DOWNTOWN REBIRTH DOCUMENTING THE LIVE-WORK DYNAMIC IN 21ST CENTURY U.S. CITIES Prepared for the International Downtown Association By the Philadelphia Center City District Paul R. Levy and Lauren M. Gilchrist
DOWNTOWN REBIRTH DOCUMENTING THE LIVE-WORK DYNAMIC IN 21ST CENTURY U.S. CITIES Prepared for the International Downtown Association By the Philadelphia Center City District Paul R. Levy and Lauren M. Gilchrist
About the International Downtown Association Founded in 1954, the International Downtown Association connects diverse practitioners who transform cities into healthy and vibrant urban places. Representing more than 3,000 practitioners across 500 organizations worldwide, from cities and towns both small and large, IDA provides the critical tools and resources to help make every downtown a healthy and dynamic heart of its community. As expectations grow for downtown practitioners to transform their cities into hubs of economic and cultural vibrancy, IDA is the organization professionals turn to for the industry’s best networking, educational, and professional development opportunities. About the Center City District The Center City District (CCD) is a $20 million, private-sector sponsored business improvement district authorized under the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Municipality Authorities Act. Covering 233 blocks in the heart of downtown Philadelphia, the CCD helps create a clean, safe, attractive, and well managed public environment in order to support business and economic development in Center City Philadelphia. In addition to public space management and services, the CCD also conducts extensive public policy and market research. The International Downtown Association and the Center City District thank the Penn Institute for Urban Research for their generous contribution to printing costs for this report.
www.penniur.upenn.edu
contents 5 Executive Summary 8 Introduction 10 Resurgent 21st Century Downtowns 11 Defining the New Downtown 13 LED: An Essential New Tool for Downtown Research 17 The Geography of Employment in U.S. Cities 20 Conclusion 21 Appendix I: Profiles of Downtown Employment Nodes in the 10 Largest U.S. Cities 33 Appendix II: Tables for All Cities and Their Employment Nodes 34 Table 1: Employment Nodes Sorted by Total Jobs 38 Table 2: Job Densities 42 Table 3: Employment Nodes Sorted by Live-Work Quotient 47 Appendix III: Changes in Jobs and Population in the Largest Cities for Jobs 48 Table 1: Change in Population: 2000-2010 49 Table 2: Change in Total Jobs: 2002-2011 51 Appendix IV: Methodology 56 Notes 57 Acknowledgments
3
Cities Analyzed (Figure 1)
Akron, OH Albany, NY Albuquerque, NM Alexandria, VA Amarillo, TX Anaheim, CA Anchorage, AK Ann Arbor, MI Arlington, TX Arlington, VA Atlanta, GA Augusta, GA Aurora, CO Austin, TX Bakersfield, CA Baltimore, MD Baton Rouge, LA Bellevue, WA Birmingham, AL Boca Raton, FL Boise, ID Boston, MA Buffalo, NY Burbank, CA Cedar Rapids, IA
America's 150 largest cities hold 30% of all jobs in the country, and the 231 major employment centers within them contain 18.7 million jobs — 14.4% of U.S. employment.
Chandler, AZ Charleston, SC Charlotte, NC Chattanooga, TN Chesapeake City, VA Chicago, IL Cincinnati, OH Cleveland, OH Colorado Springs, CO Columbia, SC Columbus, OH Corpus Christi, TX Dallas, TX Denver, CO Des Moines, IA Detroit, MI Durham, NC El Paso, TX Evansville, IN Everett, WA Fort Lauderdale, FL Fort Wayne, IN Fort Worth, TX Fresno, CA Grand Rapids, MI
Greensboro, NC Greenville, SC Hartford, CT Honolulu, HI Houston, TX Huntsville, AL Indianapolis, IN Irvine, CA Irving, TX Jackson, MS Jacksonville, FL Jersey City, NJ Kansas City, MO Knoxville, TN Lafayette, LA Lakewood, CO Lansing, MI Las Vegas, NV Lexintgon, KY Lincoln, NE Little Rock, AR Long Beach, CA Los Angeles, CA Louisville, KY Lubbock, TX
Madison, WI Memphis, TN Mesa, AZ Miami, FL Milwaukee, WI Minneapolis, MN Mobile, AL Montgomery, AL Nashville, TN New Orleans, LA New York, NY Newark, NJ Newport News, VA Norfolk, VA Oakland, CA Oklahoma City, OK Omaha, NE Ontario, CA Orlando, FL Overland Park, KS Palo Alto, CA Pasadena, CA Philadelphia, PA Phoenix, AZ Pittsburgh, PA
Plano, TX Portland, OR Providence, RI Raleigh, NC Redmond, WA Reno, NV Richardson, TX Richmond, VA Riverside, CA Rochester, MN Rochester, NY Sacramento, CA Salem, OR Salt Lake City, UT San Antonio, TX San Bernadino, CA San Diego, CA San Francisco, CA San Jose, CA Sandy Springs, GA Santa Ana, CA Santa Clara, CA Savannah, GA Scottsdale, AZ Seattle, WA
« Appendix II, Table 1 on page 34 contains the list of all 231 job nodes in these 150 cities listed in descending order by number of jobs.
4
Shreveport, LA Sioux Falls, SD Southfield, MI Spokane, WA Springfield, IL Springfield, MO St. Louis, MO St. Paul, MN St. Petersburg, FL Stockton, CA Syracuse, NY Tacoma, WA Tallahassee, FL Tampa, FL Tempe, AZ Toledo, OH Torrence, CA Troy, MI Tucson, AZ Tulsa, OK Tysons Corner, VA Virginia Beach, VA Washington, DC Wichita, KS Winston-Salem, NC
Executive Summary density and diversity: a national trend Downtowns across the United States are thriving. From Boston to San Diego, Seattle to Miami, cities are diversifying their economies and land use, restoring and enlivening public spaces. During the last three decades, city centers have been adding arts, culture, dining, education, medical, and research institutions, along with hospitality, leisure, and sports venues. Simultaneously, there has been a dramatic and sustained increase in residents, living both within business districts and adjacent neighborhoods. Places once shunned as empty and unsafe at night are being redeveloped at higher density and are thriving after dark. They have become preferred places for work, entertainment, and living. Patrons of downtown regional destinations mingle with office workers, resident young professionals, emptynesters, and, in many cities, an expanding number of families with children. The trends of diversification, animation, and residential revival are occurring as well on and around urban colleges, universities, medical centers, research parks, and other urban commercial zones. Downtown revitalization has been written about extensively. But it has proved difficult to arrive at standard definitions that make it easy to quantify and compare employment and population trends across the broad range of American cities. A relatively new data-merging and mapping effort from the U.S. Census Bureau and state labor market information (LMI) agencies, called the Local Employment Dynamics data and OnTheMap, now make it possible to conclude: •
•
While employment across the United States has been decentralizing for decades1 and now averages only 0.05 jobs per acre (34.1 jobs per square mile), 28 major urban employment centers have achieved densities in excess of 100 jobs per acre, while another 24 have between 75 and 99 jobs per acre. (See Appendix II, Table 1 for all 150 cities and their 231 job nodes and Table 2 for Job Densities.) Total wage and salaried employment in America's 150 largest cities2 (on the basis of jobs) now accounts for 30% of all wage and salaried employment in the United
« Footnotes begin on page 56.
Figure 2: Total Jobs in Major Employment Nodes in America's Largest Cities (Based on Number of Jobs) City Jobs Rank 1 3,776,719 jobs
2 1,679,859 jobs
Job Node New York, NY
2,318,523
Midtown Manhattan
1,441,281
Downtown Manhattan
350,124
Los Angeles, CA
660,670
Downtown Los Angeles
372,337
Westwood/UCLA
140,986
Wilshire/Koreatown
1,590,436 jobs
4 1,261,865 jobs
828,284 jobs
6 798,088 jobs
7 717,240 jobs
8 665,585 jobs
9 649,930 jobs
10 634,183 jobs
76,118 71,229
Houston, TX
561,605
Downtown Houston
200,383
Greenway Plaza
103,963
Uptown
129,929
Texas Medical Center
127,330
Chicago, IL
734,903
Downtown Chicago
609,902
University of Illinois
94,935
University of Chicago 5
527,118
Brooklyn*
Hollywood 3
Total Jobs in Major Employment Nodes
30,066
Phoenix, AZ
187,410
Downtown Phoenix
107,859
North Downtown
79,551
Dallas, TX
357,799
Downtown Dallas
167,514
University of Texas Medical Center
190,285
San Diego, CA
181,199
Downtown San Diego
100,905
UCSD & Medical Center
80,294
Philadelphia, PA
367,595
Center City
288,227
University City San Antonio, TX Downtown San Antonio University of Texas Medical Center
79,368 181,155 96,643 84,512
Washington, DC
444,581
Downtown Washington, DC
397,036
Georgetown
28,017
VA Medical Center
19,528
Total Jobs in Major Employment Nodes
5,995,440
*Brooklyn exhibits an employment allocation anomaly that may be contributing to its job totals, density, and live-work calculations. Tract 9 contains 196,474 jobs, likely due to central payroll processing for the New York City Buildings Department and not a reflection of the number of workers physically working in this tract.
5
States (38,883,551 jobs). Within these cities, the one-mile area surrounding and including the 231 densest job nodes accounts for 48.1% of the jobs in these cities. (See Figure 1 and Appendix II, Table 1.) These 231 major employment nodes and the one-mile area surrounding them thus hold 14.4% of U.S. jobs (18,696,018 jobs). •
Major employment centers vary greatly across the country based on local industry specialization, but in the 150 largest cities, employment centers may be broadly grouped into three categories: (1) Nearly two-thirds are commercial downtowns and town centers filled with professional, business, insurance, and financial services firms; real estate, communications, energy, and technology employers; as well as leisure, retail, and hospitality industries. (2) Twenty percent are education, healthcare, and research campuses with classrooms, dormitories, administrative buildings, museums, hospital beds, doctors’ offices, treatment centers, and laboratories, termed here anchor institution districts. (3) Office and research parks in suburban-style, autooriented campuses make up the balance.
•
A live-work environment is one in which commuting times and costs are significantly reduced. (Contrast a 50-minute commute by car with a 15-minute walk to work.) Thirtyfour major, urban employment nodes are at the center of zones in which 30% or more of the working residents living within these employment centers, or within the surrounding one-mile radius, also work within this area. Another 58 major, urban employment nodes are at the center of zones in which 20% to 29% of working residents living within these employment centers, or within the surrounding one-mile radius, work within this area. Five employment centers — Midtown Manhattan, downtown Chicago, downtown Washington, DC, Las Vegas’ major casino strip, and Rochester, MN — have live-work quotients in their downtown residential neighborhoods in excess of 50%. (See Appendix II, Table 3 for all 150 cities and 231 job nodes.)
Figure 3: Highest Live-Work Percentages Employment Node
% of Workers Living Within One Mile of Downtown Who Work Within One Mile of Downtown
Midtown Manhattan, NY
55.9%
Downtown Chicago, IL
51.8%
Downtown Washington, DC
50.5%
Strip - Las Vegas, NV*
50.5%
Downtown Rochester, MN
50.2%
(1) Sixty-one percent are cities with one dominant downtown employment node.
Downtown Ann Arbor, MI
49.3%
Downtown Honolulu, HI**
44.5%
Downtown Portland, OR
43.5%
(2) Thirteen percent have a dominant downtown employment node, plus a significant secondary employment node, typically built around one or more educational or medical facilities.
Downtown Seattle, WA
41.0%
Center City - Philadelphia, PA
40.7%
American cities vary greatly in terms of the geographic distribution of their economic activity. In general, the cities studied here are one of four types:
(3) Cities with multiple, roughly equal, employment nodes account for 8% of the sample. (4) Ten percent are cities with decentralized employment throughout the city area. In these 231 major employment centers and within the one-mile radius that surrounds each of them, 12.9 million people (4.2% of the U.S. population) now make their primary residence in live-work environments that define thriving 21st century cities.
6
Employment Nodes with the highest Live-Work percentages
*Because Downtown Las Vegas and the Las Vegas Strip fall into different cities, the live-work relationship for these areas was calculated by examining the commuting patterns of workers who live in both places. **Honolulu statistics were calculated using Honolulu County as the city area rather than Urban Honolulu.
Downtowns with the Largest Number of Residents In many major cities, the residential population living in and within a mile of major employment zones is growing faster than the rest of the city, sometimes faster than adjacent suburbs. Between 2000 and 2010, nearly all of the most heavily populated downtowns saw double-digit population growth in and around their city centers, with Chicago doubling population
Figure 4: Population Change Around Job Nodes with Largest Residential Populations Commercial Downtown Employment Node
2010 Population
Population Within Half Mile
2000-2010 % Change
2010 Population
Population Within One Mile
2000-2010 % Change
2010 Population
2000-2010 % Change
Midtown Manhattan, NY
78,579
12.5%
378,553
6.7%
586,652
8.9%
Downtown Manhattan, NY
65,714
64.8%
148,396
15.6%
173,179
13.1%
Center City - Philadelphia, PA
57,239
16.3%
107,853
16.2%
170,467
8.9%
Downtown Chicago, IL
53,832
95.6%
101,885
45.5%
144,051
46.0%
Downtown San Francisco, CA
52,008
15.7%
117,312
14.6%
134,312
13.9%
Downtown Seattle, WA
42,423
25.4%
86,427
15.5%
119,590
13.3%
Downtown Miami, FL
40,414
68.2%
90,142
33.5%
140,889
27.7%
Downtown Boston, MA*
33,828
16.8%
77,610
17.7%
170,934
10.4%
Downtown Jersey City, NJ
31,538
58.2%
77,015
20.3%
160,186
10.3%
Downtown Sacramento, CA
30,544
-1.7%
52,684
2.2%
73,225
19.4%
*Downtown Boston population was estimated based on locally accepted boundaries because no LED data are available for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
in its downtown core. Population growth in and within a onemile area of each of these 10 downtowns grew an average of 17.2% between 2000 and 2010, while the national population grew by 9.7% in this decade. These findings are based on 2011 LED data and 2010 Decennial Census data, the most recent years for which the LED employment and full census counts are available. These complete counts, rather than more recent estimates, were used to ensure comparability across geographic areas.3 However, the Census Bureau’s Population Estimates program, as well as the anecdotal evidence from local real estate trends, suggest that downtown population numbers are steadily increasing, and, as the national economy continues to recover, jobs are being added. Between the 2010 Census on April 1, 2010, and July 1, 2012 (the date of the Census Bureau’s most recent population estimates), the top 10 cities featured in this
report added an estimated 532,525 people, or 2.2%, to their total population, with Washington, D.C. posting the largest growth rate at 5.1% citywide. As long as energy costs remain high and demographic, cultural, and development trends favoring cities continue, the resurgence of downtowns and anchor institution districts is likely to grow stronger. But nothing is guaranteed about their success. Sustained economic growth requires focused place management, competitive tax policies, entrepreneurial talent, capital, smart local governance, workforce quality, and good global connections. LED provides a new resource for downtown managers and civic leaders to benchmark their progress on this path. It would be extraordinarily helpful to those who manage, govern, or develop in these places if the U.S. Census Bureau could adopt this methodology for future reports on downtowns and other urban employment nodes.
Downtown Austin, TX
7
introduction For more than three decades, downtowns in the United States have diversified their economies and land use, restoring and animating public spaces. City centers, primarily places to work and shop in the mid-20th century, have been adding arts, cultural, dining, education, medical, and research institutions, along with hospitality, leisure, and sports venues. Simultaneously, there has been a dramatic and sustained increase in residents living both within business districts and in adjacent neighborhoods.
Bachelor’s degree, and 30% hold a graduate or professional degree; 55.7% of the population is under 35 years old, and household incomes average $123,345 annually.5 While jobs attract residents, the availability of a skilled, welleducated population is now also a powerful draw for some employers. Other research also suggests that as educational levels rise in a metropolitan area, all individuals working there experience increases in their earnings, regardless of education level.6
Downtowns, once shunned as empty, unsafe places at night, are now being redeveloped at higher density and are thriving after dark. Patrons of downtown regional destinations mingle with office workers and resident young professionals, emptynesters, and, in many cities, an expanding number of families with children. The trends of diversification, densification, and adjacent residential revival are also occurring on and around urban colleges, universities, medical centers, and research parks as well as around other major employment nodes outside the traditional downtown.
Journalists were first to write about the residential part of this trend, notably in cities such as Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, and San Francisco, which experienced “back to the city” movements as early as the 1970s. Academic case studies of individual cities followed, but until the first decade of this century, there was no systematic effort to quantify the magnitude of the live-work trend, in part because the dominant urban narrative for so long had been the story of decline. More significantly, the geographic units that the national government uses to record jobs and population make it hard to arrive at standard definitions that work for all cities to enable the systematic tracking of these trends.
Today, America’s 150 largest cities (on the basis of jobs)4 contain 30% of all jobs in the United States (38,883,551 jobs), and their 231 densest, major employment nodes and the one-mile area surrounding them account for 48.1% of the jobs in these cities. While jobs in the United States have been decentralizing for decades and now average only 0.05 jobs per acre nationally (34.1 jobs per square mile), 28 major urban employment centers have job densities in excess of 100 jobs per acre, while another 24 have densities between 75 and 99 jobs per acre. Even the least dense of the 231 employment centers analyzed in this study have job densities 20 times the national average. Within these major employment centers and within the surrounding one-mile radius, 12.9 million people (4.2% of the U.S. population) now make their primary residence in live-work environments that are becoming the hallmark of successful 21st century cities. In nearly all major cities, the residential population in these areas is growing faster than the rest of the city, sometimes faster than adjacent suburbs. Within each employment node in the top 10 cities for jobs, 63% of all residents 25 and older hold at least a
8
Neither the U.S. Census Bureau, nor the Bureau of Economic Analysis, nor the Bureau of Labor Statistics counts the number of jobs located in the places North Americans call “downtown.”7 While employment data are typically computed at the county level and population statistics are available for areas as small as Census Blocks, there is no common definition for a downtown residential neighborhood or agreement on how, or if, it differs from other city neighborhoods. At the local level, employment estimates for downtowns are often derived from data tabulated by national, commercial brokerage firms that track the quantity, rent, and occupancy rates of leased office space. Clusters of major commercial buildings are aggregated to define central business districts (CBDs). Within these areas, accepted industry measures of workers per square foot are used to estimate employment. But CBDs do not usually include the emerging retail, entertainment, or hotel zones that diversified so many American downtowns by the end of the 20th century, nor do
they count employment in institutionally-owned cultural, medical, or educational buildings. By the 1990s, business improvement districts (BIDs) and other place-management organizations were calculating population and employment across multiple sectors within their service areas, using local tax records or capitalizing on relationships with property owners, managers, and business or institutional
Historical Basis for Definition Challenges The challenge of defining downtown emerges in part from the unique development path that American cities took beginning in the second half of the 19th century. As Robert Fogelson writes in Downtown: Its Rise and Fall, the colonial American city was a walking city where home and work were close together. As in Europe, city or town center was the way to describe the most commercialized zones. The term downtown appeared first in New York City as a geographic reference to the southern portion of the island of Manhattan, where commercial buildings, clustered close to the port, grew denser and squeezed out homes. Downtown was the lower, business part of the island, while uptown initially referred to the residential blocks above Wall Street and then above 14th Street, where the affluent moved to escape from noise, congestion, and commercial density. Without the weight of tradition or an authoritarian government that imposed height limits or property restraints, commercial developers kept buying adjacent houses, replacing them with ever larger commercial structures. As this phenomenon occurred in other cities, downtown ceased to be a geographic reference and acquired a functional meaning: downtown = the high-density business district. As the U.S. industrialized in the 19th century, horse-drawn carts on fixed rail, then electric-powered trolleys, then elevated railroads and subways extended commuting distances. Downtowns grew denser, acting as magnets pulling labor to the central workplace. But even in the decade immediately after the Civil War, most buildings in American business districts were still four- to six-story brick or masonry structures. The innovation of steel frame buildings, which occurred first in Chicago following its disastrous fire in 1871, and the invention of the Otis elevator meant buildings could rise higher, making “huge” 18- to 20-story structures possible. In the preautomobile city with land at a premium, the impulse was to go up. By 1910, a tight cluster of skyscrapers became the defining characteristic of the American downtown—“the heaven storming audacity of a young nation,” as one startled English visitor noted on arriving in the port of New York (Robert M. Fogelson, Downtown: Its Rise and Fall, 1880-1950, page 138).
leaders to secure data not otherwise available. Several BIDs support research staffs to document their economic and demographic trends. But few BIDs cover all of the geography of downtown commercial areas. In many big cities, multiple BIDs operate within areas broadly perceived as one central business district, creating the potential for overlapping or incomplete data and conflicting narratives about downtown, particularly in the absence of a standard methodology.
Around these skyscrapers emerged giant department stores catering to downtown workers and regional, transit-dependent shoppers. In the next geographic ring came warehouses and establishments that served downtown; farther out, as density dropped, were residential neighborhoods. Distributed elsewhere in the city, within walking distance of manufacturing establishments, railroad depots, or ports, were working-class neighborhoods. By contrast, in the center of nearly all European cities, commercial enterprises and offices intermingled with middle- and upper-class residences. Customary or formal height limits, such as those in Paris, prohibited anything taller. Skyscrapers and single-use office districts did not appear until after the Second World War, emerging first in places like Rotterdam where the traditional city had been blitzed. Between the 1960s and 1980s, these districts emerged in separate precincts outside city centers, such as La Defense in Paris, Canary Wharf in London, and, by the 1990s, in the “aerotropolises” that lined highways adjacent to airports outside of Madrid, Amsterdam, and other European capitals. The term “central business district,” Fogelson notes, is also an American creation, first appearing in the 1920s as a defensive response to the decentralizing power of the automobile. As other auto-oriented business centers emerged in regions, downtown civic leaders asserted their primacy as the central business district. And so they remained until post-World War II rapid suburbanization. With gas less than 30 cents per gallon and car ownership attainable for nearly all, middle-class residents, followed by retail, and then offices, decamped for the suburbs. Between 1955 and 1977, 15,000 regional shopping centers were built in the U.S: all were in suburbs. As late as 1970, 70% of commercial office space in the United States was still in central business districts. By 2000, downtown’s average regional office market share had dropped to 30%. In 2009, Brookings calculated that only 21% of employees in the top 98 metro areas worked within three miles of traditional downtowns while 45% worked more than 10 miles away from historic city centers (Kneebone, Job Sprawl Revisited). In 1960, 31% of the U.S. population lived in suburbs; by 2010 this percentage had grown to 51% (Leigh Gallagher, The End of the Suburbs, page 9).
9
Resurgent 21st Century Downtowns The post-World War II narrative of urban decline was a tale of contracting, single-use office districts left empty after dark; obsolete, historic structures demolished for surface parking or interstate highways; and falling real estate values and abandoned housing. It is the decline from which American downtowns are rebounding as they restore economic and landuse diversity, reclaim old buildings, and redevelop empty lots. With post-industrial work neither noisy nor polluting and auto fuel costs 68% higher than 1960s levels (adjusting for inflation), city centers are capitalizing on their energy efficiency, economic sustainability, and walkable live-work environments. Edward Glaeser’s 2011 Triumph of the City celebrates, on a global scale, the innovative, entrepreneurial, job- and wealth-creating function of these mixed-use centers. The essence of cities, writes Glaeser, is “the absence of physical space between people and companies. [Cities] are proximity, density, closeness. They enable us to work and play together, and their success depends on the demand for physical connection.”8 When cities succeed, they “create a virtuous cycle in which employers are attracted by the large pool of potential employees and workers are drawn by the abundance of potential employers.”9 In thriving cities, densities far in excess of suburban levels create a critical mass where inventors, entrepreneurs, investors, talented workers, and customers intermingle to create opportunity and growth.
Downtown Houston, TX
10
In the wake of the Great Recession, it became clear that many of the restored, culturally-rich, dense, and walkable environments of cities in the United States fared better than their low-density, suburban counterparts. Reflective of deeper demographic, cultural, and energy trends, office occupancy levels and housing values are now often higher in downtowns than in surrounding suburbs.10 It is not that American suburbs have become obsolete: many have embarked on diversifying their commercial districts and enhancing pedestrian environments. It is simply that downtowns have rebounded from the competitive disadvantages that plagued them in the decades following World War II. As technology obliterates boundaries between home, work, entertainment, and shopping, the densest, most animated urban centers are now competing on equal footing with suburbs as preferred places to work and as regional, choice residential neighborhoods. “Walkable urbanism,” suggests Christopher Leinberger, whether in cities or suburbs, has become the new development ideal.11 But can we move beyond anecdotal reporting and idiosyncratic local boundaries to quantify the number of people working and living in restored American downtowns, new urban business centers, and in similarly diversified urban college, university, and medical districts?
Defining the New Downtown Most data used at the local level are derived from federal surveys. Counties, not always congruent with city boundaries, are the primary sub-state units for employment information from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and Bureau of Economic Analysis. Within counties there is no sub-category for downtowns or central business districts. To count population, the U.S. Census Bureau uses more fine-grained geographies, but its Census Tracts (and other geographic areas) do not always correspond to local neighborhood or downtown boundaries.12 While individual cities may piece together geographies to approximate these boundaries, there is no standard methodology that enables comparisons between cities and regions. Despite these challenges, several researchers have made progress. The most sophisticated work on defining downtown residential neighborhoods and tracking population change was done by Eugenie L. Birch, Professor of City and Regional Planning at the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Birch’s 2005 study “Who Lives Downtown,” published by the Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program, analyzed population changes in America’s 44 largest downtowns from 1970 to 2000. The study was based on detailed conversations with either local planning officials or downtown managers and used locally accepted definitions for downtown neighborhoods. Dr. Birch compared trends within these boundaries to citywide trends and sorted downtowns into five categories: first were
Downtown St. Louis, MI
fully-developed downtowns, which had been steadily adding households for 30 years, outperforming their cities, and which had a very high concentration of college-educated and more affluent adults. Along a continuum followed emerging downtowns, downtowns on the edge of takeoff, slow-growing downtowns, and declining downtowns. In the ensuing decade, most of these downtowns continued or accelerated their paths of population change. But Birch’s work was limited to population trends, making no attempt to quantify the number of downtown jobs that were a driving force behind residential location choices for these welleducated households. The analysis also did not try to determine whether the residents who lived in or adjacent to downtowns actually worked in the economic centers of their cities.
Downtown Philadelphia, PA
The Census Bureau, too, recently attempted to quantify population change in central cities. In its September 2012 report, "Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010," downtown areas were
11
ll S ss e Ru
12
Ave
7th
6th
5th
State Highway 9a
N
Pr
inc eS
de
Wil
liam
St.
City Hall Jo hn Rec tor St St. .
sbu
rg B
ridg
I-2 78
Re a
Bowe ry
Br oa d
Y
West St .
JERSEY CIT
wa y
I-78
t.
e
ge
Not all city halls are at the geographic center of their downtowns nor, generally, does a circle capture the idiosyncratic shapes of urban commercial areas. Therefore, a projected two-mile radius from city hall might not, for example, include some residential areas adjacent to a rectangular-shaped commercial zone if the edge of that
t.
MANHATTA
Brid ttan nha ge Ma id Br yn kl
selected by choosing the principal city in each metropolitan area, drawing a two-mile radius around city hall, and then examining population trends within this zone (Figures 5 and 6). While this method created an elegant conformity of circular shapes in multiple cities, the results were significantly different than the trends BIDs and other local entities tabulated when using their geographic boundaries for downtown residential neighborhoods.
nnel I-78
E1
t.
oo Br
t.
City Hall
S. Hanover St.
I-95
Ave Ave
y1
rR d.
y
w ski H
Pula
Holland Tu
Av e
2S
FDR Dr.
an
I-495
E2 4S
t.
Orleans St.
Er dm
lS na Ca
. St
Ave
S Monroe St.
s ken
Wil
E North Ave
Saint Paul St.
h lo ul cC
M W Franklin St.
HOBOKEN
Be la i
3
Dr.
Figure 6: Two-Mile Radius Around New York City’s City Hall US H w
I-8
N Charles St.
Sw ann
Hillen Rd .
Loch Raven Blv d.
York Rd.
Figure 5: Two-Mile Radius Around Baltimore’s City Hall
BROOKLYN
zone was itself two miles from city hall. A two-mile radius can also extend across rivers, highways, mountains, and even state lines. Finally, in places where the commercial district might not extend very far from city hall, a twomile radius might embrace areas significantly outside generally accepted limits for walkability. As a consequence, this approach produced both under- and over-counts of downtown population trends. It also did not account for cities with multiple downtowns, like New York. City Hall in Lower Manhattan is situated 1.56 miles from the southern boundary (14th Street) of the largest commercial area in Midtown and 2.86 miles from its epicenter at 42nd Street. A two-mile radius encompasses portions of Brooklyn, Queens, and even parts of New Jersey (Figure 6).
LED: An Essential New Tool for Downtown Research Figure 7: Baltimore’s Job Density
3 45
140
41
7 14 2
1
15
an
I-8
Av e
.
95 I-8 I-95
Orleans St.
Er dm
an
Av e wy
ski H
Pula
ss e I-95
S. Hanover St.
ll S
t.
Ave
Ru
.
St W Franklin St.
Wil
St
h lo
Pula
E North Ave
Saint Paul St.
wy ski H
Rd .
3
Dr.
ir
Sw ann
Er dm
ul
ss ell
.
Figure 9: One-Half and One-Mile Radii Around Baltimore’s Commercial Downtown Be la
rR d.
York Rd.
ai
70,376 - 109,959 Jobs/Sq. Mile
N Charles St.
Be l
39,589 - 70,375 Jobs/Sq. Mile
s ken
Ru
5 2
.
Hillen Rd
17,598 - 39,588 Jobs/Sq. Mile
cC
Orleans St.
S. Hanover St.
I-95
4,404 - 17,597 Jobs/Sq. Mile
S Monroe St.
W
5 - 4,403 Jobs/Sq. Mile
M
. St
Saint Paul St.
h lo
ul cC
M
Ave
E North Ave
S Monroe St.
ns ilke
I-39
9 12
I-95
Hillen Rd
York Rd.
Figure 8: Baltimore’s Commercial Downtown
W Franklin St.
1 ay hw
Hig
Loch Raven Blv d.
Loch Raven Bl vd.
144
173
N Charles St.
3
Dr.
1
40
40
LED enables researchers to draw boundaries on a web map that correspond to the irregular and idiosyncratic shapes of commercial areas, based on their job density. Within those areas, researchers can tabulate the number of jobs, the number of workers living there, and basic demographic I-8
y wa gh
Hi
26
But a more accessible way to define downtown was made possible in 2006 with the release of an administrative data product called Local Employment Dynamics (LED), produced by a partnership between the U.S. Census Bureau and state labor market information (LMI) agencies.
Sw ann
139
25
I-8
What has been lacking is a standard methodology for defining commercial downtown and a downtown residential neighborhood that captures the irregular shapes of commercial areas and that can be applied across all cities to track and compare changes in employment and population. While the Census Bureau made strides, particularly in the 2010 paper "Identifying Concentrations of Employment in Metropolitan Areas," this work depended on confidential micro data obtained from the Census 2000 long-form questionnaire, which is both dated and not easily accessible.
13
Loch Raven Blv d.
York Rd.
I-8
2 MILE RADIUS AROUND CITY HALL
. St W Franklin St.
la i
or dramatically decline in most cities moving outward from the edge of the business area. At some geographic point, the “gravitational” pull of the central employment area drops off significantly, and these residential communities cease to have high percentages of workers who journey to work in the adjacent employment center. Those cities that have added population in and around their downtowns for several decades (Birch’s “fully-developed downtowns”) clearly have the highest Er dm an Av live-work percentages. Given the volume of downtown housing e production across the country and the most recent data from wy H i the Census Bureau’s Population Estimates program, this sk Pula suggests that many more cities are adding downtown residents and moving toward higher live-work quotients.
ss e Ru I-95
S. Hanover St.
ll S
t.
Ave
Orleans St.
S Monroe St.
s ken
Wil
E North Ave
Saint Paul St.
h lo ul cC
M
1 MILE RADIUS AROUND CBD
Be
3
Dr.
rR d.
N Charles St.
Sw ann
Hillen Rd .
Figure 10: One-Mile Radius Around CBD and Two-Mile Radius Around Baltimore’s City Hall Compared
While transit systems, land use, and local topography still add complexity and variations, LED enables, for the first time, the creation of a methodology to: •
map downtown commercial areas and institutional districts, however irregular in shape;
information. Using LED’s unique pairing of information about the home and work locations of employees, it is then possible to determine where workers come from each day to get to their jobs and to where workers living in a particular residential area commute for work.13
•
tabulate and compare the number of downtown jobs across cities;
•
define a “downtown residential neighborhood” based on (1) its location either within or adjacent to an employment center and (2) its live-work quotient; and
LED also enables mapping of a city’s major employment zones with color gradations to represent varying levels of job density (Figure 7). One can visualize transitions from blocks with 40-story, 21st century office towers, to those with 15-story, 1920s office buildings, to low-rise retail or warehouse districts. Extending in concentric rings, one can see commercial density give way to residential land use, recreational spaces, or surface parking lots (Figures 13-16 on pages 18 and 19). Within adjacent neighborhoods, it is possible to calculate the percent of workers who live in these areas and also work in the nearby commercial downtown, creating for each place a live-work quotient (Figure 11).
•
calculate how many people in each city live in “downtown neighborhoods.”
In nearly every city analyzed in this study, the highest live-work percentages are within the commercial downtown (or campus) area, where pre-existing housing, more recent conversions, or new construction has occurred. Percentages gradually
14
These definitions are by no means absolute. Local researchers, public officials, real estate professionals, downtown managers, and journalists will still appreciate local nuances and trends far better than any uniform research methodology.14 But LED provides an objective standard against which to test local definitions, though there is room for healthy discussion and debate as to what level live-work quotient makes an area a “downtown residential neighborhood” and if this is indeed a valid distinction for all cities.15 Appendix I (page 21) contains profiles for 12 employment nodes in America’s 10 largest cities using this methodology. Appendix II, Table 3 (page 42) contains the livework percentages for all 231 job nodes. (Please visit www.definingdowntown.org for maps of additional cities.)
Figure 11: Live-Work Percentage Around Major Employment Nodes in the 10 Largest Cities % of Workers Living in Commercial Downtown Who Work in Commercial Downtown
% of Workers Living Within Half Mile Outside Commercial Downtown Who Work in Commercial Downtown
% of Workers Living Within One Mile Outside Commercial Downtown Who Work in Commercial Downtown
Midtown Manhattan
48.2%
38.9%
37.4%
Downtown Manhattan
22.7%
13.1%
12.8%
8.7%
7.6%
7.5%
Downtown Los Angeles
19.3%
9.0%
8.3%
Westwood/UCLA
City Jobs Rank
Job Node
1
New York, NY
Brooklyn* 2
3
4
5
6
7
Los Angeles, CA 12.1%
6.5%
5.9%
Hollywood
8.1%
3.5%
3.0%
Wilshire/Koreatown
9.2%
4.8%
3.7%
Downtown Houston
22.2%
11.6%
12.3%
Greenway Plaza
12.4%
6.4%
5.9%
Uptown
17.4%
6.4%
6.7%
Texas Medical Center
31.2%
16.3%
15.7%
Downtown Chicago
52.3%
43.7%
43.9%
University of Illinois
11.2%
5.0%
4.1%
University of Chicago
19.0%
22.8%
14.3%
Downtown Phoenix
13.0%
9.4%
8.6%
North Downtown
10.8%
6.6%
5.9%
Downtown Dallas
17.9%
12.0%
10.4%
University of Texas Medical Center
19.1%
12.0%
10.7%
17.9%
11.0%
10.7%
3.1%
16.8%
14.5%
Center City
36.0%
35.2%
34.1%
University City
12.2%
16.6%
12.6%
Downtown San Antonio
12.2%
6.7%
7.7%
University of Texas Medical Center
21.3%
8.4%
7.8%
43.7%
42.5%
41.6%
Georgetown
8.7%
6.8%
6.0%
VA Medical Center
4.9%
2.6%
2.1%
Houston, TX
Chicago, IL
Phoenix, AZ
Dallas, TX
San Diego, CA Downtown San Diego UCSD & Medical Center
8
9
10
Philadelphia, PA
San Antonio, TX
Washington, DC Downtown Washington, DC
*Brooklyn exhibits an employment allocation anomaly that may be contributing to its job totals, density, and live-work calculations. Tract 9 contains 196,474 jobs, likely due to central payroll processing for the New York City Buildings Department and not a reflection of the number of workers physically working in this tract.
15
A Note on Social Equity and Downtown Development While this report focuses primarily upon the impact of major urban employment centers on their adjacent residential areas, a more detailed analysis of Philadelphia demonstrates that urban employment centers also provide opportunity for workers of all education and skill levels from throughout the rest of the city and region. While 42% of working residents within a one-mile ring of the city’s central business district work in Philadelphia’s Center City, 25% of citywide workers do so as well, commuting largely by public transit from middle-class, working-class, and lower-income neighborhoods into downtown. Overall in Philadelphia, Center City residents make up just 10.1% of the downtown workforce; residents from Philadelphia neighborhoods outside of Center City account for 41.9%; and residents from the surrounding 10-county metropolitan area account for 39.3% of downtown workers (www.centercityphila. org/docs/CCR13_transportation.pdf).
Downtown Indianapolis, IN
16
Further, while city centers contain numerous high-skilled jobs, 23.5% of all jobs in Philadelphia’s downtown are held by workers with no more than a high school diploma. While many of these jobs are in the hospitality and retail sectors, for every 500,000 square feet of new office development, the city adds 3,300 jobs, including not only high-skill, high-wage positions, but also numerous technical and support functions in the $30,000 to $50,000 salary range. In addition, based on information provided by professional building management firms, the operation of a half-million square feet of office space requires five building engineers, 12 security guards, 18 cleaning staff, and continuous work for the construction trades in tenant fit-out and renovations. The LED data source enables researchers in each city to document from which neighborhoods across the region workers are commuting each day and what is their highest level of education. So it is now possible to answer clearly: who benefits from downtown development? This can also be an invaluable tool for regional transportation planning.
The Geography of Employment in U.S. Cities For the purposes of this study, we focused on the 150 largest U.S. cities and places based on number of jobs (Figure 1).16 Within these 150 cities and places, 231 commercial downtowns and other employment-rich areas were identified according to the Census Tracts with the highest levels of job density.17 Following a 2010 analysis conducted by Matthew Marlay and Todd K. Gardner of the U.S. Census Bureau, "Identifying Concentrations of Employment in Metropolitan Areas,"18 which used data from the 2000 Census to look at all employment areas, we mapped identifiable employment districts with high concentrations of jobs. The lowest density job cluster included in this study (one job/acre) contained 8,650 jobs and was still 20 times more job dense than the national average of 0.05 jobs per acre. Urban Employment Typologies The 231 dense employment nodes that emerged from the LED data for the 150 largest cities and places in United States (based on the number of jobs) can be sorted into three broad categories,19 based on land use and major employment types. All three types have densities significantly higher than the nationwide average for job distribution: (1) Commercial downtowns and town centers filled with professional, business, insurance, and financial services firms; real estate, communications, energy, and technology employers; as well as leisure, retail, and hospitality industries. These places also may include colleges, hospitals, universities, and cultural institutions, but they usually don’t constitute the largest employment sectors in these areas. Among the 231 employment nodes analyzed in this study, 147 (63%) were in this category. In Appendix II, Table 1 we refer to nearly all of these as primary downtowns. (2) Urban education, cultural, healthcare, and research campuses with classrooms, dormitories, research and administrative buildings, museums, hospital beds, doctors’ offices, treatment centers, and laboratories, termed here anchor institution
Figure 12: Job-Density Thresholds Category
Jobs Per Acre
Extremely High Job Density
> 100
Very High Job Density
75-99
High Job Density
50-74
Moderately High Job Density
25-49
Moderate Job Density
15-24
Lower Job Density
< 15
districts.20 These districts may include commercial office buildings, hotels, and retail but they are not the dominant employment sectors. Among the 231 employment nodes analyzed in this study, 47 (21%) were in this category. In Appendix II, Table 1 we classify nearly all of these as secondary employment nodes. (3) Office and research parks in suburban-style, autooriented campuses, are usually the least diversified of the urban employment centers. The study included 36 (16%) of these.21 In Appendix II, Table 1 we classify nearly all of these as secondary employment nodes. This framework is preliminary and can serve as the basis for future comparative research. Urban Form The areas and types of high-density employment vary significantly across the country due to the unique geographic, economic, and historical conditions that have shaped individual cities. But in general, four different physical forms, or structures of local, urban economic activity, emerged: (1) One dominant employment node. These generally exist in larger and older U.S. cities where the city form was cast in the pre- or early automobile era and strongly influenced by a hub-and-spokes public transit system. Often built around manufacturing
17
and waterfront economies, many of these cities experienced moderate to severe decline in the 1960s and 1970s. Most have now re-emerged as postindustrial centers, converting older, obsolete office and warehouse buildings into hotels, condominiums, apartments, or settings for start-up firms and artistsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; lofts.22 Among the 150 cities studied, 92 (61%) take this form. Examples: Hartford, Minneapolis, and Seattle
522
99
Figure 13: One Dominant Downtown Employment Nodeâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Seattle
3
I-5
51
(2) One dominant downtown employment node, plus a secondary employment node that is typically built around one or more anchor institution districts. While colleges and universities have long been located within older cities, 1950s and 1960s urban renewal facilitated campus expansion, and large employment nodes have grown around universities and significant medical centers. This occurred particularly where those institutions have attracted substantial research funding and/or have commercialized research in adjacent research parks. Since the 1990s, many of these campuses have also been diversifying land use, removing institutional walls and barriers, adding retail and other amenities,
5 - 10,187 Jobs/Sq. Mile 10,188 - 40,734 Jobs/Sq. Mile 40,735 - 91,646 Jobs/Sq. Mile 91,647 - 162,922 Jobs/Sq. Mile 162,923 - 254,564 Jobs/Sq. Mile
I-90
Figure 14: One Dominant Downtown Employment Node + Anchor Institution District(s)â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Cleveland
283
5 - 4,172 Jobs/Sq. Mile 4,173 - 16,673 Jobs/Sq. Mile
6
16,674 - 37,510 Jobs/Sq. Mile 37,511 - 66,680 Jobs/Sq. Mile 66,681 - 104,186 Jobs/Sq. Mile 0
I-9
2
I-17
10
6
87
2
10
I-71
I-77
I-490
I-90
14
I-7 1
237
43
I-480
18
I-480
and, in many cases, directly facilitating nearby residential renovation or new development for their faculty, employees, and students. Among the 150 cities, there were 31 (21%) of this type. Examples: Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Cleveland (3) Multiple strong employment nodes. This form typically occurs in newer, post-World War II, caroriented cities and places, although business and civic leaders in many of these downtowns have been actively lobbying and financing new, regional transit systems to reinforce their centrality, just as their counterparts did in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. There were 12 cities of this type (8%). Examples: Atlanta, Houston, and Los Angeles
Appendix II, Table 1 shows each node defined for the 150 cities studied for this research and categorizes each as a primary downtown or secondary employment node. Primary downtowns are either the largest employment zone or the area historically characterized as downtown. Secondary employment nodes are subsequent high concentrations of employment falling into one of the other urban employment types mentioned above. These geographic models for the organization of economic activity cover nearly all of the cities and places sampled for this study and can serve as the basis for future comparative research.
(4) Decentralized employment throughout an urbanized area. These exist in auto-oriented places without strong, historic, centralized cores. There were 15 (10%) of this type. Examples: Phoenix, Jacksonville, and San Jose
Figure 15: Multiple Strong Nodesâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Atlanta
Figure 16: Decentralized Employmentâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Jacksonville
5 - 5,281 Jobs/Sq. Mile
5 - 2,512 Jobs/Sq. Mile
5,282 - 21,111 Jobs/Sq. Mile
2,513 - 10,034 Jobs/Sq. Mile
21,112 - 47,493 Jobs/Sq. Mile
10,035 - 22,571 Jobs/Sq. Mile
47,494 - 85,429 Jobs/Sq. Mile
22,572 - 40,124 Jobs/Sq. Mile
84,430 - 131,918 Jobs/Sq. Mile
40,125 - 62,691 Jobs/Sq. Mile
5
11
I-10
7 21
200
19
Conclusion
Downtown Austin, TX and Washington, DC
After decades of decline, American downtowns, anchor institution districts, and other urban employment nodes have been steadily improving the quality of public spaces, diversifying land use, and adding significant numbers of jobs and residents. While locally-tailored definitions will continue to be essential, LED has enabled, for the first time, a systematic way to measure and compare downtowns, town centers, and anchor institution districts across the country and document their growing significance to the economic and demographic future of the United States.23 The new urban growth narrative is driven by demographics, energy costs, and cultural and business trends that are favoring dense, walkable, transit-oriented places. But nothing is guaranteed about their success. Sustained economic growth requires focused place management, competitive tax policies, entrepreneurial talent, capital, smart local governance, workforce quality, and good global connections. LED provides a new resource for downtown managers and civic leaders to benchmark their progress on this path.24 It would be extraordinarily helpful to those who
20
manage, govern, or develop in these places if the U.S. Census Bureau could adopt this methodology for future reports on downtowns and other urban employment nodes. More than 14% of all U.S. jobs and 4.2% of the national population does not yet represent a fundamental transformation of the economy or the total inversion of demographic trends. But populations in and around the 10 largest downtowns, for example, grew by an average of 17.2% between 2000 and 2010, while the national population grew by 9.7%. By attracting the most skilled and educated workers, these diversified economic nodes are thus changing quickly and are at the very center of the nationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 100 top metropolitan areas, as defined by Brookings. These metro areas occupy only 12% of the nationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s land-mass, but are home to twothirds of our population and generate 75% of our gross domestic product.25 Thriving downtowns, town centers, and anchor institution districts have become major engines for creativity, innovative industries, and future job creation for their broader regional economies. This report provides a new way to benchmark their progress in the coming decade.
Appendix I: Profiles of Downtown Employment Nodes in the 10 Largest U.S. Cities
21
Av
Pa
rk
State Hwy
State Line
County
Commerical District + Half-Mile Adjacent Area Tracts
Parks
Major Rd
Commerical District + One-Mile Adacent Area Tracts
Interstate
Other Rd
dA v
st
9th
St
Ea
St th
r ke ee n Ave
oo
M
li t a
Br
op o
12
th
10
Av d or
t
M e tr
ig
gs
Ave
Av
e
907,306 y St Jac kson 1,212,394 s e A v ee n u Q Ski llm an Ave 1,348,597 48.2% Ain slie St on St
p Ex
yS
Citywide Wage & Salary Workers % of Citywide Wage & Salary Workers Within One Mile of Commercial Downtown
1:48,000
1 inch = 4,000 feet
·
52.2%
Coordinate System: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere Projection: Mercator Auxiliary Sphere Datum: WGS 1984 False Easting: 0.0000 False Northing: 0.0000 Central Meridian: 0.0000 Standard Parallel 1: 0.0000 Auxiliary Sphere Type: 0.0000 Units: Meter
55.9%
3,521,761 38.3% 78,579
Residents Living in Commercial Downtown + Half-Mile Adjacent Area
378,553
Residents Living in Commercial Downtown + One-Mile Adjacent Area
586,652
Citywide Residents
8,175,133
% of Citywide Residents Within Half Mile of Commercial Downtown
4.6%
% of Citywide Residents Within One Mile of Commercial Downtown
7.2%
22
ve
Dr
Av rk Yo Rd
Dr
R D F
St in Ma
Blvd ve uA
Dr
Ave
ve eA No rm an
Ric ha rds
rr Be
% of Workforce Living in Commercial Downtown + One-Mile Adjacent Area Who Work in This Area US Hwy
Residents Living in Commercial Downtown
ssa
df
e Av nt Ke Av he yt
ia S t
mb
Co lu
St
to n
a be
E li z
C lin
nt
Ce
ay
dw
St
Br oa
ch
Ch
e
EAST
W
St
Na
Be
Av e
D St low
th S t Fo r s y th S t C h r ys tie St Allen E ld St rid g eS t O rc h a rd St
ton
Me
np oi nt
ol se r
e
M ulb M o tt e r ry St St
St re
ou s
Pike St
County Line
Commercial Downtown Tracts
N 12 1 1 th th S t St N 8t h S N t N 7t h 5t S h St N t 6t h St N
Gr ee
St
EH
Lu d
ich St
Ve rn on
St
nS t
so n A ve
Av
W
St er
t St
St
s to
Th om
ha m
t
H ou
e
Kings County
G ra
me
% of Workforce Living in Commercial Downtown + Half-Mile Adjacent Area Who Work in This Area N e w Y or k M idtow n Water
ly
Av
on
Mo nitor
th
Ca
ks
Hu mb old
Av e
B
B
A
te et
f ay La
Av e
t rS rc e
St
St
25
Dr
t
Br
Jav a St Ke nt St
St
U V
e
e
Ave
2t h
1t h
E9
4t h
B rg Br id g
Av
dS
oa
E1
E1
St
Fre em an
Hu ron St
ro
rd
Qu een s M id Long Is to w n E la nd xp y E xp B orde y n A ve
495
St
Wage & Salary Workers in Commercial Downtown RIVER 907 Wage & Salary Workers in Commercial Downtown + Half-Mile Adjacent Area U V C Wo W a h am eeyy r rre b hS B in tCommercial Downtown + One-Mile Adjacent Area n S er s t cla ittyy Wage & Salarya rWorkers W il E Bro adw ay St t lia yS ms Ro w t b ur Pa rk St gB Hen ryDowntown % of Workforce Living in Commercial Who Work in This Area rg One-Mile Adjacent Area Outline
§ ¦ ¨
St
ro
bo
for
S t Bro o
ur
Tu n l
t r S
St
wn
ime
nd
to
ve n A
E2
id
St
E1
E6 t E 4 h St th St
M
St
St
bo
c Ja
t ta
Me
3t h
ns
25 Th St 5t h St
3 rd
ns
E ck
S Th u l l o m i va ps n S on t St
Th
ee
Lo r
ay
St
0t h
ns
ee
44th
nha
dw
E2
9t h
ee
Qu
Queens County
Ma
6th Ave
lS
d
E2
St
E1
Br oa St dw ay Co ope rS q
n
dS t
14
e ry
to
8t h 7t h
E2
2n
Qu
One-Mile Adjacent Area Tracts
d tR
Kin gsl and
ng
Bo w
hi
E1
4T h Av e
t
Sq
Var ick St
E1
St
St
Qu
B rg
43
St
E2
ee t
d ss B lv
as
Th
0t h
S tr
Mc gui nne
hS
6t h
th
E4 9 E 4 th S 8t h t St E4 E 4 6t h S 5t h t St
C
rk Pa
E2
59
dS t
Half-Mile Adjacent Area Tracts
One-Mile Adjacent Area Outline Parks and Green Space
St
E3
Av e eS
St
es W
11 Th
hA
ay
s ic a er
ve
eA m Rd
dS t
41 St E 4 St 1 E 3 s t St 9t h E3 St 7t h St 36 Th St E 3 E 35 th 4t h St S E3 t 3 rd St
St
907
New York County
e
st
2n
Commercial Downtown Tracts
U V
St
Fran klin St
31
8T
hA
ve
W
7T
Wes t S t
Av e
Gr eenw
ic h
Wash ingto n St
e nw 8T
W
an
Av e
2n
3 rd
er
St
3R
dA v
e
St
R iv
e
x in
as St
St
E2
78 na
St
Am Nd
E4
13
St
St
Gr
Ca
rk
E5
42
E8 E 8 7t h S t 6 E 8 th S 4t h t St E8 E8 3 rd 2n St dS t E8 1s tS t
Av e
Th
10
Th
e
St
23
78
N Neew w Yo Yorrkk D Doow wnnttoow wnn M Maannhhaattttaann
er s
of
St
2N
g to
St
Le 8t h
5T
hA
ve
E7
D
30
St
St W 11 th
W Houst on
Th
Pa
nsv
Av e
nd
e
e nA v
5t h
E
kl yn
ve 7T
th
rk
39
38
Gre
Ch ri
al
T ra
eric W
W 1 W 1 9t W 8t h h S t 1 S W 7t h t 1 St 5 14 Th t h S t W 14 S t th St
W 10th r St st op he
t
tA
e Av rk Pa on d is
Pa
al
Ma E8
E 7 E 77 E 7 6t h S t h S t 5 t 73 t h S t Rd St 0t h E7 St 2n dS E6 t 9t h St E6 E6 5t h 7 St E 66 th S E6 th t E6 St 3 rd 8t h S t 63 R St d E 6 St 2n dS 60 t Th 59 T h St St E 5 E 59 8 t E 5 th S h St t E 5 7t h S E 5 6t h S t 5t h t St
th e
ve W
t
42
Broa dw
We
W
Th
th
28 th St W W 25 2 W 4t h t h S St 23 t rd St W 22 nd St W 20 th St
RIVER
St
E9 9t h St E9 6 E 9 th S E 9 5t h S t 4t h t St E9 E 9 3 rd S 2n t dS E9 t 0t h St
E7
e
29
rd
th St W 3 4 36t h Th S t St
Av 11
Th
W
nt r
57
hA
St
St
34 th rd St St
St
Ce
in
1S
r
D
st
Ea
Av
e
RReesseerrvvooiirr
in t
nt r
LLaakkee
Pa
W
st
Sa
60 t W h St 58 th St
hA
51
10 05 6T h th St E 1 St 0 E 1 4t h S 02 nd t St
E1
dS t
rk
sA ve
Sa
E7
Th
W
St
2N
Pa al
l um
nt r
Co
W
Th
Ce St
65 th
10
e
TThhee
rk
Av am rd
ers
TThhee t
West D r
y Hw g io ag
e
D im
dA v
Th
Of
t
43
e
st S
st
Th
Av
New J er New Y sey ork
33
W
38 Th S W 37 t th S
W
HUDS ON
Tu nl
rd St nd St 72 N dS
72
69
9T
U V W
41
39
9
Ho lland
St
n sv
73
We
y Hw ln Lin W
57
W 5 W 5t h 54 S t th St
W
co
el H el ix
Lincoln
§ ¦ ¨
th
W 4 W 8t h 47 S th t St W 45 th St
Tun n
U V
66
tT ra
st
n ne P o rt d y Im pe
Pa
F K e
W
John
495
W
W
W
t
85
En
ria
Jo e
lB
lvd
t
B lvd
nS
e Av
St
rk
Th
lt o
s te
rg Be
e
e A v s ad P ali
Fu
38
71 st W St 70 th S
in
se
W
Sa
er
St
Th
sv
Th
e
St
W 7 74 6t h S th St t
W
St
97
St
an
45
Hudson County
st
bu
ay dw oa Br Th
81
Th
Ce
e
wy
s id
er
Pk
79
501
W
91 s 91 t S t St St W 88 th W S 8 t 7t W 86 h S t t 86 h S t Th St W 84 th St W 8 W 3rd S 82 nd t St 81 St St St
Tr
U V
96
th
Am
de
M
W
ny
en
l in
eA v
e
o n th R iv A d er R
90
R iv
so n ry H ud
ay
Hen
W
W
Dr
eR
ls id
dy
FinK e on
oa
ds
dw
on
ay
Av
e
65 t 6 4 h St th St 62 Nd St
Br
Hu
dE
St
H il
Th
B lv
68
St
ne
St
Kennedy B lv d
61
d
Midtown manhattan
vin
County Line
State Hwy
Commercial Downtown Tracts
State Line
County
Commerical District + Half-Mile Adjacent Area Tracts
Parks
Major Rd
Commerical District + One-Mile Adacent Area Tracts
Interstate
Other Rd
Water
US Hwy
e
Av
St
rd
fo
ry
Be r
Be d
gs
ig Dr
St Ke ap
e Av
rS t eye
St
A ve
Ha vem
rc y
ney Ro d
Ma rg St W
sb u
g S t
iam
sb ur
W il
lia m
W ill
Ave
6t h
d Ave
e
Gr an
Ave rhill Unde
Ca rlt Plaza t
e
ll S
tS
t
ling
Lincol
pe ct
Pl
n Pl
St M ar Pl
ks Ave
Av e
St er
kl in
e
St
rro
Pros
Pl
Fr an
Park
so n Av
d
Cl as
Pl
an
St oh ns
l
Ea st er n Pkwy Ea st er n Pky
St
Pr
Empire Blvd Sterling St 1:36,000
Brooklyn
om ery
Sulliva n Pl
Downtown Manhattan
an
St nS t
Rogers Ave
rk
t Dr
Montg
W es
Pa
ct
n St
pe
Pr
os
27
ve
U V
Crow
os
St
st
hA
13
pe
ct
Pa
rk
Ea
8T
4T
Av
t
Ave
6th
ve
hA
1:36,000
New York Downtown Manhattan
Gr
W
hS
e
% of Workforce Living in Commercial Downtown Who Work in This Area
One-Mile Adjacent Area Outline
t
7th
9T
St
hA v
t
5T
Bo
St
it h
ll S
th e
RD
on Av
dA 3R
ve dA 3r ve hA
th
t
Sm
t
un
sS
Ric
A ve
ha
n
rd
Br
to n
Va
e
m il
rro
ic St
en St
1 inch = 3,000 feet
Coordinate System: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere Projection: Mercator Auxiliary Sphere Datum: WGS 1984 False Easting: 0.0000 False Northing: 0.0000 Central Meridian: 0.0000 Standard Parallel 1: 0.0000 Auxiliary Sphere Type: 0.0000 Units: Meter
Brooklyn
·
413,168
283,475
496,001
316,363
503,801
338,318
4T
3R
Ca
Wy
r
ve
t
t nd
sS vin
Bo ve
dA
Col
2n
11
rS
ve
dA
Ne
Ho
St
t tS
Av
Ha
on
t
py
il t
tS
nd
m
Ex
Ha
s
ot
ley
Ca
Wage & Salary Workers in Commercial Downtown + One-Mile Adjacent Area BAY
Av e
St
b ia
Col um
Cou
t yt S Ho
St um
bia
t sS
Navy St
Adams St
Jay St t rt S
St
Ne
t rt S Cou t yt S
FD
Gold St
t
yS He nr
t an S Fu rm to n C lin St ht ig Dw
Va
Adams St
t
ks S
H ic
St
to n
C lin
C
St
St
st ie
rid g e
Ch ry
Eld
Pl es
am
tJ
Sa in
okly n Que ens H ic ks S Ex py t
Bro a St m bi Co lu
t tS un n
Br
t
yS He nr Cadman Plz
t a St um bi
Col
D
B
St
on
Clint
t
A ll en St Orc ha Lud rd St low St Ess ex S t
t
e tt eS
fay
y St
La
be rr
t M ul
tt S
St
Mo
ntr e
Ce
Sq
dw ay Br oa
t m
Wi lli a
da
ia S
t
St Fo rs yth
Lud low St Ess ex S t
Co lu mb
y lber r
Mu Pl es
Ja m
int Sa
an S
Navy St
St am illi W St
Fu rm
Gold St
nit Tri
Dr FDR
Var ick St
Hud son
ich St
dw ay
Br
t
hS
u rc
yP l in it Tr
C Av e
Ave
C
rid g Eld
D
Lo
B A
eS A ll t e Orc n St ha rd St
Ave B
e Av 1S t
t
is a
A Ave
ry Bo we
dA ve 2N
st ie
St
Eliza beth St
Ch ry
t
eS n tr
Ce
St
4Th Ave Sq er
op Co
St er
St tt e fa ye La
St sb y Cr o
ve 3R dA
5T Pl
ar d ia gu La
t on S ps Th om
Sq
St
ch ur Ch
yP
l
Espla nade
Yor k New Rd m ha
N Rd
Gr es
a ig Cr
Ch
s ica er Am hA
ve
6 Ave th A o f ve the
as Am
er ic
7Th A ve 7th Ave S
O f Th e
Varic k St
Su ll Br iva n oa S W Wo dw t B os ay te r ro ad wa St y
St
Washing ton
St Hud son
Me rc
West St
Lincol n Hwy
New J ers New Y ey ork
Blvd gt on h in W as
St Gre ene
nu
W o lc
UPP ER
St
Ave
rd Ave
rg e
tS
1s
Wage & Salary Workers in Commercial Downtown + Half-Mile Adjacent Area Kings County ion
Quincy St
Bedfo
US Hwy
Gre ene
d Ave
wa
tle
Water
St
Clifton Pl Ave
Ave
on Ave
Bed for
Bu
De
py
d Ave
Go
t
Other Rd
8th
St
th
Ex
out St
ng Ave
Nos tran
wS
Major Rd
Interstate
A ve
Be gr a
Un
Parks
Commerical District + One-Mile Adacent Area Tracts
St
Pacif
on Ave
De
Commerical District + Half-Mile Adjacent Area Tracts
St
St
d ar
Ave
Wa shi ngt
Wage & Salary Workers in Commercial Downtown
tic
2n dS t 3r dS t 4th St 5th S 6th t St
St
tic
Dr
an
County
e
yw
He
rts Pl
e
Atl t
State Hwy
State Line
St 15 th St 16 th St ct
dg
tl e
Av
ff S
en
rke
sh
ko
s id
tb u
Wyc
County Line
Commercial Downtown Tracts
e
pe
St
Ru
Fla
St
t
Be
Pre
y Plz
sS
Ave
§ ¦ ¨
th
os
nn
Put nam
St
la s
Lafayette
t
Pl
Ar m
§ ¦ ¨
ug
One-Mile Adjacent Area Outline
nS t
e ld
Lafaye tte
Le ffe
za
Do
278
ic S
lt o
18
Av
t
Myrtle Ave
Be rg
P la
ve n A xp y sE
nu
l St
il to
wa
n Tu Sa ck ett
ltic
St
St
ve
Go
ry c if
478
H am
tte
Pa
Ba
St
hA
A ve
a nB
o rn
S Rd
§ ¦ ¨
Fu
e rh
ct
Pe
Flu shi
us
ton
ok ly
rm
th
Pr
278
th
St
14
pe
sS
tb
m il
th
ve
Bro
he
tle r
rfi
12
Kings County Sc
Bu
Ga
7th
os
t
n St
Atlan
10
Pr
we
He
Skillma
t
F la
Ha St
th S
th St Walwor r St Spe nce
wS
Pl
gra
Av e
aine
S5
Division Ave
St James
De
Grand St
Gates Ave
Ave Waverly
t
t
to n
Lo rr
St
Willoughby St
s St
St
Lex ingt
bilt Ave
sS
tt S
m il C en tr e M al l Bus h St
Dekal b Ave
gres
Pl
t
St
io n
Myrtle Ave
B Brrooookkllyynn Con
adw
Ave
ff S
St
Un
Brooklyn Qns Expy
hA
St
Bro
Clinton
la s
c ke
ko
Adelphi St
ug
Sa
e rh
Van der
Do
rm
nt Ave
ltic
he
o rn
b us
em on
t
Bay
Nassau St
Tillary St
e St
Jo ral
tS
rg
Willoughby St
Sc Wyc
Fl at
ta gu
New York County
B rg
Prospect St
ot
York St
tt an
lz
nh a
an
W o lc
Ave
t
s St
Ba
t rS
it an
t
Taa ffe Pl
on S
Ha
Ma
t eS
BAY
t
gres
St
hby Ave
Clermo
ve
no
st S
Dek alb Ave Con
h
St
p ol
S1
St
9t
St
St
Will oug
d Ave
rg
St at
Mon
rS
St
ene Pl
B
Co
Ca dm
gB
St
tr o
8th
h
Pa rk Ave
S Portlan
RIVER
Plymouth St
YORK
ve
em on
t
U PPER
no
Nassau St
Fort Gre
n
tS
sb ur
Tillary St
St
k ly
t
on
e St
Carl ton Ave
Cherry St
St
EAS T
iam
St
h
7t
St
Wa llab
land Cumber
St
§ ¦ ¨
So uth
ct
oo Br
lS
Prospect St
Ashla nd Pl
Via du
t
St
rd
N
h
York St
ng st
l
Madison
Will
S3
5t
4th
an
Livi
E Broadway
Me
6t
ntAve
S
St
Ke
U V 907
y St
t
a rl
t nS
n nL
lt o
ide al
t S Str ee
er W at
Co
Jo ral
rg
nce
t
Eme rson
gB
De la
nd
S4
Hal l St
sb ur
tS
s
Cadman Plz
ia m
St
1s
S2
t
n Tu
Henry St
Fu
Ma W
Pe
St
dm
478
NEW
a ig
ta gu
ry
Pa
w rk Ro
Clinton St
nd
Cherry St
N
s Ro
W
W ill Gra
t
N
th
z
nS
EAS T RIVER
Mad
Pl
St
g to
y
St
Fr
Cr
Mon
St
EH
nt on
907
ison St
N
St
Plymouth St
Ca
St
th
d
U V
De la nce y St Bro S om eS t
St
N
3r
t
St E6
N
tte
ty
ow
R Pa rk
E3 rd S H ou t sto o ust nS on S t
t
ay
a nB
le
th
tS
N Neew w Yo Yorrkk D Doow wnnttoow wnn M Maannhhaattttaa nn
es
er
t
Pike St
Lib
t
yS
E7
nS
S 9th St
ok ly
Fo
F in
New Jers ey
yS
St
Sta
Rivin
Pike St
se
nd
St
on
th
N
N
B rg
n ce
th
th
Fr Wa ter
11
St
ta n
De la
P
t
st on
nh at
t
St
St
E9
E4 E2
t
lS
H ou
t
Ma
eS
re
1th
nd
Pike St
nc
ma
St
he Of T
Ve
t
Pike St
Pri
Ken
Ch
M ur
JJeerrsseeyy CCiitt yy
hS
E1
t
lS
r ea
on S
ct
Bro
th
rS
al
St
14T
oust
S ou t h
Via du S Street
g
lS
St
Henry St
Br
ke
t W
Gra
N
New York County
EH
g to
n
na
St
t
Rivin
k ly
St
0th
yS
oo
me
3th
E2
n ce
Br
ec
St
Wo r
t
E1
5th
Clinton St
Du an eS R t am e ade be rs S t Wa S t ra y Ba rc r S r t e lay nS St t
w
t nS
oo
t
a rd
St
E1
er ty
De la
St
E Broadway Ro w
lt o
Br
Ca on
0th
hS
Ble
Spring St
Le
E1
N Neew w Yo Yorrkk M Miiddttoow wnn
St
St
re
y
Fu
St
2th
8T
L ib
13 Th
E1
Ln
nd Tu nl
78
Ho lla
Ro Pa rk
t
St
9
le
Pa rk
yS
Sta te
§ ¦ ¨
U V
78
Fo
n
Barrow St
W Hou ston
be rs St Wa rre nS t
ide
St
W 10t h
am
Ma
HU DSON RIVER
se
St
Hudson County
St
brooklyn Ve
W 4th
y
St
ma
st
rver Hw
ra y
ine eF
Ob se
lay
h Of T
Downtown manhattan
M ur
rc
Le on a rd Wo St rth Du St an eS t
oa
We st St
Greenw
Ch
Ba
Ken
Union Ave
9
Bo w E lizab eth e ry
St
downtown manhattan and brooklyn U V
1 inch = 3,000 feet
Coordinate System: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere Projection: Mercator Auxiliary Sphere Datum: WGS 1984 False Easting: 0.0000 False Northing: 0.0000 Central Meridian: 0.0000 Standard Parallel 1: 0.0000 Auxiliary Sphere Type: 0.0000 Units: Meter
·
% of Workforce Living in Commercial Downtown + Half-Mile Adjacent Area Who Work in This Area
8.7% 11.4%
23.6%
12.7%
3,521,761
3,521,761
14.3%
9.6%
% of Workforce Living in Commercial Downtown + One-Mile Adjacent Area Who Work in This Area Citywide Wage & Salary Workers
22.7% 23.8%
% of Citywide Wage & Salary Workers Within One Mile of Commercial Downtown Residents Living in Commercial Downtown Residents Living in Commercial Downtown + Half-Mile Adjacent Area
65,714
10,442
148,396
98,171
173,179
202,093
8,175,133
8,175,133
% of Citywide Residents Within Half Mile of Commercial Downtown
1.8%
1.2%
% of Citywide Residents Within One Mile of Commercial Downtown
2.1%
2.5%
Residents Living in Commercial Downtown + One-Mile Adjacent Area Citywide Residents
Commercial Downtown Tracts
Half-Mile Adjacent Area Tracts
One-Mile Adjacent Area Tracts
One-Mile Adjacent Area Outline
Parks and Green Space
23
y Fw na
Lam
Cent er St
hS
de sa
Eastlake Ave Gates St
Hancock St
Griffin Ave A ve
t
St
t
U V
E 14
e Av aF w
y
V is
t
Wa
gto
nB
Citywide Wage & Salary Workers % of Citywide Wage & Salary Workers Within One Mile of Commercial Downtown
t aS
Bandini Blvd
Pacif ic
247,591 324,689 E 46th St 351,621 Leonis Blvd 19.3%
1:54,000
1 inch = 4,500 feet
Coordinate System: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere Projection: Mercator Auxiliary Sphere Datum: WGS 1984 False Easting: 0.0000 False Northing: 0.0000 Central Meridian: 0.0000 Standard Parallel 1: 0.0000 Auxiliary Sphere Type: 0.0000 Units: Meter
19.3% 19.4%
1,492,099 23.6% 21,135 97,214
Residents Living in Commercial Downtown + One-Mile Adjacent Area
174,975
Citywide Residents
3,792,621
% of Citywide Residents Within Half Mile of Commercial Downtown
2.6%
% of Citywide Residents Within One Mile of Commercial Downtown
4.6%
S Downey Rd
37Th St
Los Angeles County
Residents Living in Commercial Downtown + Half-Mile Adjacent Area
24
re n
lvd
S Soto St
S Santa Fe Ave
t
th St
38Th St
% of Workforce Living in Commercial Downtown + One-Mile Adjacent Area Who Work in This Area
Residents Living in Commercial Downtown
sh in
E 26
lameda
4 1S t St
Compton Ave
S Central Ave
Central Ave
d
23Rd St
S
m s E 2 B lv 7t h d St
Blv
St
Long Beach Ave W
om Na
EA da
Lo
ic o
th
E Long Beach Ave
ve
EP 20
SG
ra n
t E 15 th S
An
ta
th S
nta
Porter St E Olympic Blvd
de
Fwy
Sa
c l id
60
Mateo St
e Av
er
d
ica
72
U V
t
op
on
Ho
aM
iA
St ro
th iffi Gr
Parks and Green Space
o Fwy
A ve
E 8 th S
St
Ave
ed nP Sa
Avalon Blvd
a rd in
SM
an
eS
SS Blv
nt
St
Eu
St t
Pe
d ro
St ain SM
nte Sa
Ave pl e
Sa
One-Mile Adjacent Area Outline
ott
e Av ne To w
Sa
n
Pe
ez
Rd
n
St
An
St o dr
t lS
av
7T
vd
Other Rd
US Hwy
Pa
den a P a sa
Daly St ar S t
St s le ge
g rin Sp S
W al
6Th St
Santa Fe Ave
Interstate
Water
Ch
B e rn
Santa Fe Ave
t nS ai M
Br
Central Ave
ay dw oa
St ive Ol
S
S
St
St
SG St ill SH
Ma
2t h
Pl
Woodlawn Ave
E 5th St
Bl
Commerical District + One-Mile Adacent Area Tracts
r E
go
1S t S
State Hwy
Major Rd
sa
One-Mile Adjacent Area Tracts
h St
% of Workforce Living in Commercial Downtown Los +Angeles Half-Mile Adjacent Area Who Work in This Area County
San
E 7th St
ay oa
4T
Half-Mile Adjacent Area Tracts
7Th St
dw
E 41st St
E 42nd Pl
Parks
Workman St
ay W
a St Al am ed
e Av d an Gr
Lu oa er gu Fi
St
t
eS
ve
ran
op
dA
er
SH
l ow pe Ho Br
E Martin Luther King Jr Blvd E 41st Pl
State Line
a
io
re n
to
ho Ec
Ave c as
ve nA nio SF
St
ue
Figueroa St
Broadway
l
43rd St Wage & WSalary Workers in Commercial Downtown E 43rd Pl E Vernon Ave Vernon Ave W Vernon Ave Wage & Salary Workers in Commercial Downtown + Half-Mile Adjacent Area W 47th St Wage & Salary WWorkers in Commercial Downtown + One-Mile Adjacent Area 48th St E 48th Pl % of Workforce Living in Commercial Downtown Who Work in This Area County Line
S Sa nta A n
Ma
Rd
y
Ce
E 6th St
St
in g to EW n B as l vd hin g to n
Commercial Downtown Tracts
Sichel St
ad St
k Ave Pa r
r ad Al v a
St
SU
Ha
St
sh
roa
l vd
Commerical District + Half-Mile Adjacent Area Tracts
A ve
ay W
iu m
ne oy m Le
t oS
St
do
a rt B N C l vd oro na
ve ke A t la es SW
rae
nie B on SB y
d
rbo
r F w
Blv
Commercial Downtown Tracts
is s
t
SF ig
St
a Fw y
Fw
io n
Johnston St
Fw
le
da
en
St
Gle nda le Blv d
st e S i l r ly v e Te r rL ake B lv N d Be nto n W ay
We
Ra mp d Bl v
SR am p
t oS ra d lva SA
Arapahoe St
Gl
al sd Re
de
Mic h
lt m an Ma
Lu ar t B
SO
lvd
cc id
Ra
en t al
mp
a rt
B lv
d
S Commonwealth Ave
S Vermont Ave
S Berendo St S New Hampshire Ave
S Kenmore Ave
S Westmoreland Ave
S Hoover St
h
e
M
So
Av
e
ren
el t o
Av e
Hy pe r e A ion A ve ve
c il
Hoover St
N Madison Ave
Vermont Ave
e
aS
t
N Virgil Ave
N Edgemont St
N Normandie Ave
S Catalina St
ez A ve
ss
on S
Budlong Ave
hP
i N M
d e rs
nB
E 2nd St
4T
t
E 4th S t
7T
E
so
hS
E 1st St
s
E 6th
3 rd
f er
EC ha v
Alam eda St
S Budlong Ave
t
Av
S An
ms
5T
t
es
n Rd
Normandie Ave S Normandie Ave
E Ce s ar
t
Wa
E2
Jef
gn
vd
Brighton Ave
Ma in S t N ain
Bl
da
Vi
St
dS
in iff
Manitou Ave
t gS
c
Martin Luther K ing Jr Blvd
S Raymond Ave
Dr
3r
Gr
N
rin
pi
t
§ ¦ ¨
One-Mile Adjacent Area Outline
Sp
N
y n Sta te Fw
Lo
l vd
110
W 42nd St
ay
St ng
Missio
S
eB
hS
Exposition Blvd
ri
ro a dw
ym
Exposition Blvd
Sp
N San ta A n
E
t
aS
G o ld e
l vd
ro
26
oB
WA
30t
lvd
B
Ol
nB
ll
Hi
St
rs o
y
43
yn
h
ffe
NB
dw
St
lv d
ue
5
St
d
Je
Pl
Fw
lb
9T
th
a ro
t
ic B
Fig
§ ¦ ¨
w Ro
t
oo
th
St
a ro
110
ay
um
w
Pic n ic
Hoov er St
36
U V
rk
ly
W
d
lv d
Ve
St
ol
mp
ine
H
Bl v
tS
St
St
od
Oly
1s
E1
W
di
vd
W
F
ue ig
St
Bl
t
d S t
10
t
er
se t
rd S
3R
§ ¦ ¨
W 6th
ax t
S un
St
a St
Alp
W Washington Blvd
Downey Way
Dr
Pa
u rt
lv d
A ve
na
Rd
Co
vu e
oB
W
AAnnggeelleess id e
Academy R d
4T h
W
P ic
rs
N WB
d
me
s Oly mp ic B M lv d W o
W
Ri ve
Blvd
W
lle
e St
le
do
U V Tem pl
G
ve
an
t
2N
W 9th St
W
sA
rn
nS
ly B
W3
St
Ja
Fe
ho
Be ver
n
rat
St
Be
d
8th
St
Su ns et
B lv
W
r do
Sc ott
W
cil
es
ay um W
un
Sa
Ma
St Co
Go
Sta di
Wi ls hi re
St
2
p le
N
na
pr
e
ess ree wnn
Te m
rro
y
nta
Cy
Av
W
Ce
Wa
Mo
101
LLooss
ium
£ ¤
e
ad
Melrose Ave
Av
St
Santa Monica Blvd
ke
Glendale Blv d
Lexington Ave
B la
y
DOWNTOWN los angeles Fountain Ave
·
ou
H ic ve
41
S Columbus Dr
41
Michigan Ave
S Clark St
S Prairie Ave
S Calumet Ave
S Indiana Ave
E 24th St 25Th St
Calumet Ave
Prairie Ave
Indiana Ave
S Michigan Ave
S Stewart Ave
e
Gr
ov
e
Av
t
r
um be
Halsted St
Cermak Rd
§ ¦ ¨ 55
Citywide Wage & Salary Workers Chicago % of Citywide Wage & Salary Workers Within One Mile of Commercial Downtown County Line
State Hwy
Commercial Downtown Tracts
State Line
County
Commerical District + Half-Mile Adjacent Area Tracts
One-Mile Adjacent Area Outline
Parks
Major Rd
Commerical District + One-Mile Adacent Area Tracts
Interstate
Other Rd
Water
US Hwy
Residents Living in Commercial Downtown
51.0% 51.8%
Dr
% of Workforce Living in Commercial Downtown + One-Mile Adjacent Area Who Work in This Area W 24th Pl
e
Av
b us
S Throop St
S
PPaarrkk HHaarrbboorr
m Co lu
S
S
er
ch
Ar
State St
or
506,675 547,671 578,956 52.3%
BBuurrnnhhaam m
Illinois
a lp
Dan Ry
an Ex py
S Laflin St
S Allport St
SB
W 16th St Wage & Salary Workers in Commercial Downtown St W 18th Wage & Salary Workers in Commercial Downtown + Half-Mile18Th Adjacent Area St 18Th St ve tA or lp St Wage & Salary Workers in CommercialCanaDowntown + One-Mile Adjacent Area W 19th W Cullerton St % of Workforce Living inWCommercial Downtown Who Work in This Area ve 21st St tA
n Ca % of Workforce Living in Commercial Downtown + ve rA he Half-Mile Adjacent Area Who Work in This Area rc A Cook County
Solidarity Dr
Mcfretridge Dr
e Dr
14Th St
15Th St
S Halsted St
S Peoria St
S Morgan St
Solidarity Dr
13T h St
Linn W hit
ue
W Maxwell St
Bl ve dA
S Wells St
S Clinton St
Roosevelt Rd
S Lake Shore Dr E
an
S Financial Pl
S Canal St
S Desplaines St
Halsted St S Newberry Ave
ve dA an Is l
Taylor St
41
Isl
Jackson Dr
e Dr Sh or
l ue
S Dearborn St
W Van Buren St
S La ke
S Loomis St
N Wabash Ave
W Jackson Blvd
Columb us Dr
Raci ne Ave
Ashland Ave
E Monroe St
Adams St
Harrison St
W 14th Pl
E Randolph Dr
S State St Wabash Ave
Monroe St
S Holden Ct
Madison St
N Dearborn St
W Washington St
La Salle St
Randolph St
§ ¦ ¨
W Roosevelt Rd
E Gran d Ave
E Illinois St
Lake St
290
Roosevelt Rd
E Ohio St
r Wacker Dr
Franklin St
W
pe
S Franklin St
N Clinton St
Clinton St
N Morgan St
N Peoria St
Jefferson St S Jefferson St
S Racine Ave
N Canal St
N Desplaines St N Jefferson St
N Aberdeen St
N Carpenter St
vd Bl
N Rush St
N Racine Ave A ve en
Ashland Blvd
Ogd
Morg an St
S Paulina St
Up
Wacker Dr
Monroe St
Eisenhower Expy
W Taylor St
E Ontario St Ohio St
Wacker Dr
W Lake St
Randolph St
Washington Blvd W Washington Blvd W Madison St
E Erie St
W Kinzie St
W Congress Pkwy
ccaagg oo rrssiittyy iinnooiiss
N Michigan Ave
N State St State St
N la Salle Dr
La Salle Dr
N Orleans St
N Franklin St
Halsted St
Elston Ave
N Noble St
N Armour St
N Paulina St
Warren Blvd
E Huron St
W Hubbard St
Racine Ave
Washington
Parks and Green Space
E Superior St
Ontario St
W Illinois St
W Fulton Market
E Chestnut St E Pearson St
Chicago Ave
W Ontario St
Dr
41
W Erie St
ore
41
W Huron St
e
Sh
Oak St
Clark St
W Superior St
Av
One-Mile Adjacent Area Outline
e
Orleans St
34
e
e
One-Mile Adjacent Area Tracts ak N L
Av
St ke
W Schi ller St
yA
ry
ch
£ ¤
W Chicago Ave
au
41
Division St
M
il w
Half-Mile Adjacent Area Tracts
£ ¤
W Goethe St
r ko
er
an
Ashland Ave
N
Ch
A ve
W Augusta Blvd
N
Elston
r N North B
ve
N Greenview Ave
nA
Division St
North Ave
N Sedgwick St
N Halsted St
N Ashland Ave
ls to
90
Commercial Downtown Tracts
MICHIGAN
North Ave
64
NE
§ ¦ ¨
U V
e
N North Park Ave
Av
N Hudson Ave
rn
N Cleveland Ave
yb
LAKE
re Dr
Cl
t
W North Ave
W Willow St
St
S ry bu gs Kin
N
S ho
e
rk
N
xpy y E
Av
ke
rn
La
ed
ou
C la
nn
yb
N Mohawk St
Ke
Cl
N Larrabee St
DOWNTOWN chicago
1:42,000
·
1,175,566 49.2% 1 inch = 3,500 feet
Coordinate System: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere Projection: Mercator Auxiliary Sphere Datum: WGS 1984 False Easting: 0.0000 False Northing: 0.0000 Central Meridian: 0.0000 Standard Parallel 1: 0.0000 Auxiliary Sphere Type: 0.0000 Units: Meter
53,832
Residents Living in Commercial Downtown + Half-Mile Adjacent Area
101,885
Residents Living in Commercial Downtown + One-Mile Adjacent Area
144,051
Citywide Residents
2,695,598
% of Citywide Residents Within Half Mile of Commercial Downtown
3.8%
% of Citywide Residents Within One Mile of Commercial Downtown
5.3%
25
Staples St
Des Chaumes St Brewster St
Gregg St
Hwy 59 Hov
Meadow St
Gillespie St
Hirsch St
Clinton Dr
s St
t nS to er N a vi
St
St
St
by
Can
al S
Ln o od le w
rg
B lv
d
St
bu
Ma p
St Mil
by
Na
r r is
rk
t
Yo
oS
Mc K
lan
inne
kw o
Par k Dr
zS
ing
t oS
bo
rS t
t
ne
Bl od
ge
tt
St an S
St St Wage & Salary Workers in Commercial Downtown Wage & Salary Workers Commercial Downtown + Half-Mile Adjacent Area H Hoouusin sttoon n Ro s eda M le S Meeddiiccaa ll Wen tw t o rt h CCeen rr ntteeCommercial St Wage & Salary Workers in Downtown + One-Mile Adjacent Area Wa y r r e go M a cg Macgre gor Dr % of Workforce Living in Commercial Downtown Who Work in This Area
t
y
an
rm
He
Whe
e le r
St
BBrraays BBaayyoouyus
One-Mile Adjacent Area Outline
County Line
State Hwy
Commercial Downtown Tracts
State Line
County
Commerical District + Half-Mile Adjacent Area Tracts
Parks
Major Rd
Commerical District + One-Mile Adacent Area Tracts
Interstate
Other Rd
Water
US Hwy
o d Dr
ne e s ti
b le lvd nB Holm
St
Fw
Rd
ur
S L oc
E rn
Burk
l le Cl eb
k wo
Sid n tt St Sco
e tt S
t
En
Dum
St St
Cu
ee
lf
St
o un
Ar
t
ey S
la Ve rb
Gu Elg in
Ca lh
lvd
a St
s St
r St
eB
St
Bin Ew
Ba
Anit Re e ve
es te
or
t
t
t
% of Workforce Living in Commercial Downtown + Houston Half-Mile Adjacent Area Who Work in This Area % of Workforce Living in Commercial Downtown + One-Mile Adjacent Area Who Work in This Area Citywide Wage & Salary Workers % of Citywide Wage & Salary Workers Within One Mile of Commercial Downtown Residents Living in Commercial Downtown
BBrraayys BBaayyoousu
1:42,000
§ ¦ ¨ 45
s Rd
ct
St eS
gl
th
wy
pe
dS
S ou
hm
os
Ea
oo
lie S t
Tie rw
ew
ut
Ro sa
nis Ro s
So
sc
Sau St ak
t
lla
er n
Rd
be
Dr
Dr
Wi nb
Mc G ow Dre w S en S t t
t
Acc es
n
t Isa
Pr
an
Liv eO
rS
mS
St
Sp r 5
Oa k Ca d al eS lu m et t St
aS
er S
t
Lo c
St
ne
h it
Tua
od D
r
y S t
ho
Wic
t
m
n St
lep
e le
U V 288
Alm
Fwy Wh e
vd
Te
Sou thw est
Bl
Sa
t eS gl
Ha
De
St
t t
io n
N
ps
le s ar
St in g wl Do
St on ilt
rm a
Ha
m
rc e
Sh e
on
St
St st r op
int Sa
int Sa
St Ja c
Pie
tS aS
ed a
am
ga t
St
St
Mil
ow
Hu
as
rr
on
Ga
Te x
St
St
es
e
N
ol
l ke
St
t ch
Av
ss
Ev
ge
re
141,459 165,135 191,340 22.2%
1 inch = 3,500 feet
Coordinate System: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere Projection: Mercator Auxiliary Sphere Datum: WGS 1984 False Easting: 0.0000 False Northing: 0.0000 Central Meridian: 0.0000 Standard Parallel 1: 0.0000 Auxiliary Sphere Type: 0.0000 Units: Meter
·
16.0% 18.0%
1,492,234 12.8% 4,690
Residents Living in Commercial Downtown + Half-Mile Adjacent Area
25,445
Residents Living in Commercial Downtown + One-Mile Adjacent Area
58,459
Citywide Residents
2,100,263
% of Citywide Residents Within Half Mile of Commercial Downtown
1.2%
% of Citywide Residents Within One Mile of Commercial Downtown
2.8%
26
Half-Mile Adjacent Area Tracts One-Mile Adjacent Area Tracts
§ ¦ ¨
Rd
ar t re p it
Ch
Ba
t lS ue an
St
Waco St
Benson St
Bringhurst St
Schwartz St
West St
ice
Ch
rd so n
ks
in e
ie
St
Em
St
ro l
En ng
ve
Ca
ev er
ab
en
Al
Banks St
n
Lyons Av e
Market St y t Fw Eas
W Alabama St
59-Hov
Commercial Downtown Tracts
Campbell St
t fer
St
sA
fo ay
a ir
xa
aw Cl
d
St
St
Te
Cr
t
Je f
St
Au stin
St
Fa nn in St in
int ac
eS
yR
One-Mile Adjacent Area Outline Parks and Green Space
Ma
oS
t
Pr
on
am
Se rv
t
ll S
e rt
10
Jensen Dr
Fr an kl in to St nS t Pr a ir ie St
nJ
St
St
os
as
wy
ey
we
Lib
Eastex Fwy
Elysian St
tt St
Brooks St
y St
St vis Tra
Pk
er
Stevens St
Maury St
McKee St n St
h St
es
e
Sa
ph
We b
Jensen Dr
Terry St
Elysian St
Chapman St
Cochran St
10 -H ov yS
t aS ian uis
Pe
se
Lee St
Lorraine St
Co
Lo
Stanford St
r ne
Quitman St
Noble St
Po lk
Richmond Ave
rm
ng to
59
gb Ba
St
Ca
Roseland St
Montrose Blvd
t
Whitney St
hS
Yoakum Blvd
Jo
Ch
a lt
U V
W Main St
He
Pr
Av
ll S
dl
Colquitt St
Bissonnet S t
irie
Be
Mil
we
Yupon St
ar
527
Branard St
le
m
Ha
Hawthorne St
Sul Ross St
ri H ar
th Ro
Wa Rus lke k S t rS t
La
st
Rd
on
az
mm
Graustark St Mount Vernon St
St
Br
Co Hyde Park Blvd
rc Ci
lf
r Ave
gb Dal las Ave
Taft St Mason St Genesee St
t hS
ir Fa
wy
t
lk e
Ba
Waug h Dr
Gillette St
Wa
Peden St
St don
St
Fw y
Houston Ave Gu
Ruthven St
W Gray St
t
es S
£ ¤
Semmes St
Sabine St
Sawyer St
He ig
Washing ton Ave
y
Dallas St
ll
Jam
Edwards St
P ra
W Dallas St
c ha
Bu
l Dr
Pkw
Pas
t
St
Elysian St
Colorado St
Taylor St
W W
t St Stu dem on hts Blvd
an H og
Gano St
Watson St
Oxford St
Cortlandt St
ry S
Halpern St
t
Shearn St
Crockett St Summer St
Cleveland St
Mandell St
Dr
ut S s tn Ch e
wy
W Clay St
St
k
N Memorial Way
o ria
n Pky
w vie
Oa
Lubbock St
Al le n
lc We
te
H en
Center St
M em
Had
hi
St
t
W Usener St
n
h Fwy
Yale St
Euclid St
ai
St t re tt nS a Eve em Fre St ne Ke e St er tc h F le
Julian St
E 8th St
K aty
Alle
Beauchamp St
Woodland St
Bayland Ave
Harris County
M
Fulton St
Reagan St
Michaux St
Studewood St
Beverly St
Arlington St
Omar St Highland St
E 9th St
G ent ry
Columbia St
Harvard St
Redan St
Bigelow St
N o rt
Allston St
E 10th St
Pecore St
Collingsw ort
Colling sworth St
Broyles St
E 11th St 11Th St
Collingsworth St
Houston Ave
Rutland St
E 12th St
Ih 45-Hov Fwy
Heights Blvd
DOWNTOWN HOUSTON
N Ho pe St
St
N Pa let horp
State Hwy
State Line
County
Commerical District + Half-Mile Adjacent Area Tracts
Parks
Major Rd
Commerical District + One-Mile Adacent Area Tracts
Interstate
Other Rd
Water
US Hwy
rd A ve
N Fron t St
Av e
St N Am erica n
y
la w
e ar
One-Mile Adjacent Area Tracts
St
§ ¦ ¨
St
Ca ntre
A ve si ng ve am en ng A en si W M oy M oy am
er St
M arke
Federa l St
t St
Pennsylvania New Jersey
Mic kle St
St
St
n St
2Nd St
Pin e St
Atl an tic
Ave
Camden County St St St
ll St
§ ¦ ¨
a St
Mi ffl in
E Sn yd
er Av e
S Sw an so n
Fr on t St
St
95
% of Workforce Living in Commercial Downtown P h i l+a d e l p h i a Half-Mile Adjacent Area Who Work in This Area % of Workforce Living in Commercial Downtown + One-Mile Adjacent Area Who Work in This Area Citywide Wage & Salary Workers % of Citywide Wage & Salary Workers Within One Mile of Commercial Downtown Residents Living in Commercial Downtown
1:42,000
227,304 257,431 271,447 RRiivveerr 36.0% 1 inch = 3,500 feet
Coordinate System: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere Projection: Mercator Auxiliary Sphere Datum: WGS 1984 False Easting: 0.0000 False Northing: 0.0000 Central Meridian: 0.0000 Standard Parallel 1: 0.0000 Auxiliary Sphere Type: 0.0000 Units: Meter
·
38.4% 40.7%
622,801 43.6% 57,239
Residents Living in Commercial Downtown + Half-Mile Adjacent Area
107,853
Residents Living in Commercial Downtown + One-Mile Adjacent Area
170,467
Citywide Residents
wy
3R d St
Je rs
Co op
th F
Chestn ut St
Mc Ke an
S 6t h St
N S ou
ey Jo e W al ot t B lv d ar e A ve
2N d St
676
S Fron t St
Q ueen istia
S Wa te r
Wi nton
10 Th St
St
S Carli sle
S 19 th St
County Line
Commercial Downtown Tracts
611
pv
Tu li
rd St
Fr an kfo
N 3rd St
N Ho wa
N Hanc ock
St
pS
t
N 2n d St
Fr on t St
ad er St Ca dwall
ce St N La wr en
N 6th St C hr
Vand ali
S 11 th St
S Ro se wood
St
Wo lf St
Half-Mile Adjacent Area Tracts
d
Th
n St
A ve
ar d
One-Mile Adjacent Area Outline
St
So ut h St
EM oy
k un
Ja ckso
a rd
G ir
nt A ve
ns in
e y
A ve
lv s B
26
S 22 nd St
ss
iva
6T h St
N 5t h St
mou
Fr on t so n St
St
Av
Pa
t nS
bu
Ave
E xp
De
ame
Wa tk ins
Sp ru ce
U VDowntown Wage & Salary Workers in Commercial ve gA O re g s in on Ave en W Or eg W Ri tn er St on Avin Commercial ya m WAdjacent Wage & Salary Workers Area Porte r e M o Downtown W+ShHalf-Mile St un k St 291 U V Wage Philadelphia & Salary Workers in Commercial Downtown + One-Mile Adjacent Area County % of Workforce Living in Commercial Downtown Who Work in This Area 20 Th St
are
N
g Ave S 2n d St
S Mo le St S Hi cks St
ck St
Di ckin
St
e
un k
pso
Commercial Downtown Tracts
l um
Av
sy W P as
ho m
St
Co
re
S Ch ad wi
an St
er Av e
26 Th St
la w
5T h
6T h St
ve
Mc Clell
Se
5T h St
St
N 8t h St
N Ma rsh all
N 10 th St
S 10 th St
S 13 th St
orth St
S 12 th St
ra l St
S 18 th St
S 21 st St
Ells w
ez
re tB Po
Va
S 25 th St
t
to n Av e
eA
St 25 Th St S Ri ng gold
S 24 th St
in
S 26 th St
S 27 th St
S 29 th St S 28 th St
S 23 rd St
St S Do ve r St S Newk irk
S 30 th St
S 31 st St
Fe de
te r S
5T h St
e St
se St
Re ed St
One-Mile Adjacent Area Outline
De
St
S 4t h St
Ca tha rin Mo ntro
Ca rpen
W Sn yd
ir EG
S 3rd St
e
Sig el St
N 9t h St
N Fran kli 10 Th St St
ge St
Wa sh ing
St
ET
is
St
Fra nklin
Sa ns om
Lo cu st
Grays Ferry Ave
Mo ore
n St
N 12 th St
9T h St St
S 9t h St
Av
lg
rr
Parks and Green Space
nn Pe
Ma rk et
S 8t h St
ry
N 7th St
N Broa d
15 Th St
Sq
Sq
St
St
er
on St
No St
e rad
Del aw
21 St St
N 18 th St
Arch St
S Broa d
sF
W Th om ps
Be
St
21 St St
hS t 34 T
ay
St
Vin e St
Race St
Kater St Fitzw at er St
Gr
is
Willow St Ca llowh ill St
S 5t h St
Bainb rid
Expy
St
S 16 th St Na ud ain
N 13 th St
N Grat z St
N 23 rd N 22 nd St St
22 Nd St
vd
N 16 th St
N 19 th St N 20 th St
25 Th St
24T h St Exp y Sc hu
34T h St S 33r d St
Bl
N 17 th St
25 Th St
N 25 th St
N 24 th St
N 26 th St
N 30 th St
ylkill
St 38 T h
34Th St r
ph
St
nte
St
nd
Ce
h
rl a
ic
ut
Wa lnu t
be
So
m
St
Cu
Ma rk et
Vin e St reet
Blvd
m
e
Ch erry Jo hn F Kenn ed y
Me
t sS
U V
Vin e St
Vin e St
Log an
St
wi ne St
Fa ir
y
St
ve
St
ce St
e
rt
Pky
rA
3
C iv
e
en ja nj am mi n in Fr an Fr kl an in kl Pk in w
Wa lla
Av
to n
E
Av
Ave
B
Ve rn on Bran dy
ia
te
Mo un t
an
Po welton
as
Par ri s h St Bro wn St
n Tr e
t
v ia A
lv
Barin g St
r St
rS
mb
sy Be
W Maste
t
be
olu
nn
n St
Av e rd St
Ave
lS
Am
EC
§ ¦ ¨ 76
W Oxfo
go me ry
W Girard Av e
Pe
nc
r
ar de Spr ing G
n St Hami lto
La
rD
33R d St N 33rd St
d Av e
eellpphhiiaa vveers rsiittyy CCiittyy
ve
B Moore
ra
e rk
r rD
Ri
Av e
W Mo nt
Ceci l
Co
EB
pla
e r Dr
N 37 th St
N 36 th St
Haverfor
W
ve
34Th St
aA
St
n tu
Co llege
611
Av e
Po
iv ER
th N 34 Ma
Ave
N Colle ge
U V
ery Ave
ge
Av e
R id
30
Montg om
St
ge
t dS
£ ¤
Gi ra rd
m bia Av e
St
Ha
33 R
Dr
W Co lu
Da up hin
E
lly
W No rr is
d St
t
Ke
s St
Di am on
kS
13
W Berk
r Yo
RReesseerrvvooiirr
N Do ve r St N 29 th St N Newk irk St N 28 th St N 27 th St
PPaarrkk
E
33 Rd St
St
CENTER CITY PHILADELPHIA £ ¤
1,526,006
% of Citywide Residents Within Half Mile of Commercial Downtown
7.1%
% of Citywide Residents Within One Mile of Commercial Downtown
11.2%
27
W Windsor Ave
Thomas Rd
E Thomas Rd
N Dayton St
g ur
N 10th St
§ ¦ ¨
E Culver St
E Portland St
E Tay lor St
nd
Av
N 1st Ave
ra
N 4th Ave
G
N 2nd Ave
N 6th Ave
E Fillmore St
e
Van Buren St
E Van Buren St
N 11th St
W Van Buren St
W Adams St
E Monroe St E Adams St
Washington St
W Madison St
W Jackson St
7Th St
S 12th St
S 1st Ave
W Cocopah St
Central Ave S Central Ave
S 7th Ave
W Pima St
S 3rd Ave
S 9th Ave
S 13th Ave
17Th Ave
S 17th Ave
S 22nd Ave
E Buckeye Rd
E Pima St
E Cocopah St E Mohave St
E Apache St
E Durango St
19Th Ave S 19th Ave
S 15th Ave
W Durango St
S 11th Ave
S 24th Ave
S 23rd Ave
S 25th Ave
W Buckeye Rd
S 16th St
S 27th Ave
S 16th Ave
S 28th Ave
W Tonto St
S 5th Ave
W Lincoln St
S 1st St
85
S 2nd St
1St Ave
U V
S 3rd St
E Jackson St
W Grant St
§ ¦ ¨
E Jefferson St
W Jefferson St
S 14th St
S Black Canyon H wy
W Washington St
17
Parks and Green Space
E Pierce St
Adams St
W Hadley St
Fronta ge Rd Maricopa Fwy E Watkins St
W Watkins St
E University Dr
RRiivveerr
S 5th St
Wage & Salary Workers in Commercial Downtown St Wage & Salary Workers in Commercial Downtown + Half-MileW Elwood Adjacent Area Wage & Salary Workers in Commercial Downtown + One-Mile Adjacent Area % of Workforce Living in Commercial Downtown Who Work in This Area SSaalltt
County Line
State Hwy
Commercial Downtown Tracts
State Line
County
Commerical District + Half-Mile Adjacent Area Tracts
Parks
Major Rd
Commerical District + One-Mile Adacent Area Tracts
Interstate
Other Rd
Water
US Hwy
S 9th St
E Jones Ave
P hoe nix Citywide Wage & Salary Workers % of Citywide Wage & Salary Workers Within One Mile of Commercial Downtown Residents Living in Commercial Downtown
75,024 90,599 103,088 En ci na s Ln 13.0%
E Wood St
14.7%
E Broadway Rd
7Th Ave
19Th Ave
% of Workforce Living in Commercial Downtown + One-Mile Adjacent Area Who Work in This Area
W Tamarisk Ave
E Elwood St
E
% of Workforce Living in Commercial Downtown Broadway Rd+ Broadway Rd Half-Mile AdjacentW Area Who Work in This Area
16T h St
S 7th St
W Lower Buckeye Rd
One-Mile Adjacent Area Outline
1:42,000
15.3%
1 inch = 3,500 feet
Coordinate System: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere Projection: Mercator Auxiliary Sphere Datum: WGS 1984 False Easting: 0.0000 False Northing: 0.0000 Central Meridian: 0.0000 Standard Parallel 1: 0.0000 Auxiliary Sphere Type: 0.0000 Units: Meter
·
780,751 13.2% 6,779
Residents Living in Commercial Downtown + Half-Mile Adjacent Area
24,184
Residents Living in Commercial Downtown + One-Mile Adjacent Area
33,554
Citywide Residents
1,445,632
% of Citywide Residents Within Half Mile of Commercial Downtown
1.7%
% of Citywide Residents Within One Mile of Commercial Downtown
2.3%
28
One-Mile Adjacent Area Outline
E Roosevelt St
E McK inley St
W Polk St
W Maricopa St
One-Mile Adjacent Area Tracts
E Garfield St
W Taylor St
W Monroe St
E Willetta St
Papago Fwy
N 9th St
N 2nd St
N 1st St
10
W Roosevelt St
N 17th Ave
N 21st Ave
7Th Ave
y
N 11th Ave
w
N 13th Ave
H
W Willetta St
W Fillmore St
Maricopa County
E Almeria Rd
N 15th St
nb
W Lynwood St
W Culver St
N 13th St
ke
80
Half-Mile Adjacent Area Tracts
Mcdowell Rd
E McDowell Rd
N 7th St
ic
Acc
W McDowell Rd
£ ¤
E Sheridan St
E Palm Ln
N 5th St
W x-
on
W Coronado Rd
E Virginia Ave
E Monte Vista Rd
N 3rd St
ni
N Central Ave
W Palm Ln
oe
a ny
N 9th Ave
Rd
E Oak St
N 8th St
W Vernon Ave
Blvd
W Monte Vista
Ph
ck C
27Th Ave
N 15th Ave
la N B
N 16th Ave
60
En can to
N 3rd Ave
N 20th Ave
N 27th Ave
£ ¤
Commercial Downtown Tracts
W Cambridge Ave West Virginia Ave
N Evergreen St
e
N Noorrtthh D Doow wnnttoow wnn
N 14th St
Av
W Thomas Rd
N 12th St
d
Central Ave
an
19Th Ave N 19th Ave
Gr
N 7th Ave
DOWNTOWN PHOENIX
River
Ave B
ys
d
Connel R
Sain t M
ar
o St Alam I- 37 Access Rd
S Hackberry
New Braunfels Ave
E Commerce St Commerce St
S Polaris St
Dakota St
vd
Martin Luther King Dr
ar
§ ¦ ¨ § ¦ ¨
Mis sio n R d
Major Rd
Commerical District + One-Mile Adacent Area Tracts
Interstate
Other Rd
% of Workforce Living in Commercial Downtown + One-Mile Adjacent Area Who Work in This Area Water
US Hwy
Citywide Wage & Salary Workers % of Citywide Wage & Salary Workers Within One Mile of Commercial Downtown Residents Living in Commercial Downtown
Bailey Ave
Rd
E Drexel Ave
Rigsby Ave
S Palmetto St
44,477 65,719 Schley Ave 91,314 McKinley Ave Hicks Ave 12.2%
E Highland Blvd
Piedmont Ave
t
tS
nd
oba
Pr
St
os
l it
ga
No
a S Pr es
County
Parks
Saint Anthony Ave
S Pine St
St
Rooseve lt Ave
Flore s St
State Hwy
State Line
Porter St
I- 10 Access
y County Line
Delmar St
Nopal St
Pr es a
W Drexel Ave
% of Workforce Living in Commercial Downtown + Half-Mile Adjacent Area Who Work in This Area San Antonio Commerical District + Half-Mile Adjacent Area Tracts
Ave
Westfall Ave
St
Commercial Downtown Tracts
sa s
Ave
na St
Ba nk
Aran
Denver Blvd
St Anthony Ave
nci s
St ssex
S Olive St
Florida St
E
t Fra
H e le
Delaware St
Carolina St
t
St
Virginia Blvd
S Cherry St
La bo r
St
S Mesquite St
t re s S
igh
Hoefgen Ave
St
Iowa St
Le
Montana St
Wyoming St
Nevada St
B lvd
S a in
Burnet St
S New Braunfels Ave
Bl
r
S Flo
e nth ue
ue
Blaine St
Gulf St
S
o
Wage & Salary Workers in Commercial Downtown 35 90 £ ¤ WM itc h e ll S 353 Wage Downtown +S Half-Mile Adjacent Area t U V& Salary Workers in Commercial te ve sA M it ch ve 37 elDowntown Wage & Salary Workers in Commercial + One-Mile Adjacent Area l St E M itc hell St % of Workforce Living in Commercial Downtown Who Work in This Area One-Mile Adjacent Area Outline
N New Braunfels Ave
N Pine St
St
N Palmetto St
Alam o Plz
ng
St
tar
E
eS
Bl
Arthur St
W al
St
St Al
am
W ng Ki
ra
sion
t St
Lo n
Parks and Green Space
Burleson St Lamar St
k
Dwy er Ave iam ill
Ma in St
One-Mile Adjacent Area Outline
Paso Hondo St
Du
St
mo
Rd
E Crockett St
e S Ma in Av
Av e
St re s Flo
N Hackberry
Saint Marys St
z Ma in Pl
N Center
e t St
Wa lk
o
N Pecos St
Rd Acces s
SS an ta S S an ta Ros a S Ro se t A ve
I- 35
N Mesquite St
St
S Frio St
E Houston St
St S Bowie
S Salado St
Duval St
Rive r
Frio St
t
Losoya St
S
ss I- 35 Acce
o St
e
N San Jacinto
Alam
Howard St
St
Av Al
N olan
Ce d ar
St
hA ve
N St
M is
S Bra zos St
e
St
ys St
A la
ba nd
n is
Av
on
U V os
s
Au s tin
Ogden St
St La r edo Frio St
ne
lyn
N San Marcos
Jo
Dawson St
536
va ll
N Panam Expy
e
d
R iv er
P ro
Blvd
St
gt
St
S Pan Am Exp
Cumberland
m
n de
t M ar
o ed
Ce
Fu r
Oriental Ave
Ca
3R
M a rk
One-Mile Adjacent Area Tracts
Post Rd
Carson St
Sherman St
Av
ro
nt ry
St
ain SS
r La
In fa
E Carson
Mason St
cy
St
St
Colima St
E Grayson St
Quitman St
am
Soledad St
Guadalupe
Half-Mile Adjacent Area Tracts
Wilson St
Grayson St
ira
x in
St
el Pas o St
m
Le
St
os
va r
W Houston St
St
Blvd
do St
El
o
Dol orosa
San Fernan
py
E
ok
n
Ex
am
a St
W Durang o
Commercial Downtown Tracts
Rd
St
n
ec
W Commer ce
St
l id
e
uin
Na
Martin St
Bue na Vist
Kendall St
St N Col ora do N Bra zos St
uc
EE
Av
o Br
ro me
SP
Com me rce
phine
EQ
a SP
Ca
St
Morales St
Jackson
N Fl ores St
ad
t n S
id Trin
Ruiz St t
Perez St
Pl
E Jose
E Evergreen St
St
a ro
la
Arbor Pl
L eal
Cam
Delgad o St
Stanley
-3 Rd S
E Park Ave W Evergreen St
W Lau rel St
Riva s St
by
St
N Sab inas St
421
EA sh
Saint Marys
U V
Cul ebr a Rd
Ashby Pl
Eleanor Ave
368
St
E Russell Pl
Belknap Pl
Blanco Rd
Ashby Pl
Ave
McCullough Ave Mc Cullough Ave
N Main Ave
Grant Ave
W Ashby Pl
Ave
Univer sity
W French Pl
Funston Pl
U V
E Woodlawn Ave
St
Michigan Ave
W Woodlawn Ave
10
Cincinnati
Rd
W Mistletoe Ave
W Craig Pl
Parland Pl
Br Br o oa dw ad w ay a y St
281
E Mulberry Ave
W Magnolia Ave
§ ¦ ¨
SSa ann A Annt o t onnio io RR iv iveer r
Bexar County
Summit Ave
Main Ave
Rd
Ripley Ave
345
Capitol Ave
ss 10 Acce
U V
Breeden St
I-
W Kings Hwy
W Summit Ave
San Pedro Ave
DOWNTOWN SAN£¤ ANTONIO
1:36,000
Avant Ave
1 inch = 3,000 feet
·
12.5%
Coordinate System: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere Projection: Mercator Auxiliary Sphere Datum: WGS 1984 False Easting: 0.0000 False Northing: 0.0000 Central Meridian: 0.0000 Standard Parallel 1: 0.0000 Auxiliary Sphere Type: 0.0000 Units: Meter
17.3%
608,756 15.0% 3,379
Residents Living in Commercial Downtown + Half-Mile Adjacent Area
17,386
Residents Living in Commercial Downtown + One-Mile Adjacent Area
39,826
Citywide Residents
1,327,407
% of Citywide Residents Within Half Mile of Commercial Downtown
1.3%
% of Citywide Residents Within One Mile of Commercial Downtown
3.0%
29
ille Rd
4Th Ave Hw y
B alboa
vd
Florida St
P a rk
Zoo Pl
de nt Sa
n
Union St
Ash St
wy
7th Ave
o
W Ash St
Parks and Green Space
Dr
ieg
San Diego County
M cIn
e
Flo rida
ap
t
St
ay
ti re Dr
sW
Gr
si
St
re
pe S
ra WG
Village
P
d Blv o rn
aw th
One-Mile Adjacent Area Outline
r
Brant St
n er
Hawthorn St
Grape St WH
One-Mile Adjacent Area Tracts
el Prado
St
Kett
St
St
Pl
Florida Dr
rn ia
re l
El Prado
Sta te
if o t el S
La ur
au WL
Dr
Albatross St
ce
l Rd
Ca l
ina Airport Te rm
Half-Mile Adjacent Area Tracts
Q u in
2nd Ave
fic
t
o Fwy
ci
N ev
Pa
mo S
Commercial Downtown Tracts
Upas St
Ca br ill
al Ave
ta n a
Cypress Ave
ay
Rd
Guadalcan
G ua n
163
W
ge
Richmo nd St
a rd
St
Mid wa y Ave
nta
Alley
yn
d ia
Fr o
U V
6Th Ave
Re
h Ave
In
Hochm ut
Bl
Robinson Ave
4Th Ave
5
t
to
§ ¦ ¨
kS
n
Pr ing l
e
St
1St Ave
Univers ity Ave
1St Ave
oc
ve
St
ng
nc
oA
hi
Ha
ve
e tt A
Ba rn
nD ie g
as
Sa
r
W
yD
Alabama St
W University Ave
wa
W
Mid
Georgia St
DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO
r
Pe
i sh
Dr
ng
U V 94
L St
Read Rd
21st St
12Th Ave
K St
G St
J St
Imperial Ave
Commercial St
Ke
ar
5th
al
by Cr
ar Be
wy
St
Ch
E
Ce 3Rd
St
Lo
t io
Ne M
a in
E
Ha
rb
ga
na
wt
on
St
or
n
lA
Av e
ve
Av
e
Dr
St
B lv
d
St
Na
Pk
in
r
U V 282
b ril
e
os
t yS
ve
St
sa
bL
n
4th
m
St
ez
Te r
er
av
ve
W at
t
FA
tS
BA
lvd
Av
ds
le
da me A la ve
1S
JA
in B
lo A ve Co untr yC lu
St SO
Ca
A ve
ve ge
DA
EA
ve GA
HA
ve
ve
e I Av
Ala
me
C o ro
da
na d
o A ve
d rs R
ny
d Bl v
lvd lt B ve
d
se
tR
Ro o
ig h
tin
Wr
en Qu
Ca
Ave
Ro ge
Pa lm
Mc
22nd St
r
16th St
Ha Dr r b or D
17Th St
or
15th St
rb
8Th Ave
Ha
5Th Ave
St W
13th St
ey
Market St
20th St
F St
San Diego Fwy
9Th Ave
10Th Ave 11Th Ave
Columbia St
Front St F St
G St
Broadway
E t
19Th St
Rd
C St
14th St
S au fl
Ro e
Pacific Hwy
W Broadway
B St
17Th St
Broadway
3Rd Ave
A St B St
Ora n
8th 6th St nia Ave St Calif&orSalary Olive Wage Workers in Commercial Downtown 9th A la St 10 T m hS ed t a Wage & Salary Workers in Commercial Downtown + Half-Mile Adjacent Area PACIF IC OCEAN Wage & Salary Workers in Commercial Downtown + One-Mile Adjacent Area Oc ea rietta nB % of Workforce Living in Commercial Downtown Who Glo Work in This Area lvd
ve
AA
on a
Pom
Ad
el l
a Av e
Av e
CA ve
Major Rd
lvd
Parks
vd
Commerical District + Half-Mile Adjacent Area Tracts
75
Bl
Ave
County
tta B
ge
State Hwy
State Line
Ave
an
One-Mile Adjacent Area Outline
a rita
Or
County Line
Commercial Downtown Tracts
e Glo ri
Ma rg
B lv d
% of Workforce Living in Commercial Downtown + Half-Mile Adjacent Area Who Work in This Area
San Diego
% of Workforce Living in Commercial Downtown + One-Mile Adjacent Area Who Work in This Area Commerical District + One-Mile Adacent Area Tracts
Interstate
Water
US Hwy
Other Rd
66,972 82,153 93,754 17.9%
U V
Citywide Wage & Salary Workers % of Citywide Wage & Salary Workers Within One Mile of Commercial Downtown
1:36,000
·
17.2%
1 inch = 3,000 feet
Coordinate System: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere Projection: Mercator Auxiliary Sphere Datum: WGS 1984 False Easting: 0.0000 False Northing: 0.0000 Central Meridian: 0.0000 Standard Parallel 1: 0.0000 Auxiliary Sphere Type: 0.0000 Units: Meter
19.0%
665,801 14.1%
Residents Living in Commercial Downtown
16,827
Residents Living in Commercial Downtown + Half-Mile Adjacent Area
39,072
Residents Living in Commercial Downtown + One-Mile Adjacent Area
58,287
Citywide Residents
1,307,402
% of Citywide Residents Within Half Mile of Commercial Downtown
3.0%
% of Citywide Residents Within One Mile of Commercial Downtown
4.5%
30
DOWNTOWN DALLAS
Linde ll Ave
St k Oa Li ve
ve rA un ge
N Central Expy
e
M
Av e ov Gr k Oa
St at e St
Av St
tto n Co
n k
O
t
vd Bl
gh
ea
in
do
rm
w
St
Bi a
ve
e
e
in
m Ro
A
Av
S tl
e
St
M
al
co
lm
X
Pi
lk in
ep p
ve
lA
Sch
a ni
us
lo
St
Co
93,780 Blvd 126,584 158,928 17.9% St
it ol
an
yr
ne
Lu t in
Av
e
am
Jr ng Ki
er th
nw
de
t Bl vd
en W
£ ¤ 175
sS
rC re s
y
M
p
ro
et
xp
v Rd
da
lE
y
J u li
Ce
nk
M
M
ra
St
ay
Le
St
nt
w sF
in th
nw
e Av
Ce
e pp
Co r
Tr u
e
Av e
Bl vd h
ut
t
on
ea um
Ro w rk Pa
ar M
ck M
vd
Bl
Skil lman St
e
vd Bl
So
r li Ca ve yA in
ne
io n un
Via
um
n
ll
rs o
Cu
ffe
B
Je
rt
St
t yS
S
Eads Ave
be
s
Av
St
sl e
e Av n w La Oa k
Re
r
e
Av
V ia
Ci
d
to n
e
Av
vd v e Bl A Jr 4th
Ro
Via du ct
d h
n
Ho us ton
lv ug
zh
so
Le
Sch
St
N Lancaster Ave
B F it
2n
ck
n
re
us
St
ar
N Marsalis Ave Marsalis Ave
r
S
Ja
St
y
d
ng
ge l
Jb
a
xp
an
Za
un ve on S t
vd
nt
ar W
J u li
el
18.7%
E
Citywide Wage & Salary Workers % of Citywide Wage & Salary Workers Within One Mile of Commercial Downtown Residents Living in Commercial Downtown
la
45
ev
m La
T RRTirriinnit ivveerityy r
At
§ ¦ ¨
Cl
t
Dallas County
S
er
lE
A
r
N
M S
lA
ol
ll
Bl
ra
us
vd
rr
ke
X
nt
er
St
ng
y
Sa
ve
S
US Hwy
St
lm
Ce
e
va
e
Water
in gt
B ow
352
co
xp y
Av
Er
Av
Other Rd
U V
a
al
er
t
ll
Interstate
W a sh A ve
ey
im
yS
re
Major Rd
Commerical District + One-Mile Adacent Area Tracts
ll S t
78
M
at
va
ck
County
Parks
e wa
U V
A ve
d oo
Er
Co
Ho
Bl
Ca
l d S Ex t py
St St d ar
Ak
d
on Blvd E Jef fers o n Blvd e rs
Je ff
State Hwy
State Line
r ge
S
ra
S
S
ul
Go
l vd
P
County Line
ll A v A ve e
St
% of Workforce Living in Commercial Downtown + One-Mile Adjacent Area Who Work in This Area Dallas One-Mile Adjacent Area Outline
as
y
ak
or
ke
M
oo
1S t
as
H
rw
ck
e
Gr
er im % ofE 6th Workforce Living in Commercial Downtown + St et er Half-Mile Adjacent Area Who WorkRd in This Area
Commerical District + Half-Mile Adjacent Area Tracts
Av
Sto n
Pe
S
Hi
nt
d an
lB
Commercial Downtown Tracts
un M
e Av
Av
Wage & Salary Workers in Commercial Downtown vd Bl ng Za am Wage & Salary in Commercial Downtown + Half-Mile Adjacent Area d E Colorado Workers Blvd lv a B Wage & Salary Workers in Commercial Downtown + One-Mile Adjacent Area St ay % of Workforce Living in Commercial Downtown Who Work in This Area nw Le
E 5th St
Fe
St
n
d
t
67
tr ia
a
nt
ak
to
Ce
Rd
£ ¤ us
e
ng
an
y Ha
S
Ind
Av
hi
xp S
in iff Gr
342
Sa
Pe
as W
§ ¦ ¨
lE
St
St
iz
kl
30
ar
v ic e
Parks and Green Space
S
N
Oa
Pe
Ser
lS t
U V
St
y on Fw E R L Thornt
ul
Fw y
gh
e
r
g St
Pa
B lvd
ns
St
2N d
St
Yo un
St
mo
hu tz Fi
Av
St
St on St
d lv
e
ill
Wood
Ta
S
al
m
e Av
Av
H
Pearl St
l St
te
El
erce Co m m on St Ca nt
y lo
d Ca r
e Av
de
Si
E
H
St
P au
S te
ri
d
lv d in B S Gr iff
st
rial
e
N
oo
One-Mile Adjacent Area Outline
e Av e r ve ig Re ia A b m u l Co
St
St
Sa in t
St
du
St
w
rd N Aka
S
In
t
or
St
N
St M emo
h rt
m
o
t
St
ar
d Ja ck
St
Ho
nt
Ol iv e
n B lv
nio n
n
ci
lS
Sa
Ja
al
ul
Griffi
Tpke
son S
Wo od
St
ct
H
Pa
St
Fwy
R eu
77
D al
H
ld
d
£ ¤ Wor th la s- Ft
N
d
F ie
t Via
B lv
et St
on St
ns S Stem mo
tr ee ce S
Ma rk
H ou st
d l B lv uct
us
ni
R
St
ria
m er
ar
Av
Vi
Fw
N
ust t Vi S tree
C om
ll
da
oo W
on
ve lA
t
St
In d
U V
m erce
t
ive
vd
U V 366
l Ave nta
ad
Com
260
lS
Ol
lS
ar
Bl
lvd ne
ar
Pe
es
lB
t ria
us n ti
g od
St
Ju
o W
y
Pe
in
y
Ind Co
Th
N
H
y Ave
s Fw
m mon
N
§ ¦ ¨ 35
Ga
ak
t
y
t
St
Ak
st
el sk Ha
S nt
om
s er
or
e
as
N
ou
n St
rr
nS
Ha
to
Vi ct or
on
N S te
ag
St
Dr
c um
no
on
rB
gh
x
St
us
in
om
Pe
th
Ho
Slo
ck
m
ca
Sy
N
u Ro
irm Fa
N
M
One-Mile Adjacent Area Tracts
N
u zh e
St
ne
an
An
y Br
St
as
e e Av v t t tt A l l e l le Co C o
Av
F it
d
an
ac
ge
e
el
s Ro
e Av
e
Th
Av
s
is
N
t
Av
e
y sb ig
ve
lS
le
Av
Gr
lA ol rr
al
ap ole
un
Ca
H
M
St
e
Sw
ac
St
e
er
M
De
N
Tollw ay
n
Half-Mile Adjacent Area Tracts
y
Be
e
Av
Be
ol
N
p it
N
No rt h
Ca
N
on
e
m
Av
m
Rd
le
w
e
gs
Pk
n
ya
Br
ri
Le
in
354
r
Matilda St
Ross Ave
St
ai
pr
U V
eD
Summit Ave
e
rn
Commercial Downtown Tracts
Lewis St
ve
bu
E e Av on ve A m m on Le m m Le e Av
Da llas
rS
C
Lin
Greenville Ave
St er
na B ue
Av
St
n
r tl
o rs
St
e Av
Tu
a
ek
e
l if
as
yc W
er
de
Do ug l
ad
en
ck
tA
la
Pr
da
Al
Hi
Oram St
et nn
B
Richmond Ave
Prospect Ave
Be
rn
Goliad Ave
N
Ce
e
bo
H
St
Av
el
N
s
lin
W
Bl vd
er os M
w Ra
St
n
ga
a Re
M
Av
w
f
Bo
t or m ck ro Th D ic ka so n
289
St
e C re
e
la ol
Av
n
St
U V
Ho m
H
on
ow
e Av rt be e Gil Av ve nd rA se
m
on
Br
h
ig
Kn
e
Belmont Ave
V is ta St Tra vis St
m Av
75
McMillan Ave
Ave
£ ¤
Co le
Le
Avon dale Ave
t tS
1:36,000
1 inch = 3,000 feet
·
21.3%
Coordinate System: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere Projection: Mercator Auxiliary Sphere Datum: WGS 1984 False Easting: 0.0000 False Northing: 0.0000 Central Meridian: 0.0000 Standard Parallel 1: 0.0000 Auxiliary Sphere Type: 0.0000 Units: Meter
745,012 21.3% 3,744
Residents Living in Commercial Downtown + Half-Mile Adjacent Area
17,516
Residents Living in Commercial Downtown + One-Mile Adjacent Area
36,884
Citywide Residents
1,197,816
% of Citywide Residents Within Half Mile of Commercial Downtown
1.5%
% of Citywide Residents Within One Mile of Commercial Downtown
3.1%
31
SE
Rd
E N SE
Half St SW
An acostia eS
eS E Av so ne M in
ia
E
U V 4
R St SE
SE
t
Hwy
st
ta
AC RI OS VE TI A R
N Av
lark
3 0t h
an
s ip
e Av rn
pi
eS
E
So
Av
ut
he
nn RRuu oonn OOx x
23
n er
SW
e
Av
SE
King Jr
Prince George's County
St
M ar ti
en
ck
Ow
do
SE
ad Br
er n Lu th
Ca pitol
Rd
St 380,819 on rs Ive A ve 431,171 446,429 43.7%
th
S
M ill s
no n Av e Mo unt Ver
l Rd
e ro n
Rd
ic to
Other Rd
US Hwy
Residents Living in Commercial Downtown
d Blv
Di st r
P O TOM A C R I VE R
Interstate
Water
Woodland
1:72,000
Rd
Commerical District + One-Mile Adacent Area Tracts
r
Major Rd
e le
County
Parks
he
f
W
State Hwy
State Line
414 48.8% U V
s
Rd
St
County Line
Commerical District + Half-Mile Adjacent Area Tracts
rd
Av
s is
SE
th
SE
Mis
ve a A
So u
e Av
ba m
637
SE
M y
5
SE
24
1st St SE
D un
le
U V U V
to n
e
L King Jr Ave SE
B lv d SW e ns fe De
pie J ame s Blvd S can W St S B ro o W k le y We A ve s to SW v er Av e SW
St
A la
Ch ap
Ave
lt h n wea
eR d
o ac An SE
wy
mo
21st S t NE
Hop
A
n ia
y Fw tia o s Q St SE ac
Goo d
Ave
Russ el
Cam
Com
t SE
lv a
S
S Jeffe rson Davis
ta l Dr Cr ys
e Rd
S Joyce St
Ridg
Dr
t ia
sy
Ave SE
Arlington
os ac
nn
295
Branch
S
MS
Pe
wy
SE
§ ¦ ¨
Pk
Valley Dr
d
bu ns de B la E N ia A ve
D St SE
E St SE
Citywide Wage & Salary Workers Washington DC % of Citywide Wage & Salary Workers Within One Mile of Commercial Downtown One-Mile Adjacent Area Outline
One-Mile Adjacent Area Tracts
e
11th St SE
Independence Ave SE
12th St SE
g in
l Va Wage & Salary Workers in Commercial Downtown Wage & Salary Workers in Commercial Downtown ui+re AvHalf-Mile Adjacent Area e Mc G 1 Commercial Downtown + One-Mile Adjacent Area Wage & Salary Workers£ in ¤ a W bi % of Workforce Living in Commercial Downtown Who Work in This Area K m in u g l % of Workforce Living in Commercial Downtown + Co nd 7 U V a Half-Mile Adjacent Area Who Work in This Area l y 210 ar U V % of Workforce Living in Commercial Downtown + M 420 U V One-Mile Adjacent Area Who Work in This Area
Commercial Downtown Tracts
§ ¦ ¨
95 50.5%
·
597,261 74.7%
1 inch = 6,000 feet
Coordinate System: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere Projection: Mercator Auxiliary Sphere Datum: WGS 1984 False Easting: 0.0000 False Northing: 0.0000 Central Meridian: 0.0000 Standard Parallel 1: 0.0000 Auxiliary Sphere Type: 0.0000 Units: Meter
28,197
Residents Living in Commercial Downtown + Half-Mile Adjacent Area
119,814
Residents Living in Commercial Downtown + One-Mile Adjacent Area
173,672
Citywide Residents
601,723
% of Citywide Residents Within Half Mile of Commercial Downtown
19.9%
% of Citywide Residents Within One Mile of Commercial Downtown
28.9%
32
Half-Mile Adjacent Area Tracts
NE
C
Constitution Ave NE
SE Wh eeler Rd
Rd
Poto mac
e
is Hw y Jefferso n Dav
eb
£ ¤
E Naylor Rd S
400
Gl
e
50
Rd
t
U V
120
W
D St NE
nd
ads
Dr
d S G lebe R
U V
NE
E St NE
a itl Su
S
rt
o tt
e ss
ir
Fo
Sc
Av
Av a ni ry
Ave
An
on C
S
23rd St S
a
One-Mile Adjacent Area Outline
r
20th St S
ko t
NE
An
ti Avia
395
rg R
ln R d
Dr
n
§ ¦ ¨
Da
a Rd NE Az ale
rg i ve
SE
ry
to in g
avy
h
Commercial Downtown Tracts
tV i Ma
4th St SE V ir
e y Ave
da
sh A rmy
Arlington County
ut
Dr
Av e
Jers
un
Wa
27
244
So
A ve NE
d la n
Ne w
Southwest Fwy
SW
Bo
S
V U VU
Franklin St NE
es aA
110
Pentagon Acc
E
W
7th St NE
rid
U V Bl vd
eN
E
Vir
in e
Av
d
E Capitol St NE
Jefferson Dr SW Independence Ave SW
Ma
an
t
W
NW
Ave N
Fl o I St NE
8th St NE
W
E St NW
N
Isl
New York Ave NE
K St NE
e y Ave
t of tric Dis mbia u Col ginia
d
de
NW
6th St NE
t
Dwight D Eisenhower Fwy
F
Di Co str lu ict m of bi a
N St NW
Jers
NW
2 0th t W 19th St NW
Av e
21st St NW
ia
Av e
5th St NE
L St NW K St NW
nd
4th St NE
M St NW
R ho
2nd St NE 3rd St NE
29
6th St NW
£ ¤
NE
la e Is
Ne w
g in
N Capitol St NE
11th St NW
R St NW Q St NW
od Rh
Madison Dr NW
lv
W
1st St NW
22nd St NW
T St NW
12th St NW
W on B
M n
U St NW
Pe n nsyl va n Constitution Ave NW ia in g t
ill a
I St NW
Vir
§ ¦ ¨
A rl
W eN
16th St NW
eN
18th St NW
Av
15th St NW
Av
da
cM
9th St NW
ia mb
in
ri
P St NW
Wa Wa sshhiinnggttoonn D D CC G Geeoorrggeettoow wnn rrlliinnggttoonn ((VVA A)) Ro Rossssllyynn 66
W
17th St NW
ns
C o lu
co
o Fl
Ca na l Rd NW
13th St NW
k Cr ee
N
Ave NW
W is
ck Ro
Rd
M
n
E
Harvard St NW
ga
t
NW
r aann illll MMi ooirir rvv c MMc eesseer RR
355
y
NW Georgia Ave
U V
w Pk
Sherma n
Garfield St NW
hi ic
Lawrence St NE
L inco
Kenyon St NW
Monroe St NE
NE
N Capitol St NW
Irving St NW
e Av
12th St NE
Cathedral Ave N W
Fulton St NW
Newton St NE
Otis St NE
Wa Wa sshhiinnggttoonn D D CC VA VA M Meeddiiccaall CCeenntteerr
5th St NW
K
396
Rd NW
e gl
1 8th
U V
lin
8th St NW
Newark St NW Macomb St NW
R Cr oc k ee k
DOWNTOWN WASHINGTON, DC
Parks and Green Space
Appendix II: Tables for All Cities and their employment nodes
33
Table 1: Employment Nodes Sorted by Total Jobs Employment Node Name
Employment Node Type
Total Jobs in Commercial Downtown and One-Mile Area
Total Population in Commercial Downtown and One-Mile Area
Midtown Manhattan, NY
Primary Downtown
1,441,281
586,652
Downtown Chicago, IL
Primary Downtown
609,902
144,051
Downtown Manhattan, NY
Secondary Employment Node
527,118
173,179
Downtown Washington, DC
Primary Downtown
468,907
173,672
Downtown Los Angeles, CA
Primary Downtown
372,337
174,975
Brooklyn, NY*
Secondary Employment Node
350,124
202,093
Strip - Las Vegas, NV
Secondary Employment Node
312,785
92,675
Downtown San Francisco, CA
Primary Downtown
299,659
134,312
Downtown Seattle, WA
Primary Downtown
294,369
119,590
Center City Philadelphia, PA
Primary Downtown
288,227
170,467
Office Park - Irvine, CA
Secondary Employment Node
234,246
160,250
Downtown Minneapolis, MN
Primary Downtown
232,458
132,403
Downtown Austin, TX
Primary Downtown
214,865
64,843
Downtown Houston, TX
Primary Downtown
200,383
58,459
University of Texas Medical Center - Dallas, TX
Secondary Employment Node
190,285
98,502
Downtown Miami, FL
Primary Downtown
188,003
140,889
Downtown Denver, CO
Primary Downtown
180,863
80,369
Downtown Portland, OR
Primary Downtown
180,173
101,416
Downtown Dallas, TX
Primary Downtown
167,514
36,884
Downtown Pittsburgh, PA
Primary Downtown
153,224
69,534
Civic Center - San Francisco, CA
Secondary Employment Node
153,098
174,402
Downtown Sacramento, CA
Primary Downtown
151,828
73,225
Downtown Baltimore, MD
Primary Downtown
149,432
108,725
Downtown Atlanga, GA
Primary Downtown
142,759
63,560
Cisco Campus - San Jose, CA
Secondary Employment Node
141,155
64,146
Westwood/UCLA - Los Angeles, CA
Secondary Employment Node
140,986
81,305
Downtown Indianapolis, IN
Primary Downtown
136,417
50,349
Downtown Milwaukee, WI
Primary Downtown
136,277
74,619
Uptown - Houston, TX
Secondary Employment Node
129,929
51,380
Downtown Honolulu, HI
Primary Downtown
129,357
85,323
Texas Medical Center - Houston, TX
Secondary Employment Node
127,330
65,940
Downtown Cleveland, OH
Primary Downtown
124,086
41,236
Downtown Raleigh, NC
Primary Downtown
122,005
34,359
Downtown Columbus, OH
Primary Downtown
121,455
53,110
Downtown Hartford, CT
Primary Downtown
120,797
94,968
Downtown Tysons Corner, VA
Primary Downtown
117,817
79,717
Downtown Oakland, CA
Primary Downtown
113,550
111,587
Downtown Newark, NJ
Primary Downtown
109,274
174,818
Downtown Phoenix, AZ
Primary Downtown
107,859
33,554
Downtown Orlando, FL
Primary Downtown
104,290
33,228
Greenway Plaza - Houston, TX
Secondary Employment Node
103,963
51,496
Midtown - Atlanta, GA
Secondary Employment Node
103,767
77,535
Downtown San Diego, CA
Primary Downtown
100,905
58,287
Downtown St. Louis, MO
Primary Downtown
97,167
28,534
Downtown San Antonio, TX
Primary Downtown
96,643
39,826
Downtown Louisville, KY
Primary Downtown
95,581
59,789
University of Illinois - Chicago, IL
Secondary Employment Node
94,935
116,261
Office Park - Irving, TX
Secondary Employment Node
93,250
26,978
Downtown Jersey City, NJ
Primary Downtown
93,171
160,186
Downtown Cincinnati, OH
Primary Downtown
90,271
27,488
MARTA Center - Sandy Springs, GA
Primary Downtown
89,968
60,788
Downtown Charlotte, NC
Primary Downtown
89,588
33,140
Downtown Pasadena, CA
Primary Downtown
89,093
122,338
Downtown Salt Lake City, UT
Primary Downtown
88,812
80,015
Downtown Ann Arbor, MI
Primary Downtown
88,362
67,144
Downtown Tampa, FL
Primary Downtown
87,134
32,477
Downtown Nashville, TN
Primary Downtown
86,615
25,922
Downtown St. Paul, MN
Primary Downtown
85,753
42,910
34
Employment Node Name
Employment Node Type
Total Jobs in Commercial Downtown and One-Mile Area
Total Population in Commercial Downtown and One-Mile Area
Downtown Columbia, SC
Primary Downtown
85,142
44,536
Downtown New Orleans, LA
Primary Downtown
84,566
70,525
University of Texas Medical Center - San Antonio, TX
Secondary Employment Node
84,512
53,208
Downtown Des Moines, IA
Primary Downtown
81,339
36,518
Vanderbilt University & Medical Center - Nashville, TN
Secondary Employment Node
80,751
45,218
Downtown Richmond, VA
Primary Downtown
80,313
49,702
UCSD & Medical Center - San Diego, CA
Secondary Employment Node
80,294
55,074
Downtown Fort Worth, TX
Primary Downtown
80,068
13,550
Oakland - Pittsburgh, PA
Primary Downtown
79,896
55,591
North Downtown - Phoenix, AZ
Secondary Employment Node
79,551
44,590
University City - Philadelphia, PA
Secondary Employment Node
79,368
116,609
Downtown Lansing, MI
Primary Downtown
78,611
34,379
Downtown Detroit, MI
Primary Downtown
78,144
17,438
Downtown Providence, RI
Primary Downtown
77,885
70,508
Downtown Tempe, AZ
Primary Downtown
76,936
58,146
Hollywood - Los Angeles, CA
Secondary Employment Node
76,118
138,193
Midtown - Detroit, MI
Secondary Employment Node
72,911
36,237
Downtown Buffalo, NY
Primary Downtown
72,902
40,332
South Office Parks - Santa Clara, CA
Secondary Employment Node
72,233
55,211
Southern Office Park - San Bernardino, CA
Secondary Employment Node
71,232
50,796
Wilshire/Koreatown - Los Angeles, CA
Secondary Employment Node
71,229
223,487
Downtown San Jose, CA
Primary Downtown
70,762
94,838
Downtown Springfield, IL
Primary Downtown
69,991
43,322
Downtown Kansas City, MO
Primary Downtown
69,482
22,122
Downtown Rochester, NY
Primary Downtown
68,449
63,722
Downtown Norfolk, VA
Primary Downtown
67,774
57,120
Downtown Grand Rapids, MI
Primary Downtown
67,277
43,347
Medical Center - Austin, TX
Secondary Employment Node
65,568
50,489
Downtown Lexington, KY
Primary Downtown
65,206
45,508
West Mall Area - Troy, MI
Primary Downtown
63,884
37,054
University Circle - Cleveland, OH
Secondary Employment Node
63,192
60,676
Microsoft Campus - Redmond, WA
Secondary Employment Node
62,715
30,208
Downtown Las Vegas, NV
Primary Downtown
62,054
53,236
Downtown Burbank, CA
Primary Downtown
60,850
71,596
Medical Center - Irvine, CA
Primary Downtown
60,432
36,805
Downtown Salem, OR
Primary Downtown
59,380
49,855
Downtown Santa Ana, CA
Primary Downtown
59,360
123,664
Northeast Office Parks - Ontario, CA
Secondary Employment Node
59,149
37,054
Downtown Reno, NV
Primary Downtown
58,918
62,732
Downtown Oklahoma City, OK
Primary Downtown
58,833
27,868
Downtown Fort Lauderdale, FL
Primary Downtown
58,216
56,906
Sprint Campus - Overland Park, KS
Primary Downtown
57,591
32,645
Downtown Arlington, TX
Primary Downtown
57,589
49,459
Ohio State University & Medical Center - Columbus, OH
Secondary Employment Node
57,231
87,237
Downtown Little Rock, AR
Primary Downtown
56,524
18,392
Medical Center - Jacksonville, FL
Secondary Employment Node
56,302
16,885
Boeing Campus - Everett, WA
Secondary Employment Node
55,992
77,789
Downtown Albany, NY
Primary Downtown
55,936
32,227
Downtown Tulsa, OK
Primary Downtown
55,728
26,073
Downtown Wichita, KS
Primary Downtown
55,571
39,274
Medical Office Parks - Palo Alto, CA
Secondary Employment Node
55,144
45,747
Downtown Tallahassee, FL
Primary Downtown
54,658
28,954
Georgetown - Washington, DC
Secondary Employment Node
54,598
63,644
Downtown Birmingham, AL
Primary Downtown
54,450
20,786
I-405 & I-520 Office Parks - Bellevue, WA
Secondary Employment Node
54,069
36,911
Downtown Spokane, WA
Primary Downtown
53,621
33,411
Downtown Boise, ID
Primary Downtown
53,368
40,820
Downtown Plano, TX
Primary Downtown
52,587
56,019
Downtown Chesapeake City, VA
Primary Downtown
52,576
54,846
Downtown Omaha, NE
Primary Downtown
51,579
33,619
35
Employment Node Name
Employment Node Type
Total Jobs in Commercial Downtown and One-Mile Area
Total Population in Commercial Downtown and One-Mile Area
Northwest Southfield, MI
Secondary Employment Node
50,300
28,227
Downtown Fresno, CA
Primary Downtown
49,956
66,027
Downtown Greensboro, NC
Primary Downtown
49,045
37,604
Medical Center - Fort Worth, TX
Secondary Employment Node
48,302
45,024
Downtown Scottsdale, AZ
Primary Downtown
48,016
58,490
Downtown Tucson, AZ
Primary Downtown
47,678
25,316
Downtown Akron, OH
Primary Downtown
47,394
54,271
Downtown Alexandria, VA
Primary Downtown
47,306
46,694
Downtown Tacoma, WA
Primary Downtown
46,994
26,318
VA Medical Center - Washington, DC
Secondary Employment Node
46,962
98,841
Downtown Rochester, MN
Primary Downtown
46,704
19,918
Downtown Memphis, TN
Primary Downtown
46,587
33,418
Downtown Long Beach, CA
Primary Downtown
45,845
112,113
East Office Park - Troy, MI
Secondary Employment Node
45,443
43,912
University of Washington - Seattle, WA
Secondary Employment Node
45,197
70,358
UCSF Medical Center - San Francisco, CA
Secondary Employment Node
44,704
102,296
Downtown Palo Alto, CA
Primary Downtown
44,690
56,680
Regional School Board/City Government - Memphis, TN
Secondary Employment Node
44,251
38,660
Downtown Albuquerque, NM
Primary Downtown
43,560
21,458
Downtown Jackson, MS
Primary Downtown
41,952
20,869
Office Park - Boca Raton, FL
Secondary Employment Node
41,773
31,803
Downtown Colorado Springs, CO
Primary Downtown
41,715
34,628
Birmingham University - Birmingham, AL
Secondary Employment Node
41,712
18,139
University of Wisconsin - Madison, WI
Secondary Employment Node
41,682
29,325
Texas Instruments Campus - Richardson, TX
Primary Downtown
41,473
40,337
Downtown Chattanooga, TN
Primary Downtown
41,397
16,300
Downtown Bellevue, WA
Primary Downtown
41,270
14,759
Ballston - Arlington, VA
Secondary Employment Node
41,121
48,718
State Government Offices - Oklahoma City, OK
Secondary Employment Node
40,614
18,623
Downtown Syracuse, NY
Primary Downtown
39,656
29,346
Las Collinas Medical Center - Irving, TX
Primary Downtown
39,547
15,094
Downtown Bakersfield, CA
Primary Downtown
39,243
48,927
North Office Park - Richardson, TX
Secondary Employment Node
38,629
21,214
Downtown Jacksonville, FL
Primary Downtown
37,916
24,743
Downtown El Paso, TX
Primary Downtown
36,623
25,663
Downtown Shreveport, LA
Primary Downtown
36,183
28,097
Office Park & Mall - Torrance, CA
Secondary Employment Node
35,757
55,843
Downtown Riverside, CA
Primary Downtown
35,336
30,505
Texas Tech - Lubbock, TX
Secondary Employment Node
35,121
48,175
Medical Center - Sandy Springs, GA
Secondary Employment Node
35,100
19,068
Downtown Redmond, WA
Primary Downtown
35,065
47,599
Downtown Baton Rouge, LA
Primary Downtown
34,916
31,803
Downtown Lincoln, NE
Primary Downtown
34,840
37,219
Downtown Sioux Falls, SD
Primary Downtown
34,248
30,242
Office Park & Airport - Torrance, CA
Primary Downtown
34,020
61,683
Central Office Parks - Ontario, CA
Secondary Employment Node
33,978
51,177
Downtown Huntsville, AL
Primary Downtown
33,787
22,442
Medical Center/Office Park - Lakewood, CO
Primary Downtown
33,503
71,155
I-435 Office Parks - Overland Park, KS
Secondary Employment Node
33,300
42,752
Downtown Amarillo, TX
Primary Downtown
33,019
27,980
Downtown Stockton, CA
Primary Downtown
32,771
39,830
Southeast Southfield, MI
Secondary Employment Node
32,758
42,594
Downtown Madison, WI
Primary Downtown
32,170
38,451
Downtown Montgomery, AL
Primary Downtown
32,110
15,680
Downtown Knoxville, TN
Primary Downtown
32,038
15,509
Downtown Corpus Christi, TX
Primary Downtown
31,640
14,722
Rosslyn - Arlington, VA
Primary Downtown
31,555
17,876
Downtown Toledo, OH
Primary Downtown
31,474
37,840
Port - Newport News, VA
Secondary Employment Node
31,430
30,724
North Office Parks - Santa Clara, CA
Secondary Employment Node
31,354
32,737
36
Employment Node Name
Employment Node Type
Total Jobs in Commercial Downtown and One-Mile Area
Total Population in Commercial Downtown and One-Mile Area
Downtown St. Petersburg, FL
Primary Downtown
31,294
38,674
Downtown Savannah, GA
Primary Downtown
30,949
27,384
Downtown Augusta, GA
Primary Downtown
30,780
22,466
Downtown Mesa, AZ
Primary Downtown
30,675
59,925
South End - Charlotte, NC
Secondary Employment Node
30,077
45,200 79,295
University of Chicago - Chicago, IL
Secondary Employment Node
30,066
Downtown Greenville, SC
Primary Downtown
29,976
19,687
Medical Center - Albany, NY
Secondary Employment Node
29,863
41,728
Medical Center - Portland, OR
Secondary Employment Node
29,652
27,586
Downtown San Bernardino, CA
Primary Downtown
29,557
59,808
Downtown Charleston, SC
Primary Downtown
29,351
23,070
I-90 Office Parks - Bellevue, WA
Secondary Employment Node
29,120
44,384
Downtown Anchorage, AK
Primary Downtown
28,987
14,013
Downtown Fort Wayne, IN
Primary Downtown
28,585
33,270
Havana Street/Office Parks - Aurora, CO
Secondary Employment Node
28,571
57,747
Central Southfield, MI
Primary Downtown
28,530
15,801
Medical Center/UT Health Science - Memphis, TN
Secondary Employment Node
28,447
13,902
Oyster Point - Newport News, VA
Primary Downtown
28,317
42,742
Downtown Evansville, IN
Primary Downtown
28,160
18,169
Downtown Cedar Rapids, IA
Primary Downtown
27,557
26,066
Downtown Winston-Salem, NC
Primary Downtown
27,556
19,557
Syracuse University - Syracuse, NY
Secondary Employment Node
27,216
36,228
Johns Hopkins Hospital/Univeristy - Baltimore, MD
Secondary Employment Node
27,142
49,011
University & Medical Center - Knoxville, TN
Secondary Employment Node
26,866
24,138
Medical Center - Charleston, SC
Secondary Employment Node
26,691
12,915
University of Louisiana - Lafayette, LA
Secondary Employment Node
26,221
32,009
Downtown Springfield, MO
Primary Downtown
25,944
30,043
Medical Center - Indianapolis, IN
Secondary Employment Node
25,903
15,146
UC Irvine - Irvine, CA
Secondary Employment Node
23,792
59,146
Medical Center - Boca Raton, FL
Secondary Employment Node
23,571
23,056
Downtown Mobile, AL
Primary Downtown
23,234
16,237
Court House - Arlington, VA
Secondary Employment Node
22,691
47,952
Medical Center - Raleigh, NC
Secondary Employment Node
22,570
35,896
Medical Center - Chandler, AZ
Secondary Employment Node
22,174
40,998
Downtown Everett, WA
Primary Downtown
20,746
24,540
Downtown Anaheim, CA
Primary Downtown
20,324
79,373
Intel Campus - Chandler, AZ
Primary Downtown
20,188
18,840
University & Caltrain Center - Santa Clara, CA
Primary Downtown
19,643
25,825
Children's Hospital - Aurora, CO
Secondary Employment Node
19,482
23,120
Medical Center - Denver, CO
Secondary Employment Node
18,894
35,581
Downtown Lubbock, TX
Primary Downtown
18,176
13,309
Downtown Durham, NC
Primary Downtown
17,774
24,208
Medical Center - Oklahoma City, OK
Secondary Employment Node
17,585
4,147 58,623
Buckley Airforce Base - Aurora, CO**
Secondary Employment Node
16,696
Downtown Virginia Beach, VA
Primary Downtown
16,593
33,152
Medical Center - Evansville, IN
Secondary Employment Node
12,142
8,917
Downtown Lafayette, LA
Primary Downtown
10,606
6,366
Florida Atlantic University - Boca Raton, FL
Primary Downtown
8,633
6,025
Downtown Ontario, CA
Primary Downtown
7,246
36,897
Airport & School Board - Lafayette, LA
Secondary Employment Node
6,884
0
Downtown Chandler, AZ
Secondary Employment Node
5,375
30,561
Downtown Aurora, CO
Primary Downtown
4,207
48,859
Downtown Boston, MA***
Primary Downtown
NA
170,934
Total
231
18,696,018
12,866,930
*Brooklyn exhibits an employment allocation anomaly that may be contributing to its job totals, density, and live-work calculations. Tract 9 contains 196,474 jobs, likely due to central payroll processing for the New York City Buildings Department and not a reflection of the number of workers physically working in this tract. **The Buckley Airforce Base area may exhibit lower than expected job totals due to the fact that uniformed military are not included in the data. ***Because LED data are not available for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Downtown Boston jobs are unavailable, and population was estimated based on locally accepted boundaries.
37
Table 2: Job Densities (Total Jobs Per Acre) Employment Node Name Extremely High Job Density Midtown Manhattan, NY Brooklyn, NY* Downtown Manhattan, NY Downtown Chicago, IL Downtown Los Angeles, CA UCSF Medical Center - San Francisco, CA Downtown San Francisco, CA Center City - Philadelphia, PA Downtown Dallas, TX Downtown Houston, TX Downtown Rochester, MN Downtown Seattle, WA Civic Center - San Francisco, CA Johns Hopkins Hospital/Univeristy - Baltimore, MD Downtown Austin, TX Oakland - Pittsburgh, PA Downtown Denver, CO Westwood/UCLA - Los Angeles, CA Downtown Tucson, AZ Downtown Raleigh, NC Downtown Baltimore, MD Downtown Burbank, CA University of Chicago - Chicago, IL Downtown Albany, NY Downtown Milwaukee, WI Downtown Grand Rapids, MI Downtown St. Paul, MN Downtown San Diego, CA Very High Job Density Downtown Cincinnati, OH Greenway Plaza - Houston, TX Downtown Washington, DC Uptown - Houston, TX Downtown Bellevue, WA Medical Center - Charleston, SC Downtown Newark, NJ Downtown Phoenix, AZ Downtown Atlanga, GA Downtown Tampa, FL Downtown Lansing, MI Downtown Buffalo, NY Downtown Minneapolis, MN University City - Philadelphia, PA Downtown Rochester, NY Ballston - Arlington, VA Downtown Hartford, CT Texas Medical Center - Houston, TX Downtown Tacoma, WA Wilshire/Koreatown - Los Angeles, CA Downtown Santa Ana, CA Downtown Alexandria, VA Downtown Syracuse, NY Downtown Kansas City, MO High Job Density Downtown Norfolk, VA Downtown Oakland, CA Downtown Providence, RI Downtown Honolulu, HI Rosslyn - Arlington, VA
38
Employment Node Type
Commercial Downtown
Half Mile
One Mile
Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown
920 404 327 294 285 277 217 203 175 166 155 150 149 135 135 134 133 132 127 120 119 118 116 114 112 111 103 100
459 88 239 198 101 30 112 88 51 78 36 84 65 29 74 37 65 38 20 47 49 34 21 30 56 54 37 48
248 49 155 129 63 16 10 63 44 33 16 53 44 15 33 25 30 35 15 27 29 16 8 14 21 15 16 22
Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown
98 98 97 95 94 91 90 89 88 87 87 86 85 85 83 82 80 80 80 79 79 78 76 75
54 46 65 34 29 29 29 29 41 31 22 18 39 41 27 25 31 29 25 28 20 23 37 24
28 21 43 29 29 10 19 23 24 14 14 15 31 23 15 14 15 17 21 17 13 15 19 17
Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown
74 72 72 72 71
31 29 32 37 63
15 21 20 27 20
Employment Node Name
Employment Node Type
Commercial Downtown
Half Mile
One Mile
Downtown Albuquerque, NM Downtown Knoxville, TN Medical Center/UT Health Science - Memphis, TN Downtown Detroit, MI Downtown Pittsburgh, PA Downtown Richmond, VA Downtown St. Louis, MO North Downtown - Phoenix, AZ Downtown Orlando, FL Downtown Nashville, TN Downtown Portland, OR Downtown Charlotte, NC University of Wisconsin - Madison, WI Downtown New Orleans, LA Downtown San Antonio, TX Downtown Spokane, WA Downtown Columbus, OH Downtown Ann Arbor, MI Downtown Indianapolis, IN Microsoft Campus - Redmond, WA Syracuse University - Syracuse, NY Downtown Fort Lauderdale, FL Downtown Toledo, OH Downtown Sacramento, CA Downtown Madison, WI Downtown Anchorage, AK Downtown Winston-Salem, NC Downtown Jersey City, NJ Downtown Miami, FL Vanderbilt University & Medical Center - Nashville, TN Downtown Little Rock, AR Downtown Chattanooga, TN Medical Center - Albany, NY Moderately High Job Density Downtown Fort Worth, TX Regional School Board/City Government - Memphis, TN Downtown Savannah, GA Medical Center - Evansville, IN University Circle - Cleveland, OH Downtown Lincoln, NE Medical Center - Austin, TX Downtown Greenville, SC VA Medical Center - Washington, DC Downtown Cleveland, OH Medical Center - Jacksonville, FL Birmingham University - Birmingham, AL Downtown Riverside, CA Downtown El Paso, TX Downtown Des Moines, IA Downtown Columbia, SC Medical Center - Denver, CO Downtown Louisville, KY Downtown Salt Lake City, UT Downtown Wichita, KS Downtown Fresno, CA University of Illinois - Chicago, IL Downtown Boise, ID Downtown Tulsa, OK Downtown Las Vegas, NV Downtown Greensboro, NC Midtown - Detroit, MI Downtown Mesa, AZ
Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node
69 69 68 67 66 65 64 64 63 63 61 60 59 59 59 58 58 58 57 56 55 55 54 53 53 53 53 52 52 52 51 50 50
17 69 22 40 24 26 38 22 21 31 36 36 28 19 29 32 25 23 32 43 16 15 15 25 53 18 15 33 23 25 19 12 15
14 11 16 26 20 15 23 15 20 18 22 23 17 13 17 15 16 12 17 16 9 10 6 18 7 16 7 17 18 14 12 6 12
Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown
49 48 48 46 46 45 45 44 44 44 44 44 43 42 42 41 39 39 38 38 38 38 37 37 36 36 36 36
34 15 16 19 16 11 14 12 17 29 44 28 10 12 18 20 10 24 22 14 17 20 26 20 18 16 21 10
16 8 8 8 9 10 12 7 12 19 12 19 9 12 12 11 8 10 12 9 9 17 10 11 14 8 13 6
39
Employment Node Name
Employment Node Type
Commercial Downtown
Half Mile
One Mile
Downtown San Jose, CA Downtown Stockton, CA Downtown Durham, NC University of Texas Medical Center - San Antonio, TX Downtown Omaha, NE Downtown Palo Alto, CA Midtown - Atlanta, GA Downtown Birmingham, AL Strip - Las Vegas, NV Hollywood - Los Angeles, CA Downtown Augusta, GA Downtown Long Beach, CA Georgetown - Washington, DC University of Washington - Seattle, WA Downtown Tallahassee, FL Downtown Evansville, IN Downtown Fort Wayne, IN Downtown Mobile, AL Central Southfield, MI Downtown Springfield, IL Medical Center - Sandy Springs, GA Downtown Bakersfield, CA UCSD & Medical Center - San Diego, CA Downtown Montgomery, AL Downtown Jacksonville, FL Downtown Pasadena, CA Southeast Southfield, MI Downtown Colorado Springs, CO Downtown Oklahoma City, OK Downtown Akron, OH Downtown Salem, OR Downtown Springfield, MO Medical Center - Oklahoma City, OK Moderate Job Density Downtown Scottsdale, AZ North Office Park - Richardson, TX Downtown Lexington, KY Downtown Memphis, TN Medical Center - Portland, OR Downtown Sioux Falls, SD MARTA Center - Sandy Springs, GA Office Park - Irvine, CA Court House - Arlington, VA Downtown Corpus Christi, TX Sprint Campus - Overland Park, KS Downtown Cedar Rapids, IA Medical Center - Fort Worth, TX Medical Center - Irvine, CA Northwest Southfield, MI University & Medical Center - Knoxville, TN Downtown Reno, NV Medical Center - Indianapolis, IN Downtown Huntsville, AL Office Park & Mall - Torrance, CA Office Park & Airport - Torrance, CA Children's Hospital - Aurora, CO Intel Campus - Chandler, AZ Cisco Campus - San Jose, CA Downtown Lafayette, LA Ohio State University & Medical Center - Columbus, OH Downtown Baton Rouge, LA South Office Parks - Santa Clara, CA State Government Offices - Oklahoma City, OK
Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node
35 35 34 34 34 34 33 33 32 32 31 31 31 31 29 29 29 28 28 28 28 27 26 26 26 26 26 26 25 25 25 25 25
13 12 7 20 18 13 20 14 23 25 12 21 21 16 12 13 16 9 12 12 14 16 11 19 19 13 11 12 17 11 13 14 25
13 8 5 15 15 10 14 10 17 15 6 10 15 8 11 8 6 1 9 5 9 7 10 8 10 10 7 8 9 7 6 6 8
Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Secondary Employment Node
24 24 24 23 23 22 22 22 22 21 21 20 20 20 20 20 20 19 19 18 18 18 18 18 18 17 17 17 17
11 16 11 13 9 10 17 17 12 14 13 9 11 13 10 15 13 16 8 11 10 8 7 16 12 11 9 12 9
5 9 12 7 6 8 8 14 8 13 7 6 7 7 6 7 10 10 6 10 6 6 5 13 12 8 6 11 8
40
Employment Node Name
Employment Node Type
Commercial Downtown
Half Mile
One Mile
Downtown Charleston, SC Southern Office Park - San Bernardino, CA Downtown St. Petersburg, FL University of Texas Medical Center - Dallas, TX Lower Job Density Office Park - Irving, TX Las Collinas Medical Center - Irving, TX Downtown Anaheim, CA Downtown San Bernardino, CA Medical Center - Chandler, AZ Texas Instruments Campus - Richardson, TX East Office Park - Troy, MI I-90 Office Parks - Bellevue, WA University & Caltrain Center - Santa Clara, CA I-405 & I-520 Office Parks - Bellevue, WA Downtown Tysons Corner, VA North Office Parks - Santa Clara, CA Medical Office Parks - Palo Alto, CA Downtown Redmond, WA Boeing Campus - Everett, WA Downtown Lubbock, TX Downtown Amarillo, TX Medical Center - Boca Raton, FL I-435 Office Parks - Overland Park, KS Texas Tech - Lubbock, TX Downtown Shreveport, LA Downtown Tempe, AZ Central Office Parks - Ontario, CA Airport & School Board - Lafayette, LA Office Park - Boca Raton, FL Downtown Ontario, CA UC Irvine - Irvine, CA Downtown Everett, WA West Mall Area - Troy, MI Havana Street/Office Parks - Aurora, CO Downtown Arlington, TX Downtown Jackson, MS Downtown Plano, TX Oyster Point - Newport News, VA Downtown Chesapeake City, VA University of Louisiana - Lafayette, LA Downtown Chandler, AZ Medical Center - Raleigh, NC Port - Newport News, VA South End - Charlotte, NC Northeast Office Parks - Ontario, CA Florida Atlantic University - Boca Raton, FL Downtown Aurora, CO Downtown Virginia Beach, VA Medical Center/Office Park - Lakewood, CO Buckley Airforce Base - Aurora, CO** Downtown Boston, MA*** Average
Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node
17 17 16 15
11 10 7 11
6 8 6 9
Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Secondary Employment Node Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Secondary Employment Node Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Secondary Employment Node Secondary Employment Node Secondary Employment Node Secondary Employment Node Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown
15 15 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 13 13 13 13 13 12 12 12 12 12 11 11 11 11 10 10 10 10 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 8 7 7 7 5 5 4 4 3 2 1 NA 57
14 14 6 7 6 9 7 5 9 9 9 11 11 7 9 8 7 8 7 7 7 8 5 11 7 4 9 7 7 5 7 7 6 6 6 5 3 3 6 4 5 4 1 0.1 4 1 NA 25
10 13 5 6 4 8 6 4 10 7 6 10 7 3 6 7 5 7 5 4 4 10 5 11 5 3 4 5 7 5 8 7 5 4 4 5 2 3 4 4 4 4 1 0.1 3 1 NA 15
*Brooklyn exhibits an employment allocation anomaly that may be contributing to its job totals, density, and live-work calculations. Tract 9 contains 196,474 jobs, likely due to central payroll processing for the New York City Buildings Department and not a reflection of the number of workers physically working in this tract. It has been excluded from job density calculations. Tract 11 also exhibits signs of central payroll processing with 56,657 jobs within this tract but still appears within this analysis. **The Buckley Airforce Base area may exhibit lower than expected job densities due to the fact that uniformed military are not included in the data. ***Because LED data are not available for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Downtown Boston jobs, and therefore job densities, are unavailable.
41
Table 3: Employment Nodes Sorted by Live-Work Quotient Employment Node Name
Employment NodeType
% of Workers Living Within Commercial Downtown and One-Mile Area Who Work Within Commercial Downtown or One-Mile Area
Extremely High Live-Work Quotients Midtown Manhattan, NY Downtown Chicago, IL Downtown Washington, DC Strip - Las Vegas, NV* Downtown Rochester, MN Downtown Ann Arbor, MI Downtown Honolulu, HI** Downtown Portland, OR Downtown Seattle, WA Center City - Philadelphia, PA Downtown San Francisco, CA Downtown Salem, OR Downtown New Orleans, LA Downtown Providence, RI Downtown Chattanooga, TN Downtown Austin, TX Downtown Tallahassee, FL Downtown Minneapolis, MN Downtown Lexington, KY Downtown Boise, ID Downtown Des Moines, IA Downtown Springfield, IL Vanderbilt University & Medical Center - Nashville, TN Downtown Little Rock, AR Downtown Spokane, WA Downtown Reno, NV Downtown Hartford, CT Downtown Augusta, GA Downtown Pittsburgh, PA Downtown Charlotte, NC Downtown Milwaukee, WI Downtown Denver, CO Downtown Buffalo, NY Downtown Norfolk, VA
Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown
55.9% 51.8% 50.5% 50.5% 50.2% 49.3% 44.5% 43.5% 41.0% 40.7% 37.9% 37.3% 37.2% 36.4% 36.0% 35.9% 35.5% 34.9% 34.6% 34.0% 33.6% 33.4% 33.0% 32.4% 32.0% 31.7% 31.5% 31.4% 31.3% 31.2% 30.9% 30.9% 30.9% 30.1%
Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Primary Downtown
29.0% 28.9% 28.4% 27.9% 27.8% 27.7% 27.2% 27.2% 26.7% 26.6% 26.5% 26.3% 26.3%
High Live-Work Quotients Downtown Louisville, KY Downtown Amarillo, TX Microsoft Campus - Redmond, WA Downtown Savannah, GA Downtown Cleveland, OH Oakland - Pittsburgh, PA Downtown Sacramento, CA Downtown Wichita, KS Downtown Anchorage, AK Downtown Baltimore, MD UCSD & Medical Center - San Diego, CA Downtown Indianapolis, IN Downtown Sioux Falls, SD
42
% of Workers Living Within Commercial Downtown and One-Mile Area Who Work Within Commercial Downtown or One-Mile Area
Employment Node Name
Employment NodeType
Downtown Columbia, SC Downtown Corpus Christi, TX
Primary Downtown Primary Downtown
25.7% 25.6%
Downtown Tulsa, OK
Primary Downtown
25.6%
Birmingham University - Birmingham, AL Texas Medical Center - Houston, TX University of Wisconsin - Madison, WI Downtown Colorado Springs, CO Downtown Kansas City, MO Texas Tech - Lubbock, TX Downtown Albany, NY Downtown Orlando, FL Downtown Huntsville, AL Syracuse University - Syracuse, NY Downtown Miami, FL Downtown Cincinnati, OH Downtown Richmond, VA Downtown Manhattan, NY Downtown Springfield, MO Downtown Grand Rapids, MI Medical Office Parks - Palo Alto, CA Downtown Lincoln, NE Downtown Salt Lake City, UT Downtown Evansville, IN Downtown Charleston, SC Downtown St. Louis, MO Downtown Greenville, SC Southern Office Park - San Bernardino, CA Downtown Lansing, MI Downtown Tucson, AZ Downtown El Paso, TX Downtown Columbus, OH University Circle - Cleveland, OH Downtown Dallas, TX Downtown Rochester, NY Downtown Detroit, MI Downtown Montgomery, AL Midtown - Detroit, MI Downtown Atlanga, GA Downtown Winston-Salem, NC Downtown Omaha, NE Cisco Campus - San Jose, CA Office Park - Boca Raton, FL University of Texas Medical Center - San Antonio, TX Downtown Memphis, TN Downtown Madison, WI
Secondary Employment Node Secondary Employment Node Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Secondary Employment Node Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Primary Downtown
25.5% 25.5% 25.4% 25.3% 25.2% 24.8% 24.5% 24.4% 24.4% 24.2% 23.9% 23.7% 23.7% 23.6% 23.6% 23.5% 23.3% 23.1% 22.9% 22.8% 22.7% 22.7% 22.4% 22.0% 21.7% 21.6% 21.5% 21.4% 21.3% 21.3% 21.2% 21.1% 21.1% 21.0% 21.0% 21.0% 21.0% 20.9% 20.6% 20.3% 20.2% 20.1%
Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Secondary Employment Node Secondary Employment Node
19.9% 19.8% 19.8% 19.6% 19.6% 19.5%
Emerging Live-Work Areas Downtown Cedar Rapids, IA Downtown Mobile, AL Downtown Shreveport, LA Office Park - Irvine, CA Boeing Campus - Everett, WA Civic Center - San Francisco, CA
43
% of Workers Living Within Commercial Downtown and One-Mile Area Who Work Within Commercial Downtown or One-Mile Area
Employment Node Name
Employment NodeType
Downtown Los Angeles, CA Downtown Albuquerque, NM Downtown Akron, OH Downtown Birmingham, AL Downtown Fort Lauderdale, FL Downtown Newark, NJ Downtown Tacoma, WA Downtown San Diego, CA Sprint Campus - Overland Park, KS Medical Center - Albany, NY Downtown Jackson, MS University of Louisiana - Lafayette, LA Downtown Greensboro, NC University of Chicago - Chicago, IL Downtown Knoxville, TN Downtown Tysons Corner, VA Downtown Oklahoma City, OK Downtown Houston, TX University of Texas Medical Center - Dallas, TX Downtown Fresno, CA Downtown Fort Worth, TX Downtown Toledo, OH Midtown - Atlanta, GA Downtown Oakland, CA Downtown Syracuse, NY Airport & School Board - Lafayette, LA Medical Center - Charleston, SC Uptown - Houston, TX Downtown St. Paul, MN Downtown San Antonio, TX Downtown Chesapeake City, VA Downtown Bakersfield, CA Westwood/UCLA - Los Angeles, CA Downtown Nashville, TN Downtown St. Petersburg, FL Downtown Tampa, FL University City - Philadelphia, PA Downtown Virginia Beach, VA Ohio State University & Medical Center - Columbus, OH Downtown Pasadena, CA Regional School Board/City Government - Memphis, TN University of Washington - Seattle, WA Downtown Raleigh, NC Downtown Phoenix, AZ
Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Secondary Employment Node Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Primary Downtown
19.4% 19.4% 19.3% 19.3% 19.2% 19.2% 19.0% 19.0% 19.0% 18.8% 18.7% 18.7% 18.7% 18.4% 18.1% 18.1% 18.0% 18.0% 17.9% 17.9% 17.8% 17.8% 17.7% 17.7% 17.6% 17.6% 17.6% 17.5% 17.3% 17.3% 17.2% 17.0% 16.8% 16.7% 16.3% 16.3% 16.2% 16.2% 16.1% 15.7% 15.6% 15.5% 15.4% 15.3%
Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Primary Downtown
14.9% 14.8% 14.8% 14.8% 14.7% 14.7% 14.7%
Limited Live-Work Characteristics Downtown Tempe, AZ Downtown Las Vegas, NV MARTA Center - Sandy Springs, GA Downtown Arlington, TX Port - Newport News, VA Downtown Baton Rouge, LA Oyster Point - Newport News, VA
44
% of Workers Living Within Commercial Downtown and One-Mile Area Who Work Within Commercial Downtown or One-Mile Area
Employment Node Name
Employment NodeType
North Downtown - Phoenix, AZ Medical Center/UT Health Science - Memphis, TN Medical Center - Portland, OR Medical Center - Jacksonville, FL Downtown Stockton, CA Downtown San Jose, CA Downtown Fort Wayne, IN South Office Parks - Santa Clara, CA Downtown Palo Alto, CA Brooklyn, NY*** Downtown Jersey City, NJ Downtown Bellevue, WA State Government Offices Oklahoma City, OK Downtown Alexandria, VA Medical Center - Fort Worth, TX West Mall Area - Troy, MI Downtown San Bernardino, CA University of Illinois - Chicago, IL UCSF Medical Center - San Francisco, CA Florida Atlantic University - Boca Raton, FL Downtown Scottsdale, AZ University & Medical Center - Knoxville, TN Downtown Everett, WA Medical Center - Boca Raton, FL UC Irvine - Irvine, CA I-405 & I-520 Office Parks - Bellevue, WA Greenway Plaza - Houston, TX Intel Campus - Chandler, AZ Medical Center - Austin, TX South End - Charlotte, NC Wilshire/Koreatown - Los Angeles, CA Georgetown - Washington, DC Downtown Riverside, CA Downtown Mesa, AZ Downtown Jacksonville, FL Downtown Lubbock, TX Hollywood - Los Angeles, CA Medical Center - Evansville, IN East Office Park - Troy, MI Office Park & Airport - Torrance, CA Downtown Durham, NC Medical Center - Irvine, CA Downtown Redmond, WA Downtown Plano, TX Downtown Burbank, CA Office Park - Irving, TX I-435 Office Parks - Overland Park, KS Northwest Southfield, MI Medical Center/Office Park - Lakewood, CO Downtown Long Beach, CA Downtown Santa Ana, CA
Secondary Employment Node Secondary Employment Node Secondary Employment Node Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Primary Downtown
14.5% 14.4% 14.3% 13.6% 13.5% 13.1% 12.9% 12.8% 12.8% 12.7% 12.6% 12.5%
Secondary Employment Node
12.4%
Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Secondary Employment Node Secondary Employment Node Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Secondary Employment Node Secondary Employment Node Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Secondary Employment Node Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Secondary Employment Node Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Primary Downtown
12.3% 12.3% 12.1% 12.0% 11.9% 11.8% 11.8% 11.7% 11.7% 11.7% 11.7% 11.6% 11.4% 11.2% 11.2% 11.1% 11.0% 11.0% 10.9% 10.8% 10.8% 10.6% 10.6% 10.6% 10.4% 10.2% 10.1% 10.0% 10.0% 9.9% 9.7% 9.7% 9.7% 9.3% 9.2% 9.2% 8.9% 8.9%
45
% of Workers Living Within Commercial Downtown and One-Mile Area Who Work Within Commercial Downtown or One-Mile Area
Employment Node Name
Employment NodeType
Central Office Parks - Ontario, CA Texas Instruments Campus - Richardson, TX Downtown Lafayette, LA Northeast Office Parks - Ontario, CA Las Collinas Medical Center - Irving, TX Rosslyn - Arlington, VA I-90 Office Parks - Bellevue, WA Office Park & Mall - Torrance, CA Medical Center - Oklahoma City, OK Johns Hopkins Hospital/Univeristy - Baltimore, MD Ballston - Arlington, VA Medical Center - Chandler, AZ Medical Center - Indianapolis, IN VA Medical Center - Washington, DC Medical Center - Sandy Springs, GA North Office Parks - Santa Clara, CA North Office Park - Richardson, TX Southeast Southfield, MI Havana Street/Office Parks - Aurora, CO Medical Center - Raleigh, NC Buckley Airforce Base - Aurora, CO****
Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Secondary Employment Node Secondary Employment Node Secondary Employment Node Secondary Employment Node Secondary Employment Node Secondary Employment Node Secondary Employment Node Secondary Employment Node Secondary Employment Node Secondary Employment Node Secondary Employment Node Secondary Employment Node Secondary Employment Node Secondary Employment Node
8.8% 8.8% 8.3% 8.3% 8.3% 7.9% 7.9% 7.8% 7.6% 7.5% 7.5% 7.5% 7.3% 7.3% 7.1% 7.0% 7.0% 6.5% 6.3% 6.0% 5.6%
University & Caltrain Center - Santa Clara, CA
Primary Downtown
5.5%
Children's Hospital - Aurora, CO Medical Center - Denver, CO Central Southfield, MI Downtown Anaheim, CA Court House - Arlington, VA Downtown Ontario, CA Downtown Chandler, AZ Downtown Aurora, CO Downtown Boston, MA***** Average
Secondary Employment Node Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Secondary Employment Node Primary Downtown Primary Downtown
5.5% 5.3% 5.0% 4.1% 4.1% 2.8% 2.6% 2.0% NA 19.3%
*Because Downtown Las Vegas and the Las Vegas Strip fall into different counties, the live/work relationship for these areas was calculated by examining the commuting pattern of workers that live in both places. **Honolulu statistics were calculated using Honolulu County as the city area rather than Urban Honolulu. ***Brooklyn exhibits an employment allocation anomaly that may be contributing to its job totals, density, and live-work calculations. Tract 9 contains 196,474 jobs, likely due to central payroll processing for the New York City Buildings Department and not a reflection of the number of workers physically working in this tract. ****The Buckley Airforce Base area may exhibit lower than expected job totals due to the fact that uniformed military are not included in the data *****Because LED data are not available for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Downtown Boston jobs are unavailable, and population was estimated based on locally accepted boundaries.
46
Appendix III: Changes in Jobs and Population in the Largest Cities for Jobs
(Based on Number of Jobs)
47
Table 1: Change in Population: 2000-2010 City Jobs Rank 1
2
Within Commercial Downtown
Within Commercial Downtown and Half-Mile Area
Within Commercial Downtown and One-Mile Area
New York, NY
31.5%
7.8%
8.0%
Midtown Manhattan
12.5%
6.7%
8.9%
Downtown Manhattan
64.8%
15.6%
13.1%
Brooklyn
32.0%
1.4%
1.6%
8.7%
0.9%
-1.3%
Downtown Los Angeles
71.9%
17.9%
2.4%
Westwood/UCLA
11.9%
8.1%
7.0%
-10.2%
-7.7%
-9.7%
-8.2%
-7.6%
-1.1%
25.8%
20.1%
15.3%
-29.8%
23.0%
22.5%
Job Node
Los Angeles, CA
Hollywood Wilshire/Koreatown 3
Houston, TX Downtown Houston* Greenway Plaza
24.6%
7.1%
-5.9%
Uptown
89.2%
34.2%
22.3%
Texas Medical Center 4
5
6
7
8
9
10
103.3%
14.5%
25.0%
Chicago, IL
40.6%
17.2%
2.1%
Downtown Chicago
95.6%
45.5%
46.0%
University of Illinois
-2.8%
54.8%
-2.8%
University of Chicago
-11.4%
-11.7%
-12.7%
Phoenix, AZ
14.9%
-8.6%
-12.9%
Downtown Phoenix
18.7%
-10.1%
-16.1%
North Downtown
10.4%
-7.2%
-10.3%
Dallas, TX
30.3%
13.0%
3.1%
Downtown Dallas
94.8%
103.0%
39.0%
University of Texas Medical Center
21.3%
0.7%
-6.0%
San Diego, CA
56.9%
44.7%
29.4%
Downtown San Diego
65.6%
50.1%
28.5%
UCSD & Medical Center
44.8%
38.0%
30.3%
Philadelphia, PA
12.8%
10.1%
5.3%
Center City
16.3%
16.2%
8.9%
University City
5.0%
0.2%
0.5%
San Antonio, TX
0.7%
2.9%
2.3%
Downtown San Antonio
1.9%
-4.2%
-5.1%
University of Texas Medical Center
-1.3%
10.7%
8.6%
Washington, DC
25.3%
10.6%
4.2%
Downtown Washington, DC
35.1%
8.2%
-0.2%
9.5%
19.9%
18.7%
51.4%
18.9%
17.5%
26.6%
10.2%
4.5%
Georgetown VA Medical Center Total Population Change in These Job Nodes *Between 2000 and 2010 a correctional facility was moved out of Downtown Houston.
48
Table 2: Change in Total Jobs: 2002-2011 City Jobs Rank 1
2
Within Commercial Downtown
Within Commercial Downtown and Half-Mile Area
Within Commercial Downtown and One-Mile Area
New York, NY
22.1%
18.5%
19.0%
Midtown Manhattan
12.5%
9.4%
10.9%
Job Node
Downtown Manhattan
14.8%
15.7%
16.2%
Brooklyn*
92.6%
84.3%
76.9%
Los Angeles, CA
28.9%
20.3%
19.1%
Downtown Los Angeles
45.9%
21.7%
21.2%
7.6%
8.8%
8.8%
Westwood/UCLA Hollywood Wilshire/Koreatown 3
6.5%
7.5%
8.3%
10.0%
6.5%
-4.3%
-5.6%
-4.1%
1.2%
5.9%
9.8%
Texas Medical Center
29.6%
15.0%
18.4%
Chicago, IL
11.2%
8.6%
10.3%
Downtown Chicago
10.5%
9.1%
10.1%
University of Illinois
16.5%
3.4%
11.4%
University of Chicago
18.9%
12.7%
11.8%
Phoenix, AZ
-3.2%
-2.3%
-1.2%
-10.4%
-10.2%
-8.5%
15.8%
11.5%
10.8%
Dallas, TX
8.9%
2.9%
1.5%
Downtown Dallas
5.1%
2.9%
3.9%
12.3%
2.9%
-0.6%
San Diego, CA
3.7%
7.6%
4.1%
Downtown San Diego
1.7%
3.9%
4.2%
North Downtown
University of Texas Medical Center 7
UCSD & Medical Center 8
Philadelphia, PA Center City University City
9
10
25.6%
7.7%
Downtown Phoenix 6
21.8%
31.2%
Houston, TX
Uptown
5
13.8%
19.2%
Downtown Houston Greenway Plaza
4
-35.1%
San Antonio, TX
9.3%
16.1%
3.9%
11.5%
12.6%
12.6%
7.4%
7.9%
8.1%
29.8%
34.2%
32.8%
4.8%
0.5%
11.2%
Downtown San Antonio
-0.8%
-9.4%
-10.3%
University of Texas Medical Center
15.6%
26.9%
53.5%
15.9%
13.0%
13.3%
Washington, DC** Downtown Washington, DC Georgetown VA Medical Center
Total Jobs Change
*Brooklyn exhibits an employment allocation anomaly that may be contributing to its job totals, density, and live-work calculations. Tract 9 contains 196,474 jobs, likely due to central payroll processing for the New York City Buildings Department and not a reflection of the number of workers physically working in this tract. **Because Washington, DC data are unavailable prior to 2010, rates of job change are not calculated here.
49
J.B. Abbott
Downtown Baltimore, MD; Philadelphia, PA; St. Louis, MO; Cleveland, OH; and Indianapolis, IN
50
Appendix IV: Methodology
51
methodology About the Data Local Employment Dynamics This study uses the Version 7 LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (LODES) data from the 2011 Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD, LED for short) program, managed by the U.S. Census Bureau. Published annually, the 2011 data are the most current LODES dataset at the time of publication for this study. The LED data are produced through a voluntary partnership between state labor market information (LMI) agencies and the Census Bureau. LMI agencies provide wage records from their Unemployment Insurance wage record system and firm characteristics from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) to the Census Bureau, and these data are paired with Census Bureau records, including worker demographic characteristics and home addresses. This pairing enables the examination of where workers live and where they work.
that the dataset covers approximately 95% of all U.S. privatesector employment. Additionally, because workers and jobs are allocated to Census Blocks based on where employers process payroll, employee and job totals for large employers are occasionally aggregated to these addresses rather than physical work sites. This can produce both undercounts and overcounts. Finally, since partnerships between LMI agencies and the Census Bureau are voluntary, certain geographies are omitted due to state capacities and current data-sharing restrictions. Missing data include: â&#x20AC;˘
All data for Massachusetts, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands
â&#x20AC;˘
Arizona (2002 and 2003), Arkansas (2002), Washington, DC (2002-2009), Mississippi (2002 and 2003), and New Hampshire (2002)
Using the LED dataset for this study poses challenges in a few cities/places, most notably Boston, MA; Washington,
The LEHD Infracture Data26
Decennial Census Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages
FIRM DATA Longitudinal Business Database
OPM Federal Worker Data Firm IDs
JOBS DATA Wage Data from State Unemployment Insurance System
Because the data are created using wage records, certain employment classes are not fully accounted for by the LED dataset. These include self-employed persons, individuals compensated as business partners, informal employment, uniformed military employment, and federal employees requiring identity protection. The LED program estimates
52
Residential Address Data Person IDs
HOUSEHOLD DATA American Community Survey Census Numident
DC; and Aurora, CO. Where Boston appears in this study, the commercial area was estimated using locally accepted definitions and American Community Survey data. Employment numbers for Boston were excluded from summary data, and estimates for population were calculated using 2010 Census data for this geographic area. Because
Washington, DC LED data are only available beginning in 2010, no rates of change for jobs were calculated for DC between 2002 and 2011. Both Washington, DC and Aurora, CO include large numbers of uniformed military employment and intelligence workers, for whom data are not available, thus skewing estimates of the concentration of jobs in some cases. Decennial Census The Decennial Census is conducted every 10 years by the U.S. Census Bureau and represents a full, home-based population count of everyone who lives in the United States on April 1 in all years ending in “0.” The Decennial Census has been administered every 10 years since 1790 as required by the U.S. Constitution. For the purposes of this analysis, 2010 Census data were used at the Census Tract level to derive population totals for 2010, and 2000 Census data at the Block level were used to calculate population totals for comparable areas due to the revision of Census Tracts during the tabulation of each Decennial Census. As a result, 2000 and 2010 data for small areas such as those used in this study are not always fully comparable. Finally, while tracts must conform to Incorporated Places, they do not always conform to the boundaries of Census Designated Places, creating minor anomalies in live-work calculations and other statistics mentioned in this study. A Note on Comparability While we recognize that more recent data are available from additional sources, this study references only 2011 LED and 2010 Census data (unless otherwise noted) in order to ensure comparability of reported information across geographic areas. In some cases, this information may not completely
conform to locally accepted definitions of downtown geographic areas, other federal data such as Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) employment data, and the most recent data and change factors released through the Census Bureau’s Population Estimates program. In general: •
The LED All Jobs data are most readily comparable to the BLS’s Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) data as this data source serves as one of the foundations upon which LED is built.
•
The LED Primary Jobs data are not readily comparable to any other publicly available source as they provide estimates for individual workers. In this report, LiveWork quotients are calculated using Primary Jobs data in order to avoid over-counting of workers and to derive a more accurate estimate of people who live in a live-work environment. As one worker can hold many jobs, Primary Jobs do not equal All Jobs.
•
The BEA produces many detailed statistics on employment, wages, and business income by tracking financial receipts. Data used in this report are most readily (though not completely) comparable to Wage and Salary Employment in BEA data.
•
Because LED data do not track sole proprietors and partners, downtown researchers may wish to create estimates to further quantify full employment in their area. The Census Bureau provides a Nonemployer Statistics series and the BEA provides a Proprietors series, both of which assist in the quantification of the 5% of the U.S. workforce left out of the LED dataset.
Times Square, Midtown Manhattan, NY
53
research process
could easily use these definitions to access additional Census data products without the use of GIS software. Census Tracts that fell within the half-mile or one-mile radii, but were located in a different state than the commercial area, were excluded. In cases where two employment nodes were in close proximity to one another, tracts for the half- and one-mile radii were assigned to commercial areas based on which commercial area’s boundary was in closest proximity to the tract’s centroid. Where tract assignments were questionable, we erred on the side of assigning the tract to the primary employment node.
The data displayed in this report were produced through the following process: 1. Determining the geographic universe—In order to determine the list of cities/places analyzed in this report, we examined the list of all Places in the LODES data to determine the 150 Places that had the largest numbers of Primary Jobs (workers). 2. Defining the employment node—From this list, we determined the existence of job nodes primarily based on visual job-density levels, with some additional input from local partners. Employment node definitions were developed at the Census Tract level in order to ensure that local areas could easily use these definitions to access additional Census data products. In some cases, the area of densest employment did not represent a traditional downtown. In these cases, where traditional downtown areas existed but were less dense, the traditional downtown was labeled the “Primary Downtown,” and other areas of dense employment were labeled “Secondary Employment Nodes.” Where no traditional downtown existed, the area of highest employment was labeled “Primary Downtown.” For example, Overland, KS’s areas of dense employment are exclusively office parks. Other areas include employment nodes that are exclusively a function of the unique geography of employment in the local economy, including Buckley Air Force Base in Aurora, CO and the port in Newport News, VA. 3. Selecting Census Tracts within a half-mile and onemile orbit from the commercial downtown—Once employment node definitions were determined, a buffer analysis from the edges of the node’s Census Tracts was performed in GIS. Data were displayed in the North America Lambert Conformal Conic projection, and tracts were included in the buffers when the centroid (mathematical center) of their polygon fell within the half-mile or one-mile distance from the edge of the commercial downtown tract(s). Half- and one-mile area definitions were developed at the Census Tract level in all cities in order to keep the methodology consistent and ensure that local areas
54
4. Calculating population, workforce, and live-work characteristics for the commercial downtown, half-mile, and one-mile areas—After determining boundaries, resident population statistics were calculated by these geographic definitions for 2010 Census data. Total jobs statistics were calculated using Total Jobs data for each of the tracts identified in the buffered areas. Finally, live-work statistics were calculated using Primary Jobs data by taking the number of workers who live and work in an area divided by the total number of workers living in an area. Primary Jobs differ from Total Jobs: if an individual holds more than one job, Primary Job statistics are computed for the job at which a worker earns the highest wage. 5. Creating maps that represent these boundaries— Maps for the commercial and residential downtown boundaries were created to show the borders of each area for the purposes of soliciting feedback on these definitions, refining the research methodology, and ultimately producing the summary statistics displayed in this report. Representatives from 72 cities, where we identified local contacts, were asked to provide comments on their commercial downtown boundaries. Notes on Individual Cities •
Brooklyn: Downtown Brooklyn experiences an anomaly in the allocation of employment to its downtown commercial area. Kings County, NY Census Tract 9 covers the New York City Buildings Department. For 2011, this tract has 196,474 jobs allocated to it, likely the result of central payroll processing for this agency. Tract
11 also has an unusually high concentration of jobs for an area like Brooklyn, 56,657, likely due to central payroll processing for one or more of the following: the New York City Law Department, Kings County Family Court, the NYC Transit Authority, and the Brooklyn Borough President’s office. •
Cleveland: When conducting the buffer analysis on tracts in the half- and one-mile areas in Cleveland’s two employment nodes, one tract that shared a border with the commercial area of Downtown Cleveland was assigned to the University Circle area due to the proximity of its centroid, and another tract that bordered a locally known dividing line (55th Street) between Downtown Cleveland and University Circle was assigned to University Circle, even though it fell on the Downtown Cleveland side of this dividing line. Both tracts were manually reassigned to Downtown Cleveland to reflect local conceptions of the geography of Cleveland.
•
Honolulu: The Place-level geography of the City of Honolulu is designed by the Census Bureau as “Urban Honolulu.” However, Honolulu is incorporated as the City and County of Honolulu, which is contiguous with the Island of Oahu. At the request of local partners in Hawaii and because the Island of Oahu is contiguous with both the City and County of Honolulu, the concentration of citywide jobs in downtown Honolulu was calculated as a percentage of the jobs in Honolulu County.
•
Houston: Although the centroid for Harris County Census Tract 4102 fell slightly outside the one-mile area from the commercial downtown, it was included in this analysis since it was bordered nearly entirely to the north and south by two tracts included in the one-mile area.
•
Las Vegas: The two main nodes of employment in Las Vegas’s urban area are the Las Vegas Strip and Downtown Las Vegas. The areas of densest employment in the Las Vegas Strip cross two Census Designated Places, Paradise CDP and Winchester CDP. Downtown Las Vegas is located in the incorporated City of Las Vegas. Since these nodes cover three geographic areas, workers/jobs for Paradise CDP, Winchester CDP, and the City of Las Vegas were combined to calculate total worker and jobs statistics, and percentages of “citywide jobs” in each of the respective employment areas are given as a percentage of jobs found in these three areas.
•
Tempe: Downtown Tempe experiences an anomaly in the allocation of employment to its downtown commercial area. While the University of Arizona physically employs approximately 10,000 people downtown, payroll processing for the University occurs outside the commercial areas, thereby understating downtown employment levels for this area.
Software Research and design for this project were conducted using: •
R, a free software programming language and statistical computing environment
•
Esri ArcGIS 10.1, a geographic information systems software package
•
Microsoft Excel
•
Adobe CS5
55
notes 1. 2.
3. 4.
5. 6.
7.
8. 9. 10.
11. 12.
13.
14.
Elizabeth Kneebone, Job Sprawl Revisited: The Changing Geography of Metropolitan Employment, Brookings Institution, April 2009. Throughout this study, the term “city” is used explicitly to refer to the political boundaries of incorporated cities and does not refer to broader metro areas. This study examined 148 of the largest American cities, based on number of jobs, and also includes Arlington and Tyson’s Corner, Virginia, two Census Designated Places (CDPs), a term the Census Bureau uses for settled concentrations of population identifiable by name but not legally incorporated under the laws of the states in which they are located. Las Vegas is a unique situation in which Paradise CDP and Winchester CDP were combined with the incorporated boundaries for the City of Las Vegas in order to capture the major employment nodes downtown and along the Strip. See “Appendix IV: About the Data,” for more information. The geographic size of cities and incorporated places has obvious implications for the number of jobs that they hold, though the density of jobs matters as well. For example, the number of jobs included in Phoenix’s 516 square miles may be larger than what can be contained in Seattle’s 83 square miles. But job density in downtown Seattle is 150 jobs per acre, while Phoenix’s downtown is 89 per acre, with much lower densities outside the city center. (Midtown Manhattan has the highest U.S. job density at 920 jobs/acre.) In this study, we chose to organize our list of top 10 cities by the total number of jobs in the entire city. Had we used the size of the primary downtown employment node to establish this list, Phoenix, Dallas, San Diego, and San Antonio would have dropped from the top 10, while San Francisco, Seattle, the Las Vegas Strip, and Minneapolis would be added. 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates, U.S. Census Bureau. Robert Weissbourd and Christopher Berry, “The Changing Dynamics of Urban America,” analysis prepared for CEOs for Cities, October 2003, and Edward Glaeser, The Triumph of the City, page 253. The Census Bureau has made some efforts to identify central business districts, recently used in a 2009 Brookings Institution study by Elizabeth Kneebone, Job Sprawl Revisited. This analysis relied on central business district definitions derived from the 30-year-old 1982 Census of Retail Trade, a survey of local leaders that designated the geographic business center of cities across the country. Edward Glaeser, Triumph of the City, page 6. Glaeser, page 25. Two recent books that describe these trends include The Great Inversion and the Future of the American City (2012) by Alan Ehrenhalt and The End of the Suburbs (2013) by Leigh Gallagher. Christopher B. Leinberger, The Option of Urbanism. The detailed Decennial Census produces data at the Census Block level, which in cities is typically a city block. But data collected by more frequent surveys, such as the American Community Survey, are only produced at the Census Block Group level (a grouping of a few dozen blocks) and are subject to sampling error. These Block Groups are the sub-components of Census Tracts, the most widely known Census Bureau geography, and can be aggregated to counties. But without sophisticated analysis tools such as geographic information systems (GIS) software, it is difficult to manage and analyze data below the Tract level given the number of geographic components that need to be assembled. For more about the Local Employment Dynamics data, see “Appendix IV: Methodology.” One limitation of the LED data is that it counts only wage and salary employees covered by a state’s unemployment insurance system. As such, it does not include the self-employed or those compensated as partners. Detailed research in Philadelphia found that those compensated as partners, such as lawyers and accountants, added another 3% to downtown workforce numbers. The Center for Economic Studies of the U.S. Census Bureau indicates that LED covers on average 95% of all private-sector jobs. Among local variables to be considered are natural topographical features such as rivers and mountains and the absence or presence of limited-access ring roads around downtown; the absence or presence of a pre-existing or new downtownoriented, regional transit system; the absence or presence of pre-existing housing stock or convertible lofts still standing adjacent to downtown; and whether the overall city population is increasing or decreasing. The duration of downtown reinvestment is also a major factor. Center City Philadelphia is an example of a place where an active policy of downtown housing development has been pursued for 58 years. In each Decennial Census, the number of households in the downtown has increased. As prices have risen, particularly in the last 15 years with the return of empty-nesters, the ring of communities that surrounds the business district that are considered downtown neighborhoods has steadily expanded. Each successive release of LED data has shown an increasing percentage of residents living in neighborhoods at the expanding edge who are working in the downtown and/or the adjacent University City area. This has
56
15. 16.
17. 18. 19. 20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25. 26.
made investments in public transit and bike lanes from these neighborhoods a top priority. See “Leading the Way: Population Growth Downtown” (www. centercityphila.org/docs/CCR_Demographics2011.pdf), “Center City Housing: The Rebound Continues” (www.centercityphila.org/docs/CCR12_housing. pdf), and “How Philadelphia Gets to Work: Investing for Growth” (http://www. centercityphila.org/docs/CCR13_transportation.pdf). Maps and profiles of employment centers were sent to contacts in 72 of the 150 cities for review. The Census Bureau includes in its definition of Economic Places not only downtowns and employment centers in incorporated towns and cities but also employment centers that are not incorporated as part of a municipality or township but represent a cluster of at least 5,000 people or jobs. This study includes four such unincorporated places: Paradise and Winchester, Nevada, which were combined with the City of Las Vegas, and Arlington and Tyson's Corner in Virginia. Please see “Appendix IV: Methodology” for more details. Matthew Marlay and Todd K. Gardner, “Identifying Concentrations of Employment in Metropolitan Areas,” U.S. Census Bureau. Only one dense employment node in the study did not fit this framework, the Newport News, VA port area. Just as commercial office districts have diversified, traditional inward-facing, urban college and medical campuses have been adding ground-floor retail, residences, hotels, and other amenities and playing a more proactive role in their cities. Often these diversification efforts are part of a strategy to attract and retain employees and students. The trend is strikingly similar to the development path pursued by well-managed downtowns. Bruce Katz and Jennifer Bradley’s The Metropolitan Revolution describes in Chapter 6 how traditional, auto-oriented research parks are following a similar pattern of land-use diversification to stay competitive. As the original “downtown,” lower Manhattan clearly fits the “older city” category, and the Downtown Alliance was a pioneer in residential conversions and economic repositioning. But New York City is an outlier today since it has three major, transit-oriented downtowns and multiple university and medical centers. A prime example of why there is a continuing need for local involvement in defining downtown populations is the inclusion of institutional group quarters in the total population data provided by the Census Bureau. Institutional group quarters facilities house individuals “who are primarily ineligible, unable, or unlikely to participate in the labor force while resident” and include adult and juvenile correctional facilities, skilled nursing facilities, and other in-patient medical facilities, which may be located in or adjacent to a downtown. A case might be made that prisoners, in particular, are individuals who have not chosen to live in the downtown and therefore should not be counted as downtown residents. But local knowledge of specific facilities is required to make these determinations. Our analysis of the 27 employment nodes in the 10 largest cities suggests that, on average, residents of institutional group quarters account for only 2.6% of the population in these areas. This issue emerged most clearly in the case of downtown Houston, however, where the closing of a downtown correctional facility resulted in a significant decline in downtown population between 2000 and 2010, even as downtown added new housing units and a steady increase in individuals choosing to live in that downtown occurred. The downtown population data in this report also includes non-institutional group quarters, defined by the Census Bureau as facilities that house those who are primarily eligible, able, or likely to participate in the labor force that live in group settings. These facilities include college/university student housing, military quarters, and emergency and transitional shelters for people experiencing homelessness. LED can also enable downtown managers, developers, and retailers to look beyond current, local definitions of their downtowns to better appreciate the purchasing power that is located within 15 to 20 minutes of the commercial downtown. Bruce Katz and Jennifer Bradley, The Metropolitan Revolution. LEHD Program, U.S. Census Bureau.
Acknowledgments This study was made possible through generous contributions from individual business improvement districts to the International Downtown Association. These organizations include: Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority – Ann Arbor, MI Central Atlanta Progress, Inc. / Atlanta DID, Inc. – Atlanta, GA Central Houston, Inc. – Houston, TX Downtown Alliance San Antonio – San Antonio, TX Downtown Arlington Management Corporation – Arlington, TX Downtown Austin Alliance – Austin, TX Downtown Cleveland Alliance – Cleveland, OH Downtown Cincinnati, Inc. – Cincinnati, OH Downtown Council of Kansas City – Kansas City, MO Downtown Dallas, Inc. – Dallas, TX Downtown DC BID Corporation – Washington, DC Downtown Denver Partnership – Denver, CO Downtown Partnership of Baltimore, Inc. – Baltimore, MD Downtown Seattle Association – Seattle, WA Grand Central Partnership – New York, NY Indianapolis Downtown, Inc. – Indianapolis, IN Milwaukee Downtown, BID #21 – Milwaukee, WI Nashville Downtown Partnership – Nashville, TN Orlando Downtown Development Board – Orlando, FL The Partnership for Downtown St. Louis – St. Louis, MO Pittsburgh Downtown Partnership – Pittsburgh, PA Times Square Alliance – New York, NY Wichita Downtown Development Corporation – Wichita, KS Other individuals and downtown organizations from around the country provided invaluable insight into the geographic definitions of their downtowns. These organizations and individuals include: Bellevue Downtown Association – Bellevue, WA Buffalo Place, Inc. – Buffalo, NY Capital Crossroads and Discovery District SIDs – Columbus, OH Charlotte Center City Partners – Charlotte, NC Chicago Loop Alliance – Chicago, IL Downtown Alliance – Salt Lake City, UT Downtown Center Business Improvement District – Los Angeles, CA Downtown Columbus – Columbus, OH Downtown Committee of Syracuse, Inc. – Syracuse, NY Downtown Fort Worth, Inc. – Fort Worth, TX Downtown Fresno Partnership – Fresno, CA Downtown Memphis Commission – Memphis, TN Downtown Omaha – Omaha, NE Downtown Raleigh Alliance – Raleigh, NC The Downtown Sacramento Partnership – Sacramento, CA Downtown Tempe Community – Tempe, AZ East Midtown Partnership – New York, NY Green Building Alliance – Pittsburgh, PA Miami Downtown Development Authority – Miami, FL Rogers Park Business Alliance – Chicago, IL San Jose Downtown Association – San Jose, CA University City District – Philadelphia, PA Urban Districts Alliance – Springfield, MO Waikiki Business Improvement District Association – Honolulu, HI Seth A. Grossman, PhD, Rutgers University – Newark, NJ Brian Douglas Scott, BDS Planning & Urban Design – Seattle, WA Brad Segal, Progressive Urban Management Associates – Denver, CO
This research was developed, written, and graphically designed by the Center City District in Philadelphia, PA. The project team, the majority of whose time was donated to this work, included: Paul R. Levy, President & CEO Lauren M. Gilchrist, Manager of Research & Analysis Richard Citkowicz, GIS Analyst Casandra Dominguez, Manager of Business Retention & Retail Attraction Linda Harris, Director of Communications & Publications Frederick Ohrenschall, Research Assistant Abigail Saggi, Graphic Designer Bonnie Thompson, Director of Web Development & Interactive Marketing RJ White, Manager of Interactive Marketing
About the authors: Paul R. Levy is the founding chief executive of Philadelphia’s Center City District (CCD), serving in that capacity since January 1991. The CCD is a business improvement district with an annual operating budget of $20 million, providing security, cleaning, place marketing, and planning services for the central business district of Philadelphia; CCD has also overseen more than $120 million in downtown streetscape and park capital improvements (www.centercityphila.org). Mr. Levy also serves as executive director of Central Philadelphia Development Corporation. He holds an MA and Ph.D. in history from Columbia University and an undergraduate degree from Lafayette College and teaches at the graduate school of the University of Pennsylvania in the City Planning Department. Lauren M. Gilchrist is the Manager of Research & Analysis for Philadelphia’s Center City District. Prior to joining the CCD in 2012, she worked extensively in the federal statistical and labor market information systems at the state and national levels, completing research, training, and advocacy efforts to enhance workforce and economic data quality and access. Lauren is a graduate of the Pittsburgh Coro Fellows Program in Public Affairs and holds an MS in Public Policy & Management from the Heinz College at Carnegie Mellon University and a BS in Business Administration from Bucknell University.
For additional supporting materials and further information on this research, please visit www.definingdowntown.org.
57
www.ida-downtown.org
www.definingdowntown.org
www.centercityphila.org