Australian vs American downtowns - vibrancy.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by mello

Anyway not trying to hate on LA but it if you wiped away LA and put Syndey in its place I in Southern California I guarantee you the only thing people would miss are the large mountains. The one's in OZ are very low and farther from the CBD. Ok they might miss mexican food and the celebrity/hollywood fake culture if you are in to that

I can think of a lot more things, but then again you've been beating this drum since birth.

I've not been to Sydney or Melbourne, so I won't readily dismiss your opinion. However, I will say that DTLA's pedestrian activity levels (mostly along 7th Street and Broadway) during the day and weekday evening rush hour are solid and highly underestimated.

Originally Posted by pwright1

[ocman]

Originally Posted by mello

LA more vibrant than Sydney, I have personal experience on this one having extensively explored Syd for almost two weeks and this statement is false. Everyone says Melbourne is nicer so I'm sure its more vibrant as well than DTLA or probably anywhere in LA. Have you been to OZ? I lived in NY for 2 years and went everywhere and Sydney did remind me a bit of Manhattan on a smaller scale the foot traffic is extensive and it feels cosmopolitan.

Anyway not trying to hate on LA but it if you wiped away LA and put Syndey in its place I in Southern California I guarantee you the only thing people would miss are the large mountains. The one's in OZ are very low and farther from the CBD. Ok they might miss mexican food and the celebrity/hollywood fake culture if you are in to that

I don't think many people on here have actually been to Syd/Mel and taken countless hours to explore and walk around them so they just don't understand. So please only speak on comparisons if you have done so.

Yes, fake celebrity culture and Mexican food are the only things people will miss about one of the most culturally vibrant, influential cities on the planet.

[nameless dude]

Here's Sydney:

• Video Link

• Video Link

The city's main street is in the process of being pedestrianised with a light rail running down the middle, hence the construction in the first vid. It clears up further into the vid.

But one point of difference between Sydney and most American cities might be in the suburban development patterns away from the inner core. Sydney sprawls like every other American city, but its commercial and retail areas seem to be packed tighter and are more transit and pedestrian oriented. Rather than the car-centric strip malls, surface parking and standalone shopping malls you get in American sprawl, Sydney relies on having these main streets/mini-downtowns between the sprawl, where you have increased density and street fronting, wall to wall retail. They're always built right around a transit hub, and most 'suburban' shopping malls are integrated right into these areas, with active street frontages.

Chatswood in Sydney's northern suburbs is one example of this:

• Video Link



This channel has several more examples:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYa...tRTUZcw/videos

It's not that people in the suburbs don't drive, but notice most parking is hidden away either underground or in multi-storey complexes (for eg see the Hurstville and Auburn vids in that channel).

There's dozens of these spread across the metro regardless of how far from the core it is. If you go on Google maps and follow the train lines you'll see there's usually one built right around most train stations.

Melbourne's fairly similar but to a lesser extent. Most of Melbourne's suburban malls are standalone instead of what you see in Sydney. Outside of these 2 the other Australian cities have pretty auto-centric sprawl, but maintain healthy cores.

I've noticed areas with TOD and pedestrianised development in some American suburbs (eg Chicago's North Side though it isn't exactly suburban, or several areas around the Bay Area, D.C. and Boston), but they don't seem to the extent that Sydney has relative to the city's size.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Razor

W If Philly has their version of a Yonge and Dundas somewhere on Broad Street complete with crazy buskers everywhere , we certainly missed it.

There is no Philly version of "Yonge and Dundas" and that has nothing to do with anything.

Downtown Toronto isn't like "Yonge and Dundas". That's one intersection, with a fake Times Square and a giant shopping mall, so obviously very congested. Most of downtown Toronto doesn't have unusually heavy pedestrian traffic.

If you're asking "where is the Eaton Centre of core Philly" (where are the global chain stores) it would be around Walnut, Chestnut and Sansom north of Rittenhouse Square. There is no Times Square-ish block.

[nito]

The urban morphology of Australian cities shares many similarities with their British counterparts, the exception being that sprawl is more restricted in the UK. Also, as touched upon by Doug on the first page there are also social elements (e.g. after-work drinks which is common in the UK and Australia) that dictate the activity and vibrancy of an area.

[aquablue]

Originally Posted by nameless dude

Here's Sydney:

• Video Link

• Video Link

The city's main street is in the process of being pedestrianised with a light rail running down the middle, hence the construction in the first vid. It clears up further into the vid.

But one point of difference between Sydney and most American cities might be in the suburban development patterns away from the inner core. Sydney sprawls like every other American city, but its commercial and retail areas seem to be packed tighter and are more transit and pedestrian oriented. Rather than the car-centric strip malls, surface parking and standalone shopping malls you get in American sprawl, Sydney relies on having these main streets/mini-downtowns between the sprawl, where you have increased density and street fronting, wall to wall retail. They're always built right around a transit hub, and most 'suburban' shopping malls are integrated right into these areas, with active street frontages.

Chatswood in Sydney's northern suburbs is one example of this:

• Video Link



This channel has several more examples:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYa...tRTUZcw/videos

It's not that people in the suburbs don't drive, but notice most parking is hidden away either underground or in multi-storey complexes (for eg see the Hurstville and Auburn vids in that channel).

There's dozens of these spread across the metro regardless of how far from the core it is. If you go on Google maps and follow the train lines you'll see there's usually one built right around most train stations.

Melbourne's fairly similar but to a lesser extent. Most of Melbourne's suburban malls are standalone instead of what you see in Sydney. Outside of these 2 the other Australian cities have pretty auto-centric sprawl, but maintain healthy cores.

I've noticed areas with TOD and pedestrianised development in some American suburbs (eg Chicago's North Side though it isn't exactly suburban, or several areas around the Bay Area, D.C. and Boston), but they don't seem to the extent that Sydney has relative to the city's size.

yes, the USA could learn to make their downtowns as packed and pedestrian oriented as here. More pedestrian streets and downtown retail is required to bring folks in. And by retail I mean shops, department stores, etc not just bars and restaurants. The downtowns are not interesting enough in most cities, they don't have the attraction. Too many corporate offices with not enough heavy retail areas makes a downtown dead. The car love also has not helped. The best thing to do is convert the sterile office blocks into mixed use and retail in Americas CBDs and make 1 pedestrian street per city with good transit links. The decentralized city is not a good idea unless you are as huge as a Tokyo. And build those high density apartments around transit hubs and near the center.

[softee]

Originally Posted by Crawford

There is no Philly version of "Yonge and Dundas" and that has nothing to do with anything.

Downtown Toronto isn't like "Yonge and Dundas". That's one intersection, with a fake Times Square and a giant shopping mall, so obviously very congested. Most of downtown Toronto doesn't have unusually heavy pedestrian traffic.

If you're asking "where is the Eaton Centre of core Philly" (where are the global chain stores) it would be around Walnut, Chestnut and Sansom north of Rittenhouse Square. There is no Times Square-ish block.

The downtown Yonge Strip (with Yonge-Dundas at it epicentre), Queen St. West (stretching for kms), Dundas and Spadina (Chinatown), Kensington Market, Bloor-Yorkville, The Bloor strip in the Annex, St. Lawrence Market area, The Union Station area, The Gay village, the Harbourfront area and parts of the Entertainment District are the downtown areas that have heavy pedestrian traffic. The sidewalks can indeed be jammed with people in these areas, often times moreso on the weekends in the tourist season. I think (excluding NYC) only SF and Chicago are at this level of downtown vibrancy among U.S. cities.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by aquablue

yes, the USA could learn to make their downtowns as packed and pedestrian oriented as here. More pedestrian streets and downtown retail is required to bring folks in. And by retail I mean shops, department stores, etc not just bars and restaurants. The downtowns are not interesting enough in most cities, they don't have the attraction. Too many corporate offices with not enough heavy retail areas makes a downtown dead. The car love also has not helped. The best thing to do is convert the sterile office blocks into mixed use and retail in Americas CBDs and make 1 pedestrian street per city with good transit links. The decentralized city is not a good idea unless you are as huge as a Tokyo. And build those high density apartments around transit hubs and near the center.

Retail can generate pedestrian traffic, but it hardly makes a CBD interesting when you can find the same shops (e.g. H&M, Victoria's Secret) in any major suburban American shopping mall. I'm so bummed that DTLA doesn't have an Old Navy (yet).

If you want more activity beyond the 9-5, then you need more housing and hotel interspersed among the corporate office buildings. This would at least bring more resident-oriented, neighborhood-like amenities into the picture and make the place feel more real and less manufactured.

[dc_denizen]

Housing is definitely the key. Not festival marketplaces, convention centers, enclosed malls, pedestrian malls, etc

The most successful downtowns in the us (dc, sf, philly, chicago, Austin San Diego, various parts of la, Boston, seattle, Denver, portland) have tons of housing in or very close to the core.

The less successful downtowns (Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Phoenix) don't really have this.

[dc_denizen]

Of course the question should be why do some specific large us cities, specifically high growth cities like Dallas and Houston, fail to intensify their cores to the extent that other U.S. and non us Anglo sphere cities do.

[aquablue]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Housing is definitely the key. Not festival marketplaces, convention centers, enclosed malls, pedestrian malls, etc

The most successful downtowns in the us (dc, sf, philly, chicago, Austin San Diego, various parts of la, Boston, seattle, Denver, portland) have tons of housing in or very close to the core.

The less successful downtowns (Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Phoenix) don't really have this.

Pedestrian malls are in the most vibrant cities in the world. It's only N. American cities that somehow are above them, I don't get it. They work in Europe, Asia and Australia, and South America. It would certainly be a draw to the downtown area for folks coming in from the suburbs. It is far nicer to shop without traffic than to have noisy cars and you can also have more street performers with that setup.

Do American just love walking around beside traffic or something?

[aquablue]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Retail can generate pedestrian traffic, but it hardly makes a CBD interesting when you can find the same shops (e.g. H&M, Victoria's Secret) in any major suburban American shopping mall. I'm so bummed that DTLA doesn't have an Old Navy (yet).

If you want more activity beyond the 9-5, then you need more housing and hotel interspersed among the corporate office buildings. This would at least bring more resident-oriented, neighborhood-like amenities into the picture and make the place feel more real and less manufactured.

The mainstream retail is what is drawing those folks to walk around those streets in Sydney. All those malls and shops with their chains on Pitt street and George's street. Those streets would be far quieter without the big well known stores. I think having the chains downtown helps bring folks in.

[aquablue]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Of course the question should be why do some specific large us cities, specifically high growth cities like Dallas and Houston, fail to intensify their cores to the extent that other U.S. and non us Anglo sphere cities do.

The core can't intensify if the CBD is not an attractive place for people to live or play. The current CBD's in sunbelt towns are very corporate and sterile, not conducive to walking around.

[aquablue]

Originally Posted by Quixote

I can think of a lot more things, but then again you've been beating this drum since birth.

I've not been to Sydney or Melbourne, so I won't readily dismiss your opinion. However, I will say that DTLA's pedestrian activity levels (mostly along 7th Street and Broadway) during the day and weekday evening rush hour are solid and highly underestimated.

Traffic seems quite good.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Of course the question should be why do some specific large us cities, specifically high growth cities like Dallas and Houston, fail to intensify their cores to the extent that other U.S. and non us Anglo sphere cities do.

Hard to intensify their cores when only 1 or 2% of their population takes transit to work (see the stats I posted on the previous page). Too much land needed for parking.

[aquablue]

Originally Posted by Doady

Hard to intensify their cores when only 1 or 2% of their population takes transit to work (see the stats I posted on the previous page). Too much land needed for parking.

That's no excuse. If this were in Europe or Australia, they would put the parking underground. It wouldn't be an option to have a downtown full of surface parking lots everywhere. Having a CBD that is devoid of activity outside biz hours would not be acceptable there.

[DZH22]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Of course the question should be why do some specific large us cities, specifically high growth cities like Dallas and Houston, fail to intensify their cores to the extent that other U.S. and non us Anglo sphere cities do.

Most of the Northeastern US cities were built before cars. They were fully established while the southern ones were still minor in comparison. Neighborhoods like the ones below aren't being built today, both in the higher growth cities as well as the established ones. However, it's much easier to fill in the gaps in an existing urban environment than to build one from scratch.

North End Rooftops by Jessica D, on Flickr

When You Finally Let Go of the Things That Hold You Down You Find Freedom by Thomas Hawk, on Flickr

Towards the harbor by Lorianne DiSabato, on Flickr


Really, what chance does a Dallas, Houston, or Phoenix have to ever match this kind of infill? None whatsoever. Cities just aren't built like this anymore.
(also note this pic is from 2015, go here for the current "mic drop" https://www.flickr.com/photos/58994073@N07/42501023531/ )

View of John Hancock Tower and Back Bay Historic District from the top of Prudential Tower Skywalk Observatory by Sileong, on Flickr

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by aquablue

Pedestrian malls are in the most vibrant cities in the world. It's only N. American cities that somehow are above them, I don't get it. They work in Europe, Asia and Australia, and South America. It would certainly be a draw to the downtown area for folks coming in from the suburbs. It is far nicer to shop without traffic than to have noisy cars and you can also have more street performers with that setup.

Do American just love walking around beside traffic or something?

Quite honestly, traffic is part of the cityscape IMHO and not just cars but all kinds of traffic including, in my city, cable cars.

This is Union Square, the heart of San Francisco's shopping district. I fail to see how removing the cars, taxis, tour busses, cable cars etc etc from the perimeter streets would make it more interesting.

• Video Link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tymg...&frags=pl%2Cwn

[Doady]

Originally Posted by aquablue

That's no excuse. If this were in Europe or Australia, they would put the parking underground, develop more transit modes, and make sure that there was something attractive to bring folks into the city above ground, like retail and pedestrianized streets. It's just the American way to let the CBD become a corporate office park.

I am sure Dallas and Houston have plenty of underground parking already, likely way, way more than any European and Australian city.

Ultimately if Dallas and Houston want to become like a European city and get rid og the surface parking, they need more transit and get the cars out of the CBD. 1% or 2% transit mode share is simply not enough to become European.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Retail can generate pedestrian traffic, but it hardly makes a CBD interesting when you can find the same shops (e.g. H&M, Victoria's Secret) in any major suburban American shopping mall. I'm so bummed that DTLA doesn't have an Old Navy (yet).

Well, you can't really find the same shops. Does your mall have a Harry Winston? Gucci or Prada made to measure? Bang & Olufsen top end? Downtown (at least in cities like NY, Chicago and SF) does. Well, maybe Southcoast Mall . . . .