Downtown Rebirth: Documenting the Live-Work Dynamic in 21st Century American Cities

Page 1

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 artists’ 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 Node—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)—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 Nodes—Atlanta

Figure 16: Decentralized Employment—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 nation’s 100 top metropolitan areas, as defined by Brookings. These metro areas occupy only 12% of the nation’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: •

All data for Massachusetts, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands

•

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


Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.