---- 49.6% ---- 2.3 km² ---- 6,736.7 inh./km²

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

Oakland ---- 21,616 ---- 18,547 ---- 13,652 ---- 11,357 ---- 16.5% ---- 35.9% ---- 20.2% ---- 3.6 km² ---- 6,044.7 inh./km²

Los Angeles ---- 74,349 ---- 52,538 ---- 40,836 ---- 32,786 ---- 41.5% ---- 28.7% ---- 24.5% ---- 14.86 km² ---- 5,003 inh./km²

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

Houston Midtown ---- 10,820 ----- 7,441 ---- 4,710 ---- 2,761 ---- 45.4% ---- 58.0% ---- 70.6% ---- 2.8 km² ---- 3,861.5 inh./km²

Houston Downtown ---- 17,138 ----- 14,342 ----- 11,882 ------ 7,029 ---- 19.5% ---- 20.7% --- 69.0% ---- 4.5 km² ---- 3,834.9 inh./km²

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

San Jose ---- 14,589 ---- 10,656 ---- 10,145 ---- 9,249 ---- 36.9% ---- 5.0% ---- 9.7% ---- 5.7 km² ---- 2,549.2 inh./km²

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

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

My first take on Downtown LA, would exclude 5 tracts, the three north of the highway, including the Union Station and the 2 big ones between Alameda St. and the river. Downtown would end on the freeways on its three sides and at Alameda St. at east.

In this case, we would have 56,000 people living in 8.7 km². We should keep in mind, however, population growth is very strong in those 5 tracts, except the one where Union Station is.



I liked the ranking! :)

Even though most of them are not comparable, they are the most important subdivisions of their cities and it's nice to have this picture of them.

Population would shrink slightly, density would be about double - still about a third less dense than downtown SF, but denser than downtown Oakland and SD.

I just finished all downtowns for every metro area above 900,000 inh. I guess it's more than 60, plus some central neighbourhoods or the multiple downtowns (Bay Area, Twin Cities, DFW). Only two exceptions: Tucson, where census tracts shape didn't allow to have a sensible border for its Downtown and Honolulu, because it's too many tracts and I got lazy.

It's now just a matter of select the pictures, organize the notepad and write my considerations about each of them.

Not that slightly. By a good 18,000 people. But indeed, would be about half the size.

Thanks for looking into this. So if it were to be amended, the new density calculation would be 6,436 inh./km².

Downtown Baltimore

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...966e1d88_z.jpg



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

Downtown --------------------- 24,228 ----- 18,766 ----- 16,207 ----- 14,210 ---- 29.1% ---- 15.8% --- 14.1% ------- 4.1 km² --- 5,913.6 inh./km²

Baltimore --------------------- 585,708 ---- 620,961 ---- 651,154 ---- 736,016 ---- -5.7% ---- -4.6% -- -11.5% ----- 209.6 km² --- 2,794.4 inh./km²

Baltimore Metro Area ------ 2,794,636 -- 2,662,691 -- 2,512,431 -- 2,348,221 ----- 5.0% ----- 6.0% ---- 7.0% --- 6,045 km²


At first, Downtown Baltimore growth might seem underwhelming. But when we look the already high density and how populated it is compared to even bigger cities, it's doing quite well. Moreover, Baltimore, unlikely most of cities this decade, is still losing population.

It depends on how you slice it. I got these 19 census tracts at a population of 52,691 in 2.3 square miles for a density of 22909 ppsm or 8845 per sq km.

2074 - 2002
2075.01 - 2489
2075.02 - 4113
2077.11 - 2280
2077.12 - 4737
2240.10 - 3621

2079.01 - 3645
2079.02 - 7405
2073.03 - 2311
2073.04 - 2124
2073.05 - 1181
2073.06 - 2227
2073.07 - 1160
2073.08 - 1407

2062.01 - 2647
2062.02 - 3035
2063.01 - 2074
2063.02 - 1375
2063.03 - 2858

It's basically everything inside the freeway loop, west of Alameda, minus the Fashion District. It's not perfect. You can add tracts in Chinatown or City West for better numbers, or add the Arts District or Fashion District for lower density. I'm not sure you can get a good border just using census tracts, but it's better than just using the freeway loop.

https://i.postimg.cc/YCKXDCDr/dtla-c.png

Comparisons between cities are indeed very complicated. Context is everything.

But if we're looking at higher densities, we could put Westlake together, limited on three sides by the freeways and west by Hoover St. It would add tons of people, density, but growth rates wouldn't be that impressive. It's a bit like Nob Hill-Tenderloin bordering San Francisco's Financial District or Chicago's Near North Side bordering the Loop.

Population by itself probably is not good measure of growth of downtown,. population + jobs would provide a more complete picture.

With improved communication technologies, many office jobs were shifted to the suburbs atarting the 90s, and you can see during the pandemic many people able to work from home as well.

Many suburbs try to build their own downtown, and attracting high density residential development is no problem. It's attracting office development that's usually fails and the lack of offices that prevents these places from becoming true downtowns.

In the US, offices were moving heavily to the suburbs in the 60s and 70s.

It wasn't primarily about improved communication. It was primarily the idea that the suburban campus was a nicer place to work and lacked distractions.

In the desirable cores with decent transit, the shift back to urban office locations was in play by the tech boom around 1999, in part because the wants of 20-something grads became critical and the idea of innovation through mixing with others came to the forefront.

Residential population is hugely important. So are workers. If you want to carry that through, also include hotel guests, shoppers, students, and so on. They're all part of the stew. And they all have different profiles about when they're around, what they buy, and so on, so a diverse mix is essential.

My understanding is that downtown LA isn't really a downtown in a traditional sense. It's more of like a financial district.

Of course, everything that I post about LA on this forum seems to be misguided, so please take this with a grain of salt.

Seems about right.... Central Houston has more in common with Detriot than its sun belt peers. It's cut apart by freeways and a massive economic downturn in the 80s bombed out the core. There's still significant heavy industry nearby to the east and lots of freight traffic that further dissects the neighborhoods.

You can see a similar effect with the FiDi in SF, where the residential density is much lower than the totality of the downtown area. My understanding of DTLA is that, like SF there is a FiDi area around Bunker Hill where there is less residential, and a more historic, dense, gritty residential area around Broadway, a la the Tenderloin/Chinatown, and a new rapidly growing area of luxury high rises in South Park a la SoMA/East Cut, and less dense industrial areas that are also becoming more residential in the Arts District a la rest outer SoMA.

Many SunBelt cities have in fact more in common with Detroit in this regard. I intend to post Dallas and Fort Worth soon, and it's not that different from Houston, at least regarding numbers. Atlanta is the outlier here, but even for them is a more recent phenomenon.

But Houston, if we ignored the parts of Loop north of CBD, where the university campus is, they have grown quite decently. I imagine they're replacing the (in)famous parking lots with highrises.

I'd say that's quite a good comparison. And a fully rehabbed/redeveloped Historic Core would rival or exceed the Tenderloin's density peaks, I think. The scale of the Historic Core is impressive: https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0449...7i16384!8i8192

And while the Arts District is definitely seeing a ton of investment, it's considerably behind SoMA in its redevelopment arc. There is still a ton of wholesale retail and industrial space, both used and vacant, that will most likely be redeveloped in coming years. Large swaths of this, just begging for higher and better use:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0362...7i16384!8i8192

I calculated Tenderloin as part of Downtown San Francisco. It's 29,638 people living in 0.697 km² for a 42,500 inh./km² density (multiply for 2.59 for miles). That's comparable to the densest Paris arrondissements. It's very hard to reproduce elsewhere.

But it's beautiful this region. Lots of potential.

I got curious: I used 6 census tracts for Los Angeles Historic Core and it's a just a bit larger than the boundaries Google Maps came with:

-- 2020 --- 2010 --- Growth --- Area ----- Density
10,410 --- 8,312 --- 25.2% --- 0.686 km² --- 15,175 inh./km²

Coincidentally, exactly the same size of Tenderloin. Population and density three times lower.

Growth rate lower than Downtown LA as a whole (41% vs 25%), but it's quite a nice pace for an already dense area.

Which is why I said "Central Houston". Central DFW is more intact than Houston's, all sun belt cities have the freeways cutting through them but most don't have the heavy industrial use so close. You didn't include the areas North or East of downtown which is what separates ATL, Miami, PHX, DFW from Houston, at least in my opinion.

Interesting results. I would've expected the density of the Historic Core to be a little bit closer if not on par with the Tenderloin. The scale of the buildings are quite massive as edale pointed out. The TL is generally comprised of smaller footprinted buildings in the 3-7 story range, with a few taller 10+ story buildings sprinkled in between.

https://goo.gl/maps/4kmeJ5p47stKFGzo8

There are still a number of vacant or mostly vacant buildings in the Historic Core. A good amount of surface parking lots, too: https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0416...7i16384!8i8192

Plenty of room to grow.

I don't understand the comparisons between Tenderloin and downtown LA's historic core.

The Tenderloin is a longstanding, super-poor neighborhood of packed-in SROs (essentially welfare hotels). It hasn't gentrified, and won't gentrify, by design. SF Chinatown is similar (if without the drug/homeless/yuck issues).

LA's historic core is a traditional working class shopping district now being gentrified. They aren't particularly similar, even if the buildings have some resemblance. In LA, gentrification probably brings expensive loft apartments and hipsters, while Tenderloin is govt.-run housing for addicts, mostly.

Of course LA has Skid Row, which is sorta downtown core, and which has similarities to Tenderloin, but I don't think this is what we're talking about. Isn't LA's Skid Row mostly tent cities, and lowrise structures, not really wall-to-wall midrise SROs like Tenderloin?

Great data, but there's no way Miami's Downtown is more dense than Chicago, Boston, and Philly's. Seems like a case of conveniently drawn boundaries.

The comparison comes from the Tenderloin and Historic Core being high density residential areas adjacent to their cities financial districts.

Many of the buildings in the HC were formerly SRO hotels, which I believe there were also quite a few of in the Tenderloin. There is still quite a bit of low-income housing mixed into the HC. Buildings like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0482...7i16384!8i8192
and this https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0488...7i16384!8i8192

Skid Row does have a considerable amount of permanent supportive housing and other homeless housing beyond the street tents. It's not wall-to-wall housing like the Tenderloin, but there is still a significant amount of housing there. The Historic Core is probably LA's best shot at achieving super high density ala the Tenderloin and Chinatown in SF. When you add Skid Row in with the HC, the similar high homeless populations furthers the comparison between the two.

Downtown Kansas City

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...40e29cde_z.jpg


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

Downtown ---------------------- 9,743 ------ 5,089 ------ 3,755 ------ 3,856 ---- 91.5% ---- 35.5% --- -2.6% ------- 2.3 km² --- 4,275.1 inh./km²

Kansas City Metro Area ---- 2,136,403 -- 1,952,470 -- 1,757,083 -- 1,568,274 ----- 9.4% ---- 11.1% --- 12.0% -- 12,899 km²


Downtown Kansas City is all inside the freeway loop and the 4 census tracts match it exactly. Explosive growth and the adjacent neighbourhoods are also growing.

It's a perfect example on how even metro areas that people hardly associated with urban life, are also attracting tons of people to their downtowns.

question - is 20k living downtown still the modern rule of thumb for supporting decent retail downtown these days? like, i dk, a city target, dept. store or shopping area kind of thing.

i remember the 20k goal was the thinking for a fully activated downtown in the oughties.

thx for your thoughts.

Correct, however there is a lot of sro / mid rise supportive housing being built in skid row now. Dozens of buildings under construction, recently completed or proposed in the 5 to 20 story range