Downtowns are back

[Derek]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

If we google "Downtown Portland". The vast majority of entries show pretty much the same definition I used here. Not sure what's "misleading" about it. From Wikipedia:

"The downtown neighborhood extends west from the Willamette to Interstate 405 and south from Burnside Street to just south of the Portland State University campus (also bounded by I-405)"

Because that’s a super small area that’s nearly entirely commercial, as opposed to some of the broader definitions of other city’s downtown areas. Semantics, really. As the other poster said, if you included The Pearl and Goose Hollow areas, which in most cities would probably be considered part of “downtown”, the numbers would increase dramatically.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Derek

Because that’s a super small area that’s nearly entirely commercial, as opposed to some of the broader definitions of other city’s downtown areas. Semantics, really. As the other poster said, if you included The Pearl and Goose Hollow areas, which in most cities would probably be considered part of “downtown”, the numbers would increase dramatically.

We can talk about other neighbourhoods too, but this thread is focused on Downtowns.

About the size, New Orleans that I just posted above, is only slightly larger (2.6 km² vs 2.1 km²). Or Pittsburgh posted few pages back with only 1.4 km², Kansas City (2.3 km²), Denver (2.3 km²), Tampa (1.9 km²).

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

If I had to guess, airbnb.

I wonder how is like to live there. It's definitely not an ordinary place to live in.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

If we google "Downtown Portland". The vast majority of entries show pretty much the same definition I used here. Not sure what's "misleading" about it. From Wikipedia:

"The downtown neighborhood extends west from the Willamette to Interstate 405 and south from Burnside Street to just south of the Portland State University campus (also bounded by I-405)"

That's an ok definition. But there's a ton of variation between cities in this thread.

Cleveland getting 7.8 sk and Portland getting 2.1 sk?

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by mhays

That's an ok definition. But there's a ton of variation between cities in this thread.

Cleveland getting 7.8 sk and Portland getting 2.1 sk?

Each city/community define their Downtowns according to their realities and they're definitely not worried about on how another city thousands of kms away will do it.

Specifically about Cleveland, it actually takes less census tracts than Portland. It's only 3 whether Portland's comprises 5. Their domestic airport and their massive docks are all contained there.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by mhays

DT. Portland has boomed if you include the Pearl District, and to a lesser extent Goose Hollow. Some would add the South Waterfront which is basically new.

Yeah I would definitely add the Pearl District. There's no reason it shouldn't be included as part of downtown for the purposes of this thread. ​It would add 11019 people in 0.4 square miles, almost doubling the downtown population.

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

If we google "Downtown Portland". The vast majority of entries show pretty much the same definition I used here. Not sure what's "misleading" about it.

It's a bit misleading to say "Downtown Portland hasn't followed the national trend, posting a rather modest growth and slower than its own metro area." That statement is intuitively wrong to anyone familiar with Portland. It's actually been a trendsetter for smaller urbanizing cities.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Derek

Agreed, not sure what’s officially considered “downtown” for the purposes of this thread, but the “downtown” Portland numbers are very misleading.

Right, Portland definitely has a ton of new residential construction. The Pearl District and whatever they call that highrise corridor along the river south of downtown are pretty impressive.

This exercise, while fun and somewhat illustrative of trends, is hardly definitive. There's no definition of city centers, and census tracts aren't apples-apples.

Also, I'm not even sure that a high population growth is necessarily a sign of prosperity. The most high-value downtown office cores, places like Midtown Manhattan and Downtown DC, had limited population growth. This is because the highest and best use of land is for commercial uses. If the highest and best use shifted to residential, and former trophy office space were converted to apartments, that would arguably be a sign of relative weakness, not strength.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Also, I'm not even sure that a high population growth is necessarily a sign of prosperity. The most high-value downtown office cores, places like Midtown Manhattan and Downtown DC, had limited population growth. This is because the highest and best use of land is for commercial uses. If the highest and best use shifted to residential, and former trophy office space were converted to apartments, that would arguably be a sign of relative weakness, not strength.

Typically it's older office buildings converted to residential (like my building!), where the alternative is knocking them down and building a new building (but often that's uneconomical due to lot size).

[Quixote]

Everything (or just about) on the table (under construction, approved, proposed):


SSP/DoctorBoffin

3X-large:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...56f38eb_3k.jpg


That's the view from the 110 at MLK Blvd., so the foreground isn't DTLA. The cluster of brown high-rises to the far right are a project along Mesquit (between 6th and 7th) in the Arts District. The taller set of skyscrapers to its left are part of a project proposed for 6th/Alameda.

Like I said, a lot of room for a lot more than 200K.

[Ant131531]

I'm surprised the French Quarter lost population. I wonder why?

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Ant131531

I'm surprised the French Quarter lost population. I wonder why?

If I had to guess, airbnb.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

If I had to guess, airbnb.

New Orleans banned non owner occupied Airbnb's for most of the city.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by JManc

New Orleans banned non owner occupied Airbnb's for most of the city.

Hmm, and indeed now Airbnb is illegal in the French Quarter. Though units still seem to exist, such as https://www.airbnb.com/rooms/4852101...sts=1&adults=1

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Ant131531

I'm surprised the French Quarter lost population. I wonder why?

Why would one expect the French Quarter gain population? Landmarked areas with no new construction, and high housing values, tend to have declining population, due to decreasing household sizes and increasing frequency of non-primary homes, and transient accommodations. Places like Venice and Florence take this to extremes.

[Crawford]

Most short term rentals are effectively illegal in NYC. Doesn't mean NYC doesn't have a huge market for such services. I suspect NOLA is similar.

I believe NYC is the largest or second largest AirBnB market worldwide, but in order to legally rent a place out, the owner/lessee would need to be physically present the whole time (yeah, right), no locks would be available on any room, and I think you would need to certify to the city that the guests are staying for non-leisure purposes.

There are even short-term rentals in housing projects. They're everywhere.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Most short term rentals are effectively illegal in NYC. Doesn't mean NYC doesn't have a huge market for such services. I suspect NOLA is similar.

I believe NYC is the largest or second largest AirBnB market worldwide, but in order to legally rent a place out, the owner/lessee would need to be physically present the whole time (yeah, right), no locks would be available on any room, and I think you would need to certify to the city that the guests are staying for non-leisure purposes.

There are even short-term rentals in housing projects. They're everywhere.

Yeah and AirBnB is obviously complicit in this. If they wanted to, they could enforce the rules... but that's never been their MO.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Yeah and AirBnB is obviously complicit in this. If they wanted to, they could enforce the rules... but that's never been their MO.

Bfore the pandemic, NYC won a lawsuit against Airbnb that forces the company to report rental data to the city on a monthly basis. New Orleans has been fighting the company as well, but I'm not sure if they have the tools to aggressively enforce like NYC does now.

[Commentariat]

I calculated some figures for Australia’s two biggest cities, Sydney and Melbourne. They are seeing the same trends as North American cities. The earliest figures I could find were from 2001.

Sydney

Strict downtown definition using the ‘Sydney-Haymarket-The Rocks’ Statistical Area 2 (SA2), covering the core central business district. This has an area of 4.3km2. It has seen good growth but the local government prefers to focus on non-residential development here and it is the least dense part of central Sydney.

2001 – 14,393
2010 – 24,359
2020 – 33,238
Density in 2020 – 7,742/km2

Using a wider downtown definition including the neighbourhoods immediately surrounding the core. This includes the ‘Pyrmont-Ultimo’, ‘Surry Hills’, ‘Potts Point-Woolloomooloo’, ‘Darlinghurst’ and ‘Redfern-Chippendale’ SA2’s and has an area of 11.7km2.

2001 – 79,412
2010 – 108,970
2020 – 141,204
Density in 2020 – 12,068/km2

Melbourne

Strict downtown definition using the ‘Melbourne’ SA2, which covers the traditional grid forming Melbourne’s CBD. This has an area of 2.4km2 and has seen impressive growth over the past 20 years.

2001 – 7,644
2010 – 20,382
2020 – 53,180
Density in 2020 – 22,448/km2

Using a wider downtown definition covering the ‘Docklands’, ‘Southbank’ and ‘Carlton’ SA2s. This has an area of 9.7km2 and has added over 100,000 people in less than 20 years. It’s transformed from a 9-5 office district surrounded by light industry to a dense mixed use downtown over this period.

2001 – 21,657
2010 – 53,218
2020 – 122,097
Density in 2020 – 12,587/km2

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Commentariat

I calculated some figures for Australia’s two biggest cities, Sydney and Melbourne. They are seeing the same trends as North American cities. The earliest figures I could find were from 2001.

Sydney

Strict downtown definition using the ‘Sydney-Haymarket-The Rocks’ Statistical Area 2 (SA2), covering the core central business district. This has an area of 4.3km2. It has seen good growth but the local government prefers to focus on non-residential development here and it is the least dense part of central Sydney.

2001 – 14,393
2010 – 24,359
2020 – 33,238
Density in 2020 – 7,742/km2

Using a wider downtown definition including the neighbourhoods immediately surrounding the core. This includes the ‘Pyrmont-Ultimo’, ‘Surry Hills’, ‘Potts Point-Woolloomooloo’, ‘Darlinghurst’ and ‘Redfern-Chippendale’ SA2’s and has an area of 11.7km2.

2001 – 79,412
2010 – 108,970
2020 – 141,204
Density in 2020 – 12,068/km2

Melbourne

Strict downtown definition using the ‘Melbourne’ SA2, which covers the traditional grid forming Melbourne’s CBD. This has an area of 2.4km2 and has seen impressive growth over the past 20 years.

2001 – 7,644
2010 – 20,382
2020 – 53,180
Density in 2020 – 22,448/km2

Using a wider downtown definition covering the ‘Docklands’, ‘Southbank’ and ‘Carlton’ SA2s. This has an area of 9.7km2 and has added over 100,000 people in less than 20 years. It’s transformed from a 9-5 office district surrounded by light industry to a dense mixed use downtown over this period.

2001 – 21,657
2010 – 53,218
2020 – 122,097
Density in 2020 – 12,587/km2

It's really an worldwide phenomenon. Same is happening in many European countries, specially in the northern ones that had suffered mostly from urban decay in the 1970's. Latin American cities that urbanized first and also suffered from Downtown decay are also rebounding. São Paulo is the best example of it.

Downtowns once again growing is a first pretty much since their inception.

[mhays]

Yes it's time to speculate about 2030!

For 2020, I have greater Downtown Seattle at 131,507 for a 4.76-square-mile area. Alternatively 84,971 in 2.71 square miles. I'd be very happy with 40% growth for both of those, but it could be hard to do.

The first 15% will be easy (wild guesstimate) -- simply fill the buildings that were still in lease-up on 4/1/20, have opened since, or are underway now. But there's the rub (one of them) -- only starts over the next six or maybe seven years will matter. A large building will typically need to finish by late 2029 to be more than half full on 4/1/30, and you can back start dates more than two years if it's large enough -- some to mid/early 2027. For smaller buildings early 2028 will be ok. There's not much time.

If that 15% gets us to 151,000, we'll need another 33,000 to get to 184,000. So at least 22,000 more starts from now to 2028 assuming a 1.5 ratio. That's less than the same period in the last decade, but still a big number.

Much of the last decade's growth was on easy sites, though we've done a ton of harder sites too. A larger percentage of the next 6-7 years of projects will be harder sites, in terms of economies of scale, the ability to include parking in any quantity, land cost, and the need to keep/restore historic elements. Parking ratios will probably need to come down even further, including a larger percentage with none.

It can be done if demand is high to live near work, or if greater Downtown is highly desired for lifestyle. That seems plausible and even likely based on current demand, which has sharply rebounded since early Covid. But sooo many uncertainties.

[ssiguy]

There are many reasons why downtown populations are soaring and here are a few key ones:

First, declining incomes relative to the cost of a house. Housing prices have uniformly risen significantly faster than incomes in the last 40 to 50 years and hence the SFH is not optional for many especially the working class. In very expensive cities like Vancouver, SFH are only for the wealthy.

Second, women entering the workforce. Up until 1980 most women didn't work outside the home and certainly not full-time. They were "home makers" and had the time to maintain the SFH home and now they don't and so want smaller homes that are easier to maintain.

Third, fewer kids. As the family size has shrunk considerably, there is no longer the need or desire to have a big suburban home with a big lot and so apt living {which is overwhelmingly downtown/inner city} is now practical.

Fourth, declining crime rates. Generally crime rates are lower today than they were in the 1970s due, in large part, because of an older population. People are far more likely to commit crime {which was traditionally higher in downtown areas} in the 15 to 35 demographic cohort than those in the 35 to 55 range.

Fifth, better race relations. This is particularly true in the US where living beside a black person no longer scares the white person to flee to the suburbs. White flight is effectively over. This has also not just brought more people downtown but generally higher income ones and the political power that comes with leading to better urban amenities and a more pleasant urban realm.