The SSP Downtown Population Research Project

[Segun]

Originally Posted by J. Will

Which tracts did I include that are not "downtown". Be specific. I think I was very conservative. I didn't even include the area where I live, but nobody on my street would say that it's not "downtown".

If Washington D.C. is 2.8 miles across downtown, you can't say that Toronto isn't even 2 miles across.

That map goes into Chinatown, Queen Street, and West Kensington market. Nothing West of Spadina feels like a downtown, despite what civic authorities say. And don't forget that DC has the 3rd largest amount of office space in the US (with a short height limit meaning more horizontal space), and thats not including the government buildings, and gigantic landmarks.

[J. Will]

Originally Posted by Segun

That map goes into Chinatown, Queen Street, and West Kensington market. Nothing West of Spadina feels like a downtown, despite what civic authorities say. And don't forget that DC has the 3rd largest amount of office space in the US (with a short height limit meaning more horizontal space), and thats not including the government buildings, and gigantic landmarks.

I live west of Spadina, and it absolutely feels like "downtown". But even if what you were saying was true, the census tracts south of Queen run all the way from Bathurst to Simcoe/York, so there is no way to cut it off by census tract at Spadina.

If someone wants to redo it counting only the financial district, go ahead. I'm not.

[Cirrus]

I'm glad Philadelphia has come up, because it's a good example of why this question has to be phrased the way I've phrased it. Center City Philadelphia probably has the most clearly and widely accepted geographic boundaries in the country. Everybody knows it's the box formed by the two rivers, South Street, and either Vine or Spring Garden Street to the north. However, that widely accepted definition would be impossible to apply to other cities, so the only way to compare Philadelphia to other cities is to ignore "Center City" and apply a standardized set of rules. Thus for the purposes of this thread "downtown Philadelphia" must be smaller than "Center City Philadelphia". Thanks very much to the Philadelphia forumers for understanding and doing their best to answer the question being asked.

If someone wants to redo it counting only the financial district, go ahead. I'm not.

Maybe you missed the explanation in the first post, but that's the whole point of this thread. *You're* the one intent on giving an answer that wasn't asked for. If you'd rather take your ball and go home because an apples-to-apples comparison makes your city's number smaller, then go right ahead. In the mean time, those of us interested in trying to make meaningful comparisons will actually do so.

If Washington D.C. is 2.8 miles across downtown, you can't say that Toronto isn't even 2 miles across.

Downtown Washington has over 120 million square feet of office development and a height limit of 12 stories. Thus, it covers a large geographic area. If you will point out which parts of my suggested borders are wrong, I'd gladly consider your position. However, the area I've pointed out is essentially the "financial district" of the city, as Google Earth and Street View can confirm to anyone who cares to look. I did not include the neighborhoods in Washington that would be the equivalent to Toronto's Kensington Market.

[Cirrus]

... All that having been said, this thread only works with a lot of peer review. Other people should be checking my work and saying here whether or not they agree with it. If most people disagree with me, then my numbers should be considered wrong.

If you're interested in this list, don't just do your city and then leave. Check somebody else's numbers and post a critique of them.

[J. Will]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Maybe you missed the explanation in the first post, but that's the whole point of this thread. *You're* the one intent on giving an answer that wasn't asked for. If you'd rather take your ball and go home because an apples-to-apples comparison makes your city's number smaller, then go right ahead. In the mean time, those of us interested in trying to make meaningful comparisons will actually do so.

Nonsense. If I was "taking my ball and going home" I would have posted the numbers and then not responded to any criticism about it. It was a lot of work tabulating the numbers as it was. I'm not going to redo it for a smaller area. If somebody else wants to they can unless someone can prove the area I posted isn't "downtown".

Downtown Washington has over 120 million square feet of office development and a height limit of 12 stories. Thus, it covers a large geographic area. If you will point out which parts of my suggested borders are wrong, I'd gladly consider your position.

I don't have a position on what part of DC is "downtown". I don't live in DC and have only visited once (twice if you count and airport layover). You don't live in Toronto, so I'm not sure why you have an opinion on where the downtown begins and ends.

In the mean time, those of us interested in trying to make meaningful comparisons will actually do so.

If you don't believe my numbers, you are free to ignore them. It would be stupid of me to criticize the area of a city I don't live in. And it would be stupid of someone not living in Toronto to suggest they know where downtown begins and ends.

Check somebody else's numbers and post a critique of them.

Nobody else has posted Toronto numbers. It would be stupid of me (or anyone else) to critique the definition of a city in which I (or they) don't reside. How can I comment on the definition of "downtown" for a city that I've maybe visited two or three times?

Having said all that, you still haven't answered my initial question. Which census tracts did I include that should not have been included?

[bobdreamz]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Here is a map:


The two southern tracts clearly extend too far, but they also include some key areas that really can't be left out. On the other hand, the two western tracts (colored blue on the map) contain areas that according to google maps looks to be very marginally downtown. I propose removing those two tracts. Although they do indeed take some land that could be considered downtown, it's a trade-off to accommodate the extra land to the south.

Given that the southern tracts have much larger populations, it is still likely that we're overcounting Miami somewhat, so I think it is as fair a comparison as we can make without going down to the census block level.

Just keeping the red area and losing the blue results in this:
Tract 37.02 - 2,088
Tract 37.01 - 2,400
Tract 67.01 - 9,166
Tract 67.02 - 3,505
Total: -------17,159

Eliminated:
Tract 36.01 - 1,896
Tract 34 - 2,797

I'd like to use the 17,159 number for Miami.

Any objections?

Cirrus I'm not sure if excluding the 2 blue tracts is warranted though. The southern blue tract is where the Bank of America tower is and is part of downtown which now has several condo towers bordering the Miami River.
The norther blue tract on the east half includes the Park West area which has residential buildings also & is considered part of downtown. The western half of the tract includes the Overtown section of Miami.
Not really sure what to do with that tract since Overtown isn't really considered part of downtown though.

[Cirrus]

Which census tracts did I include that should not have been included?

Fair point.

Here is your map, overlaid onto an aerial image from Google Maps. I've traced the tract boundaries in bright red to make them easier to see.



Now here's the same, but with your original tract map removed.



And finally, the same map, but color coded according to my admittedly uneducated opinion. The red tracts are indisputably downtown. The purple ones seem to me like they could go either way (it will take someone who knows what sort of buildings those are to decide), and the blue ones look very clearly to be primarily lowrise residential neighborhoods, and therefore clearly not downtown.



I could see including some of the purple tracts, but the blue ones are obviously not what we're measuring for all the other cities in this thread. If we include them, we'd have to include lots of additional neighborhoods in all the other cities as well.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by bobdreamz

Cirrus I'm not sure if excluding the 2 blue tracts is warranted though...

I agree they include some areas that are clearly part of downtown. I proposed eliminating them to off-set the inclusion of clearly-not-downtown areas to the south, due to the unfortunately large size of those southern tracts.

Perhaps the answer is to go down another level for Miami, and use Census blocks to break up the tracts into smaller areas. I'd hate to do that for one city and not all of them, though.

[J. Will]

And finally, the same map, but color coded according to my admittedly uneducated opinion.

So you're admitting you're uneducated now. Then why did you challenge my definition of downtown in the first place? If someone else from Toronto tells me I'm wrong, I'll listen to them. But why would I listen to someone from another country when I live here myself?

You also stated that I included adjacent residential areas. Those areas are only residential on the side streets. The main streets are solidly commercial for the entire area I included and WELL beyond the area I included.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by tech12

San Francisco total: 75,749

I was able to get pretty close to what i consider "Downtown SF" using census tracts, which includes the Financial District, Union Square, the tenderloin, civic center, Nob Hill, and parts of SOMA and chinatown

I'd like to get some more opinions from folks about whether or not Tenderloin et al should be included in SF's number.

Anybody?

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by J. Will

why did you challenge my definition of downtown in the first place?

Because it doesn't take someone intimately familiar with Toronto to recognize that the definition you're using for "downtown" is obviously different than the definition everybody else is using, and not what was requested for this thread. It only takes someone capable of reading a map.

[niwell]

The only tracts J.Will included that I would consider removing are the blue coloured ones (from Cirrus' map) West of Spadina. The others have far too much employment to be excluded, particularly in the blocks fronting University Ave.

Toronto's a tricky case because there really aren't any physical boundaries that make it easy to define downtown (except to the South of course). It really just blends right into residential areas very gradually and extends further along major streets.

EDIT: Based on the thread criteria get rid of St Jamestown too, since that tract is pretty much entirely residential (minus that awful commercial plaza)

[J. Will]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Because it doesn't take someone intimately familiar with Toronto to recognize that the definition you're using for "downtown" is obviously different than the definition everybody else is using, and not what was requested for this thread. It only takes someone capable of reading a map.

YOU are the one who said

""the part of a city that is dominated by commercial and institutional uses at a scale much greater than the surrounding neighborhoods"."

...then you went on to colour the entire University of Toronto and Ryerson University campuses as purple, which is stupid. If universities are not "institutional", than what is?

Not only that, but you coloured the following areas purple despite the fact that they are completely dominated by office towers:







You even coloured the below two areas purple





And here's an area you coloured blue. A corridor dominated by mid-rise commercial buildings from the early 20th century:



Here's another area you coloured blue.




Stick to cities you know. If someone from Toronto tells me I'm wrong, I'll listen to them. Don't tell me that downtown university campuses and areas with 10s of millions of square feet of densely-packed office space are not "downtown".

[dktshb]

Here is a strict guidline although there are skyscrapers outside the area here and the area is all first and foremost commercial.

Geography: Census Tract 2074, Los Angeles County, California
Value: 1,237 Total Persons
Geography: Census Tract 2075, Los Angeles County, California
Value: 4,098 Total Persons
Geography: Census Tract 2092, Los Angeles County, California
Value: 1,467 Total Persons
Geography: Census Tract 2062, Los Angeles County, California
Value: 3,477 Total Persons
Geography: Census Tract 2063, Los Angeles County, California
Value: 4,995 Total Persons
Geography: Census Tract 2077.10, Los Angeles County, California
Value: 1,229 Total Persons
Geography: Census Tract 2079, Los Angeles County, California
Value: 1,993 Total Persons
Geography: Census Tract 2260, Los Angeles County, California
Value: 4,232 Total Persons
Geography: Census Tract 2240.10, Los Angeles County, California
Value: 2,529 Total Persons
Geography: Census Tract 2242, Los Angeles County, California
Value: 3,067 Total Persons
Geography: Census Tract 2073, Los Angeles County, California
Value: 3,739 Total Persons


Total 32,063

[J. Will]

Originally Posted by niwell

The only tracts J.Will included that I would consider removing are the blue coloured ones (from Cirrus') map West of Spadina. The others have far too much employment to be excluded, particularly in the blocks fronting University Ave.

Toronto's a tricky case because there really aren't any physical boundaries that make it easy to define downtown (except to the South of course). It really just blends right into residential areas very gradually and extends further along major streets.

EDIT: Based on the thread criteria get rid of St Jamestown too, since that tract is pretty much entirely residential (minus that awful commercial plaza)

According to Cirrus the corner of Spadina and Dundas is "lowrise residential"

[Cirrus]

If the areas I colored purple are office towers then they should be included. I don't have a problem with that.

As for that last image (edit: 2nd to last), I actually did look at street view for that exact corner, and we both know the other 3 corners look nothing like that. I could produce 50 corners in Washington that look just like it, but also don't qualify as downtown.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by J Will

If someone from Toronto tells me I'm wrong, I'll listen to them.

Originally Posted by niwell

The only tracts J.Will included that I would consider removing are the blue coloured ones West of Spadina... get rid of St Jamestown too

Well there you go.

[J. Will]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

If the areas I colored purple are office towers then they should be included. I don't have a problem with that.

As for that last image, I actually did look at street view for that exact corner, and we both know the other 3 corners look nothing like that. I could produce 50 corners in Washington that look just like it, but also don't qualify as downtown.

Actually, they don't look much different. Just not as tall. The street is dominated by 6-8 story brick buildings from the early 20th century, some from the late 19th century (one of which I used to work in) that are now offices.

I wouldn't dispute whether or not such areas in Washington were downtown, because I don't live there and haven't been there for 20 years. It would be pretty stupid to comment on a city where I don't live.

In half the time you spent bickering about how my definition of downtown was wrong and overlaying my maps onto other maps, you could have recalculated the population according to your definition of downtown. Seems to me like you're arguing for argument's sake. You don't have a clue what you're talking about. If you are going to admit that you are unfamiliar with a city's fabric, than you shouldn't have commented on it in the first place.


If we go by your definition of "downtown", than Chicago is ONLY the Loop, and includes nothing north or west of the river. And New York is only from City Hall south.

As far as niwell, I've listened to him, and politely disagree with him. I stick by my original definition. You are free to do so, or to ignore it.

[Cirrus]

In half the time you spent bickering about how my definition of downtown was wrong and overlaying my maps onto other maps, you could have recalculated the population according to your definition of downtown.

I have no idea where to get the information. I posted very detailed instructions for how to get it for American cities, but unless you're suggesting that I can find Canadian information on the US census page, you'll have to provide a link.

And while it is easy to dismiss some of the areas you think should be included, I have no idea which of the purple-shaded areas to include (it may even be all of them, which I wouldn't necessarily object to). Niwell provided a more conservative assessment, which was nice of him, but I don't know how to translate it all to tract information. Which neighborhood is St Jamestown, for example?

As far as niwell, I've listened to him, and politely disagree with him. I stick by my original definition. You are free to do so, or to ignore it

Your definition might well be valid on its own terms, but the point here is to compare cities on an apples-to-apples basis, and your definition is wildly different from that which is being applied to all other cities. That's the key problem here. Like with Philadelphia, everybody knows the standard being applied here isn't the same as the traditional definition of downtown, but it's what we have to do in order to compare. It would be great if you'd contribute helpfully instead of arguing that we should apply a different standard to Toronto than to everybody else, but if you won't do that, then yes for the purposes of this thread I will have to ignore your opinion.

[J. Will]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

It would be great if you'd contribute helpfully instead of arguing that we should apply a different standard to Toronto than to everybody else, but if you won't do that, then yes for the purposes of this thread I will have to ignore your opinion.

Show me where I said he should apply a different standard to Toronto than to every other city. It's your argument that I've applied a different standard. Your argument is wrong. I've applied the standard you defined in the first post. This is what you said initially:

""the part of a city that is dominated by commercial and institutional uses at a scale much greater than the surrounding neighborhoods"."

The entire area I included (and extending further in some cases) meets YOUR definition of being dominated by commercial and institutional uses at a scale much greater than the surrounding neighbourhoods. Were I including "greater downtown" I'd have gone further west, north, and east. It's not just your "purple areas", but you coloured areas blue that are clearly part of downtown. Even if we go by niwell's definition of excluding the residential areas west of Spadina, that only subtracts about 14,000 residents - leaving about 118,000.