Downtowns are back

[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).

[mhays]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

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.

Cities don't define their downtowns in any way relevant to this thread.

That's a fantasy among fan boards. It's not how cities work in real life.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Probably like living in Venice or Sighisoara or Zermatt I would guess.

I thought it was different as I imagined the French Quarter was mostly party-oriented, but it seems it has quiet streets as well.

And racial divide is very stark: on French Quarter, Whites outnumber Blacks in a 11:1 ratio. On tracts immediatelly northwest of it, Blacks are the vast majority.

[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.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Cleveland's Burke Lakefront airport isn't a "domestic airport", it's really much more of a general aviation airport, with the only scheduled passenger service being twice daily flights to Cincinnati-Lunken on Ultimate Air Shuttle (which flies little 30-seater regional jets).

99% of Cleveland's commercial air passenger traffic goes through the city's main airport, Hopkins.

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Yeah, it's kind of ridiculous that it takes up so much land with such little use.

I didn't know that. It's a prime location, the airport site is huge, why not open for general traffic or close it altogether.

Rio de Janeiro has its domestic airport Downtown, like half mile away from the tall office buildings, but it handles 11 million passengers/year, cornerstone of the "air bridge" between Rio and São Paulo. It functions pretty much as those central stations in European cities.

Originally Posted by badrunner

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.

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.

My comments on Downtown Portland might have been a bit off mark, specially as I've never been to the US, but I guess any forumer here talking compiling data for a second/third tier Brazilian city would probably be off as well (not that anyone would dare trying to do such a thing).

In any case, most cities saw substantial increases in their very core, not relying on booming adjacent districts: Chicago, Los Angeles, Seattle, Denver, San Diego, Houston, Atlanta, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, just to mention a few. Downtown Portland didn't behave the same.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

I didn't know that. It's a prime location, the airport site is huge, why not open for general traffic or close it altogether.

a local clevelander would have to tell you about those details. my guess is that the lakefront airport lacks the terminals and other infrastructure to make it feasible as a commercial passenger airport. but yes, it does take up an egregious amount of precious lakefront real estate right in the core of the city.

chicago once had a very similar general aviation airport on its lakefront just south of downtown called Meigs Field. after the city engaged in a decades long battle with state officials to close it, King Richard II infamously sent in bulldozers to literally tear up the runaway in the middle of the night roughly 2 decades ago in the name of "homeland security". today the former airport is now ~50 acres of additional publicly-accessible lakefront parkland called Northerly Island Park, and is also home to a 30,000 capacity outdoor concert venue.

[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.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

My comments on Downtown Portland might have been a bit off mark, specially as I've never been to the US, but I guess any forumer here talking compiling data for a second/third tier Brazilian city would probably be off as well (not that anyone would dare trying to do such a thing).

In any case, most cities saw substantial increases in their very core, not relying on booming adjacent districts: Chicago, Los Angeles, Seattle, Denver, San Diego, Houston, Atlanta, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, just to mention a few. Downtown Portland didn't behave the same.

I think you’re misunderstanding. The Goose Hollow and Pearl neighborhoods are part of Portland’s “downtown” core, despite having a distinct name.

[Yuri]

Downtown Charlotte




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

Downtown --------------------- 16,581 ----- 12,489 ------ 5,237 ------ 5,011 ----- 32.8% --- 138.5% ----- 4.5% ------- 5.6 km² --- 2,987.0 inh./km²

Charlotte Metro Area ------ 2,638,274 -- 2,217,030 -- 1,717,372 -- 1,341,710 ----- 19.0% ---- 29.1% ---- 28.0% -- 13,121 km²


Uptown Charlotte (I learned they call Uptown their Downtown) is another loop-defined Downtown and takes a rather big area and therefore growth patterns changed from yard to yard. The bulk of it took place where the tall office skyscrapers are, while some tracts even lost population (the easternmost one). Even though growth hasn't been as spectacular as Atlanta Downtown-Midtown axis, it's still moving at the right direction.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Downtown Los Angeles

...

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%.

A population of 75,000, and yet DTLA is nowhere close to reaching its full potential. With the proper rail infrastructure*, there's room for 500,000 people -- which, if it ever got to that point, would probably represent more than 10% of the city's population. DTLA is expected to account for 25% of all municipal population growth in the next two decades.

*Purple Line extension to 6th Street in the Arts District just secured funding. With a subway station planned at 7th/Alameda as well, I'd say a good 85% (or so) of everything between Alameda, LA River, and the two freeways will be within reasonable walking distance (no more than 0.6 miles) of a rail station.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Quixote

A population of 75,000, and yet DTLA is nowhere close to reaching its full potential. With the proper rail infrastructure*, there's room for 500,000 people -- which, if it ever got to that point, would probably represent more than 10% of the city's population. DTLA is expected to account for 25% of all municipal population growth in the next two decades.

*Purple Line extension to 6th Street in the Arts District just secured funding. With a subway station planned at 7th/Alameda as well, I'd say a good 85% (or so) of everything between Alameda, LA River, and the two freeways will be within reasonable walking distance (no more than 0.6 miles) of a rail station.

I find 500,000 almost impossible. That would be a density considerably higher than Manhattan's.

200,000, however, is attainable which would be enough to make the region to be completely unrecognizable.

I really hope subway changes Los Angeles, creating a real urban culture and way of life.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

I find 500,000 almost impossible. That would be a density considerably higher than Manhattan's.

200,000, however, is attainable which would be enough to make the region to be completely unrecognizable.

I really hope subway changes Los Angeles, creating a real urban culture and way of life.

200k sounds right though, maybe more. That giant wharehouse district on the SE portion will bite the dust. The fashion district would stay, but also include a ton of new housing.

The Arts District is massive, and already has a ton of highrise proposals. Office too. South Park will continued adding 30-50 story buildings.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by Quixote

A population of 75,000, and yet DTLA is nowhere close to reaching its full potential. With the proper rail infrastructure*, there's room for 500,000 people -- which, if it ever got to that point, would probably represent more than 10% of the city's population. DTLA is expected to account for 25% of all municipal population growth in the next two decades.

*Purple Line extension to 6th Street in the Arts District just secured funding. With a subway station planned at 7th/Alameda as well, I'd say a good 85% (or so) of everything between Alameda, LA River, and the two freeways will be within reasonable walking distance (no more than 0.6 miles) of a rail station.

That 7th and Alameda area will be like its own downtown probably.

[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.

[mhays]

The biggest reasons have more to do with (a) the convenience of being close to work, (b) a desire to live where the action is, and (c) an exploding number of singles and couples with no kids. Some of that overlaps your points.

Point b is furthered by the upward spiral of more people bringing more services and cool things which bring more people.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

I find 500,000 almost impossible. That would be a density considerably higher than Manhattan's.

200,000, however, is attainable which would be enough to make the region to be completely unrecognizable.

I really hope subway changes Los Angeles, creating a real urban culture and way of life.

Manhattan’s UWS has a density of 110,000 per square mile, and a lot of it is 3-5-story townhouses and multi-unit rowhouses (like the one Meg Ryan’s character in “You’ve Got Mail” lives in). Manhattan’s density is “only” 75,000 — but that’s factoring in Central Park and a huge chunk of the island, most notably Midtown, that is dedicated to office space.

At 75,000, DTLA is already 38% of the way to “attainable” 200,000 — with a shit ton of room to go vertical. The population grew by 20,000+ with relatively few skyscrapers to show for it. What’s going to happen when DTLA finally undergoes Toronto/Vancouver/Miami-ization?

I’d be worried frankly if 200,000 was considered a target goal, because that would represent a density of 45,000. Vancouver’s West End is 62,000 per square mile, and it’s not even particularly tall. For DTLA, I think anything short of 350,000 is not ambitious enough.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Manhattan’s UWS has a density of 110,000 per square mile, and a lot of it is 3-5-story townhouses and multi-unit rowhouses (like the one Meg Ryan’s character in “You’ve Got Mail” lives in). Manhattan’s density is “only” 75,000 — but that’s factoring in Central Park and a huge chunk of the island, most notably Midtown, that is dedicated to office space.

At 75,000, DTLA is already 38% of the way to “attainable” 200,000 — with a shit ton of room to go vertical. The population grew by 20,000+ with relatively few skyscrapers to show for it. What’s going to happen when DTLA finally undergoes Toronto/Vancouver/Miami-ization?

I’d be worried frankly if 200,000 was considered a target goal, because that would represent a density of 45,000. Vancouver’s West End is 62,000 per square mile, and it’s not even particularly tall. For DTLA, I think anything short of 350,000 is not ambitious enough.

But the thing is Miami-izantion (posted on page 2) is happening in a much smaller area than Downtown Los Angeles (15 km²). It has 58k in 4 km².

Numbers involved would be much more challenging in DTLA. Central Chicago (page 2), for instance, in 23 km², has "only" 225k inh. (2020). I added up all the neighbourhoods of Central Los Angeles (Downtown, Chinatown, Echo Park, Westlake, Pico-Union, Silver Lake, Los Feliz, East Hollywood, Koreatown) and in 66 km², has 479k adding only 10k over 2010.

500k inh. would be something unprecedent outside NYC and it would require a population boom in the whole metro area to support such large increase.

[Quixote]

I'm talking about max potential, not trajectile conjecture. I believe 200,000 is more than within the current trajectory based on the previous decade's growth rate, the projects that are on the table (under construction, approved, and proposed), and a general sense that DTLA, while it's made considerable progress since 2000, has really yet to take off. It's also what the Department of City Planning projects as part of their DTLA 2040 plan -- 125,000 new residents by the year 2040.

https://urbanize.city/la/post/stakeh...dtla-2040-plan

But, again, that's only about 45,000 per square mile... the same density as Brooklyn's Park Slope.

[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.