Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Chicago is extremly hard to do compared to DC's boundaries because the downtown development is so long along the coast and thin stretching for miles even though it may only be a couple locks wide. Instead of doing a southern and southeastern border and northern and northeastern border, I will show you where I believe the depth of Chicago's downtown ends meaning how deep it is in girth. That is the greatest measure of downtown when walking around east to west instead of just north to south.
I'd say that's pretty fair. Most people I know seem to call this the boundaries of downtown (roughly)
North: North Ave
South: Roosevelt
West: Kennedy Expy
East: Lake Michigan
Not at all, but to call 14th street in Logan circle and Connecticut ave north of DuPont "downtown" is a huge stretch.
Here is a pretty good explanation of how many downtown functioning area's there are in DC with their own BIDs normally. They each function separate from each other which is why this conversation is difficult to do for a city like DC where the traditional CBD is the same height and structural density as all the surrounding area's.
Chicago is extremly hard to do compared to DC's boundaries because the downtown development is so long along the coast and thin stretching for miles even though it may only be a couple blocks wide. Instead of doing a southern and southeastern border and northern and northeastern border, I will show you where I believe the depth of Chicago's downtown ends meaning how deep it is in girth. That is the greatest measure of downtown when walking around east to west instead of just north to south.
Not sure about your southwestern and northwestern markers. But anyway by the most conservative estimate you've got an area from Congress to Division - which is 2 miles - with an average width of highrise (and other "downtown-like") development of 1 to 1.5 miles. As you go further north and south it thins out significantly, but even there the amount of contiguous highrise development is huge.
So how did you conclude that downtown DC is double the size of downtown Chicago?
Last edited by Fitzrovian; 05-10-2012 at 08:26 PM..
I don't have a problem with your boundaries except for the northwest one (I'd put that one at Dupont Crcl). And I don't have a problem with you not following standard definitions of downtown but going by the urban character of the area.
My question for you is what boundaries do you use for downtown Chicago then and how did you conclude that downtown DC (including downtown "looking like" areas) is double the size?
I was talking more about center city DC which represents the nontraditional core or north and south downtown area's.
I was going to wait 3 years till 2015 to extend the boundaries south because so many things are still under construction but this will be the new southern border of downtown DC very soon.
That's a terrible number if true. That would put it at less than 9000 ppsm, only about the same as the 464 square mile city as a whole. Most downtowns have 2-4 times the population density of the city overall.
Considering the small number of DTLA residents we had a few years ago, this number is above and beyond excellent and growing rapidly. What's taking place right now is unbelieveable.
I completely disagree with this. The lowrise neighborhoods near downtown are more urban than DC IMO. The highrises in Chicago are obviously on another level from DC.
Looks about the same to me! Four corners of office canyons except Chicago's is much taller.
and that aspect plays out on some levels DC spread while others rise; this is part of why the expanse of footprint in DC is larger to achieve the same sq footage. It is also why the street density is lower in some regards to other city centers. Though on the whole I agree that DC is large and expansive and height is not the end all be all
and that aspect plays out on some levels DC spread while others rise; this is part of why the expanse of footprint in DC is larger to achieve the same sq footage. It is also why the street density is lower in some regards to other city centers. Though on the whole I agree that DC is large and expansive and height is not the end all be all
Kid,
I can agree with you on this. On one hand, DC does not have the population density as other cities but it has the structural density due to the height restrictions which continually pushes DT DC farther and farther out. Area wise, DT DC is probably larger than DT Chicago. Chicago has more office space because it is much taller. DC is nipping on Chicago's heels and will likely surpass Chicago in office space in the next 5-10 years. The DC region already has more office space than Chicagoland.
I can agree with you on this. On one hand, DC does not have the population density as other cities but it has the structural density due to the height restrictions which continually pushes DT DC farther and farther out. Area wise, DT DC is probably larger than DT Chicago. Chicago has more office space because it is much taller. DC is nipping on Chicago's heels and will likely surpass Chicago in office space in the next 5-10 years. The DC region already has more office space than Chicagoland.
Im not sure how you can say those two intersections look the same, they certainly don't feel the same in person, at least in my opinion.
I would agree with this. DC is an office beast relative to it's size, as there are very few blue collar jobs. The only things I was disagreeing with MDALLSTAR, was larger DT footprint equates to bigger downtown. Secondly, what he thinks looks like downtown in DC, we just had different definitions.
Outdated. Splits most cities into small CBD and general core (for example Midtown Manhattan at 600k/ sq mile, and Manhattan south of 59th st at 220 k/ sq mile) Chicago Loop has a slightly lower employment density than Downtown New York. Midtown Manhattan at least at a loop size area has about double the number the employment density. Washington isn't much lower than Chicago in number of jobs but is half the density. Manhattan south of 59th street (containing large sections of mostly residential areas) has an employment density higher than any city besides Chicago's Loop.
Boston's area choice is a bit high, I think they were trying to include downtown, government center and Back Bay as one CBD.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
