Cities where the center is located on both sides of a river

[Minato Ku]

Originally Posted by chris08876

I don't think Moscow was mentioned.


Credit: http://world_heritage.jaxa.jp/en/sea...t&from=&id=717

What could be considered the old city is situated nicely on both sides of a river.

Yes, the old city of Moscow sits on both sides of the river.
However the south side of the river may lack of major commercial district compared to the north side.
I feel visitors can visit the city and miss the south side of the Moscow river.

Anyway if we use the interior of the first ring as the center of Moscow.
We have an area of 18 km² of which 4.2km² are located south of the river (including the island), So about 23%.

PS: Do you notice the pattern? The north side of the river is often bigger than the south side.
If you take the three biggest european cities, London, Moscow and Paris (alphabetical order), this is the case.
While Paris has a much more important south side than both London and Moscow, its southern bank remains smaller than its northern bank.

[Minato Ku]

Strangely enough, it hasn't always been that way for Paris.
The roman city, Lutetia was spreading on the southside of the Seine river whereas the northern side had very little development.
It's during the Middle Age that the northern bank became more important.

Lutetia

http://jeanclaudegolvin.com/lutetia-lutece-paris-2/

The fact that the first major development were south of Seine river may explain why Paris spreads relatively well on both side of the river.
Ruins of the roman bath Thermae (big building in the middle of the city in the drawing) and the roman arena Amphitheatre remain.



Thermae

Amphitheatre

[KevinFromTexas]

Austin's South Shore Central plan envisions redeveloping the south shore of Lady Bird Lake. The area sits right across the river from downtown and is mostly lowrise to midrises surrounded by parking lots, though, that is changing with new apartments being added. Part of the plan would also include taking the parcels and dividing them by adding new streets to create a grid.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=199758

Eventually the Austin American-Statesman will sell and redevelop it's 18 acre property in that area. It is a prime piece of land that fronts the river.



This ultimately shows what could be built there.



As many as 15 new high rises could be built. 11 of those would be 200 footers. For comparison, today Austin has 26 buildings in the 200 foot range.





A seating area for viewing Austin's bat colony.



Part of the plan could include building a new bridge across the river.

[photoLith]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

Anyone gonna chime in on New Orleans? My gut leans no as far as it qualifying but I wanna know how others feel.

For sure no.

[CaliNative]

This topic would appear to exclude St. Louis. Everything on the west side, practically nothing on the Illinois side except corn fields & East St. Louis & some prehistoric Indian mounds.

[Emprise du Lion]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

This topic would appear to exclude St. Louis. Everything on the west side, practically nothing on the Illinois side except corn fields & East St. Louis & some prehistoric Indian mounds.

It's excluded because the development on the IL side is limited in comparison to the MO side, and because St. Louis is only located on the Missouri side of the Mississippi. Development on the IL side is certainly more extensive than you're giving it credit for though.

1/4 of metro St. Louis' population is on the IL side of the river. Most of the cities and suburbs doing well are removed from the river though, and there's more space between them than the Missouri suburbs.

[CanesFan]

Fort Wayne, Indiana
Waterloo, Iowa