Even small U.S. cities have mostly non-residential downtowns...

[eschaton]

So, lately I've been playing around with the map viewer on the Justice Map page a lot. The cool element of it is if you zoom in close enough it lets you see demographic information not only for census tracts, but for individual blocks. I have seen this data for individual large cities before, but never for the entire U.S. It appears to be unadjusted from the 2010 census, but it's still neat.

What strikes me as I look around the country is that the dead/non-residential downtown area is not just the norm for larger cities, but for smaller cities as well. This is true for nice touristy walkable cities like Savannah. Also mediocre smaller cities like Peoria. Here's Eureka. Here's Fargo. Here's South Bend. Here's Santa Fe. Note that if you click on the random inhabited blocks in or near the downtown areas, often they have 10 or less residents.

Basically, it appears that as is the case for larger and mid-sized cities, outside of the Northeast there's virtually nowhere - even where a vibrant downtown commercial are exists - where you can amble out your front door and walk to that CBD in only 5-10 minutes. This is even the case when the "CBD" is comparably small. Essentially they're still stuck in mid-20th century zoning patterns, with a "downtown" which is exclusively non-residential, which then gives way to the almost entirely residential fringing neighborhoods. However, it's far worse than the underpopulated downtown areas of larger cities, because in most cases the fringing neighborhoods themselves have virtually no commercial amenities.

[mhays]

Office districts tend to be office-dominated. Even Midtown and Downtown Manhattan, London's Square Mile, and so on.

The last few decades basically every sizable city has seen tremendous growth of housing directly adjacent to its CBD, albeit normally not among the tallest towers. I guess that doesn't carry through to small cities like the ones you list.

Even then I bet things are different in 2018 vs. 2010. The downtown-living trend has gathered steam and expanded to more areas in this decade.

[ardecila]

I feel like there's a larger issue in that many downtown mixed-use buildings are legally restricted to commercial on the upper floors as well. If the town has a healthy demand for office space (say, a county seat where lawyers want to be near the courthouse) the upper-floor space will be that, but if the town has weak demand for office space, then the upper floors just sit vacant which is obviously a drag on the economy.

Zoning codes exacerbate this, the downtown zoning may discourage or outright prohibit residential use. It may have strict requirements for on-site parking in the case of residential, but little or no requirements for office space... but on a tight downtown lot, where are you gonna put on-site parking if you convert? A change in use from office to residential is also costly, it obviously requires expensive kitchens, bathrooms, and HVAC systems but may also require added stairs for egress in case of emergency.

Often the owners of these downtown buildings are elderly, or not particularly well-versed in the zoning code to understand all the options available to them. They may assume an apartment without on-site parking is unrentable except to low-income tenants. Or, the building may be owned by a bank that doesn't have much expectation for the property beyond the income stream from the ground floor.

The Small Developers/Builders group on Facebook is really interesting, it's just a collection of people, often in small towns and cities with a depressed economy or at least a limited demand for urban living, dealing with the many challenges of resuscitating old mixed-use buildings for another century of productivity.

[Steely Dan]

madison, WI seems to have a respectable number of people living in its CBD for a smaller city.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by mhays

Office districts tend to be office-dominated. Even Midtown and Downtown Manhattan, London's Square Mile, and so on.

The last few decades basically every sizable city has seen tremendous growth of housing directly adjacent to its CBD, albeit normally not among the tallest towers. I guess that doesn't carry through to small cities like the ones you list.

Even then I bet things are different in 2018 vs. 2010. The downtown-living trend has gathered steam and expanded to more areas in this decade.

Yeah, those 8 years of difference is huge for a lot of American cities. I live in a 23 story former office building(BofA) which was converted into 275 apartments. My last apartment down the street was a hotel back in 2011 and then was converted into 80 apartments.

Things are changing quite fast, so 2010 seems old for this particular issue.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I feel like there's a larger issue in that many downtown mixed-use buildings are legally restricted to commercial on the upper floors as well. If the town has a healthy demand for office space (say, a county seat where lawyers want to be near the courthouse) the upper-floor space will be that, but if the town has weak demand for office space, then the upper floors just sit vacant which is obviously a drag on the economy.

Zoning codes exacerbate this, the downtown zoning may discourage or outright prohibit residential use. It may have strict requirements for on-site parking in the case of residential, but little or no requirements for office space... but on a tight downtown lot, where are you gonna put on-site parking if you convert? A change in use from office to residential is also costly, it obviously requires expensive kitchens, bathrooms, and HVAC systems but may also require added stairs for egress in case of emergency.

Often the owners of these downtown buildings are elderly, or not particularly well-versed in the zoning code to understand all the options available to them. They may assume an apartment without on-site parking is unrentable except to low-income tenants. Or, the building may be owned by a bank that doesn't have much expectation for the property beyond the income stream from the ground floor.

The Small Developers/Builders group on Facebook is really interesting, it's just a collection of people, often in small towns and cities with a depressed economy or at least a limited demand for urban living, dealing with the many challenges of resuscitating old mixed-use buildings for another century of productivity.

Our city has built about 10(or remolded) apartment buildings downtown in the last 7 years with only one building parking. Our public parking garages have more than enough room for all of us. I am sure most decently-sized cities could do this too.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by eschaton

So, lately I've been playing around with the map viewer on the Justice Map page a lot. The cool element of it is if you zoom in close enough it lets you see demographic information not only for census tracts, but for individual blocks. I have seen this data for individual large cities before, but never for the entire U.S. It appears to be unadjusted from the 2010 census, but it's still neat.

What strikes me as I look around the country is that the dead/non-residential downtown area is not just the norm for larger cities, but for smaller cities as well. This is true for nice touristy walkable cities like Savannah. Also mediocre smaller cities like Peoria. Here's Eureka. Here's Fargo. Here's South Bend. Here's Santa Fe. Note that if you click on the random inhabited blocks in or near the downtown areas, often they have 10 or less residents.

Basically, it appears that as is the case for larger and mid-sized cities, outside of the Northeast there's virtually nowhere - even where a vibrant downtown commercial are exists - where you can amble out your front door and walk to that CBD in only 5-10 minutes. This is even the case when the "CBD" is comparably small. Essentially they're still stuck in mid-20th century zoning patterns, with a "downtown" which is exclusively non-residential, which then gives way to the almost entirely residential fringing neighborhoods. However, it's far worse than the underpopulated downtown areas of larger cities, because in most cases the fringing neighborhoods themselves have virtually no commercial amenities.

Cities were warped in a way I think many people forget starting in the 40's (even really the 20's) until the last 10? 15 years?

Cities were culturally not only seen as poor, and dangerous and dirty and old, but cultural stifling and oppressive. You didnt just have the suburban "white flight" but left wing hippy types leaving the cooperate and soulless cities for the west coast and all that stuff.

Cities were emptied by market forces and then the double whammy of government policy of urban renewal assuming that new development would replace what was torn down. But the desire wasn't to move back into the urban center so those tear downs never were replace.

The desire for Urban Living outside of a select urban cores (and small ones compared to the overall city sprawl even in NY or Chicago for example) is an absolute modern and new phenomena in America.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Yeah, those 8 years of difference is huge for a lot of American cities. I live in a 23 story former office building(BofA) which was converted into 275 apartments. My last apartment down the street was a hotel back in 2011 and then was converted into 80 apartments.

Things are changing quite fast, so 2010 seems old for this particular issue.

I even know married couples (26-33) in Phoenix for example that rather buy a place closer to the central city and put money into the rehab rather than drive out to a suburb for a big house. These are people that grew up int he suburban life.

There is definitely a split however, the people I know of a higher income put a great deal of money and weight on living in proximity and a more (relative to our town I know) living situation.

Friends of mine lower on the scale would still rather get as much house for their money out in the burbs, Different ethos and I understand why they do.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Obadno

I even know married couples (26-33) in Phoenix for example that rather buy a place closer to the central city and put money into the rehab rather than drive out to a suburb for a big house. These are people that grew up int he suburban life.

There is definitely a split however, the people I know of a higher income put a great deal of money and weight on living in proximity and a more (relative to our town I know) living situation.

Friends of mine lower on the scale would still rather get as much house for their money out in the burbs, Different ethos and I understand why they do.

Yeah, I have a friend who whenever he comes over here he makes a comment about how small my place is. Its kind of rude, but we talk to each other like that. Anyways, he lives in a pretty rundown suburban apartment...but....it has ONE more bedroom than me and has about 500 more sq ft. He can take it. The cops visit his complex often enough and there are kids and teens running around all over the place. I never see kids or teens in my building, thank God. Nothing against them, but teens tend to get into mischief(aka petty crime). I know this from stats and my own life experience lol

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Basically, it appears that as is the case for larger and mid-sized cities, outside of the Northeast there's virtually nowhere - even where a vibrant downtown commercial are exists - where you can amble out your front door and walk to that CBD in only 5-10 minutes. .

Virtually "nowhere" seems like quite the overstatement at this point. Like many cities, Denver has undergone a sea change of development in past 10 years. The Downtown Denver population is around 22,000 with 6,000 units under construction. All of those units are either in or short walk to the CBD. I suspect Seattle, Austin and other booming cities have similar or better stats.

In addition, for Denver (and I suspect the other cities mentioned), the areas immediately adjacent to the CBD such as LoHi, RiNo and Uptown, have undergone similar growth and residents there too have easy "walking" access to the CBD (albeit, it might be more like 15 minutes, instead of 5-10). It's not Manhattan - I get it. But tens of thousands have walking access to the CBD.

[Steely Dan]

^ yeah, "outside of the Northeast there's virtually nowhere where you can amble out your front door and walk to that CBD in only 5-10 minutes" is quite a puzzling comment.

chicago now has something like 35,000 people living in the loop, and ~100,000 within 1 mile of city hall (in the heart of the CBD).

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by eschaton

outside of the Northeast there's virtually nowhere - even where a vibrant downtown commercial are exists - where you can amble out your front door and walk to that CBD in only 5-10 minutes. This is even the case when the "CBD" is comparably small.

You really should travel more:

This is a map of construction in downtown SF in 2017. As you can see, much of it is residential.

https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranc...-projects.html

[sentinel]

^^But that's not San Francisco's 'core', that's a map of construction cranes in ALL of San Francisco.

[Boisebro]

Originally Posted by eschaton

What strikes me as I look around the country is that the dead/non-residential downtown area is not just the norm for larger cities, but for smaller cities as well.

as others have indicated, this is changing for a lot of cities--especially over the last 10 years, and particularly for smaller cities where even a handful of projects can make a dramatic difference.

downtown Boise, for example, barely resembles itself from 2010. It's seen a ton of residential construction in and around the CBD, and that continues today. but more than residential, just in the last 2 years, 600 hotel rooms have been added to the downtown core (to go alone with the hundreds already in place), and while that's not "permanent" residential, those visitors are essentially "temporary residents" that add to the vibrancy of downtown.

one additional comment: if you looked at Boise on that map, you'd still see a lot of empty gray blocks in the CBD. however, that doesn't mean it's "dead." far from it -- most of the first level or two of those commercial buildings have restaurants, bars, cafes, dance clubs, shops, microbreweries, theaters, etc. -- all within walking distance of about 4,000 people who live in or within a 10 minute walk of the CBD. downtown is hardly ever "dead", despite the map indicating a lack of full-time residents in the center.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by sentinel

^^But that's not San Francisco's 'core', that's a map of construction cranes in ALL of San Francisco.

Not by a long shot. That's the northeast quadrant--downtown and a few peripheral neighborhoods. And in the strict financial district, you can see there are as many residential projects as office. There really have only been about 3 all-office towers in that area lately (Park Tower, Salesforce Tower and the Mining Exchange project). The rest are either residential or mixed use: Even Oceanwide Center which will be SF's second tallest is mixed use.

[Pedestrian]

Has anybody else noticed we have a whole diofferent thread proving that this notion that "nobody lives downtown" is wrong: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=235132

[Xing]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

madison, WI seems to have a respectable number of people living in its CBD for a smaller city.

That’s the case for a lot of college towns.

[Innsertnamehere]

Ithica, NY is probably my favorite example of "small town, big downtown". it has a very dense and rapidly growing core with a pedestrianized street, but only a permanent population of a little under 40,000 people. Of course Cornell helps a lot with that..

[Chisouthside]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Not by a long shot. That's the northeast quadrant--downtown and a few peripheral neighborhoods. And in the strict financial district, you can see there are as many residential projects as office. There really have only been about 3 all-office towers in that area lately (Park Tower, Salesforce Tower and the Mining Exchange project). The rest are either residential or mixed use: Even Oceanwide Center which will be SF's second tallest is mixed use.

Thats absolutely the core of SF I would say, akin to the Loop in Chicago with all the the periphery areas like River North, South Loop, west loop etc etc.