Some cities are finding that when they are successful in building-up their residential downtown, the result is less office space and much less income tax.  After all, a 3,000 SF office will have a lot more incomes to tax than a 3,000 SF condo.

 

I read a book a few years ago that touched on this subject (the Future Once Happened Here, about business leaving the urban core), and I just read an interesting article about Vancouver:

http://www.governing.com/articles/7down.htm#

Quote:

From a distance, especially from the air, downtown Vancouver looks like most downtowns: a pack of modern skyscrapers nesting in a dense and confined central area. Only when you hit the ground do you realize that it is different. The skyscrapers are virtually all condominium towers. This is an overwhelmingly residential high-rise downtown. Some 560,000 people live in Vancouver, Canada’s third-largest city, and nearly 100,000 of them reside in tall, slender towers on the less than five square miles of the downtown peninsula.

 

There is nothing quite like this in North America, not in San Francisco, Chicago or even New York. When it comes to downtown housing density, the closest comparisons are to places such as Rio or Hong Kong. And virtually the entire change has happened in the past 15 years. Since 1991, when Vancouver rewrote its zoning laws to attract downtown residents, launching a self-described “Living First” policy, the physical character of the central city has been so thoroughly transformed that a visitor returning after two decades would have trouble even recognizing the place.

 

While cities in the United States struggle to lure as many as 5 percent of their residents into downtown living — and some are glad to have 2 or 3 percent — Vancouver is at nearly 20 percent and gaining. What’s most remarkable, though, is that the downtown residential boom in Vancouver includes not just singles, couples and empty-nesters but a significant number of families with young children.

 

Quote:

Vancouver has begun to realize that its downtown is such a magnet for urban condo dwellers that it runs the risk of ceasing to serve the other purposes downtowns have traditionally served — as centers of commerce, corporate employment, jobs and overall economic life. It’s not that business has fled central Vancouver: The downtown peninsula still ranks first as an employment center within the metropolitan area, with about 77,000 jobs. But the percentage keeps going down, there have been virtually no major office building projects launched in this century, the amount of land available for new commercial development is almost non-existent, and given the still-explosive demand for high-rise urban living, it doesn’t take too much imagination to see what downtown Vancouver could become in a decade or two: a place where huge numbers of people live but not many work.

 

As a reverse commuter myself, I see this happening to a smaller degree in cities like Cincinnati, however:

 

Quote (next to a stunning picture of a pool overlooking ocean and mountains):

How likely is it that American cities will come to resemble Vancouver? For some, not very likely at all. Take a look at the picture and you'll see why. People live in downtown Vancouver in part because of the magnificent setting. You can't recreate that in Cincinnati. Still, a trend is gathering momentum. Downtown residential populations in much of America grew in the 1990s, after decades of decline. Since then, the pace has picked up dramatically. In lower Manhattan, more than eight million square feet of office building space has gone condo in the last five years; Center City Philadelphia is projected to grow its population by 25 percent by the end of the decade. Even without the scenery, demographic patterns will move many places in Vancouver's direction: toward a future where downtown is more a place to live than a place to work.

I read this article as well yesterday.  I had mixed feelings about its contents.  First of all the extreme condo development in Vancouver has only netted 560,000 residents.  Thats a lot, but is it really something to be basing a revolution from.

 

In terms of the natural beauty and views....of course there are only a handful of cities that can compare to that of Vancouver (SF, Seattle, Rio, Hong Kong, etc).  But I found it odd that they selected Cincinnati out of all their other options (Indy, Cbus, LV, Phoenix, Atlanta, etc) as a place that could not in terms of scenery.  I would think that the hills, river, skyline, valleys and the likes would be good in terms of natural assests.

 

The article also went from saying how great...to how bad...to how great Vancouver is.  I was just a little thrown off.  I dont think anyone should complain about a population growth problem in their inner city.

Some cities are finding that when they are successful in building-up their residential downtown, the result is less office space and much less income tax.  After all, a 3,000 SF office will have a lot more incomes to tax than a 3,000 SF condo.

 

I read a book a few years ago that touched on this subject (the Future Once Happened Here, about business leaving the urban core), and I just read an interesting article about Vancouver:

http://www.governing.com/articles/7down.htm#

Quote:

From a distance, especially from the air, downtown Vancouver looks like most downtowns: a pack of modern skyscrapers nesting in a dense and confined central area. Only when you hit the ground do you realize that it is different. The skyscrapers are virtually all condominium towers. This is an overwhelmingly residential high-rise downtown. Some 560,000 people live in Vancouver, Canada’s third-largest city, and nearly 100,000 of them reside in tall, slender towers on the less than five square miles of the downtown peninsula.

 

There is nothing quite like this in North America, not in San Francisco, Chicago or even New York. When it comes to downtown housing density, the closest comparisons are to places such as Rio or Hong Kong. And virtually the entire change has happened in the past 15 years. Since 1991, when Vancouver rewrote its zoning laws to attract downtown residents, launching a self-described “Living First” policy, the physical character of the central city has been so thoroughly transformed that a visitor returning after two decades would have trouble even recognizing the place.

 

While cities in the United States struggle to lure as many as 5 percent of their residents into downtown living — and some are glad to have 2 or 3 percent — Vancouver is at nearly 20 percent and gaining. What’s most remarkable, though, is that the downtown residential boom in Vancouver includes not just singles, couples and empty-nesters but a significant number of families with young children.

 

Quote:

Vancouver has begun to realize that its downtown is such a magnet for urban condo dwellers that it runs the risk of ceasing to serve the other purposes downtowns have traditionally served — as centers of commerce, corporate employment, jobs and overall economic life. It’s not that business has fled central Vancouver: The downtown peninsula still ranks first as an employment center within the metropolitan area, with about 77,000 jobs. But the percentage keeps going down, there have been virtually no major office building projects launched in this century, the amount of land available for new commercial development is almost non-existent, and given the still-explosive demand for high-rise urban living, it doesn’t take too much imagination to see what downtown Vancouver could become in a decade or two: a place where huge numbers of people live but not many work.

 

As a reverse commuter myself, I see this happening to a smaller degree in cities like Cincinnati, however:

 

Quote (next to a stunning picture of a pool overlooking ocean and mountains):

How likely is it that American cities will come to resemble Vancouver? For some, not very likely at all. Take a look at the picture and you'll see why. People live in downtown Vancouver in part because of the magnificent setting. You can't recreate that in Cincinnati. Still, a trend is gathering momentum. Downtown residential populations in much of America grew in the 1990s, after decades of decline. Since then, the pace has picked up dramatically. In lower Manhattan, more than eight million square feet of office building space has gone condo in the last five years; Center City Philadelphia is projected to grow its population by 25 percent by the end of the decade. Even without the scenery, demographic patterns will move many places in Vancouver's direction: toward a future where downtown is more a place to live than a place to work.

 

Ok, wouldn't the free market decide were the jobs are going to be, and if i run my company and want to employ the best workers I'm going to go were they are, plus what space i can afford to rent and such other variable's that play into the equation. I would think having lots of residence downtown would help attract companies not deter them from the city.

Don't forget other types of "non-office" businesses that residential areas tend to attract, such as retail and restaurants.  The flip-side is a non-residential downtown that consists only of office buildings, open M-F, 9-5.  I'd rather have the former. 

agree, also I don't know if vancover does it (I'm not familiar with Canada tax law) but don't most city's now aday give so many tax breaks

to big company's that they would almost be guarantied more tax revenue from income tax and smaller restaurants and such business.

I'd love for Columbus to have Vancouver's "problems".  Downtown should become an even more attractive place for businesses to be headquartered when a large population lives there.  Not only do you have more access to the market, but many of your employees live in the neighborhood.  Almost all businesses want to reside in a vibrant setting.

umm mixed use much?

I'd love for Columbus to have Vancouver's "problems".  Downtown should become an even more attractive place for businesses to be headquartered when a large population lives there.  Not only do you have more access to the market, but many of your employees live in the neighborhood.  Almost all businesses want to reside in a vibrant setting.

Agreed.  I wish Cincinnati had Vancouver's problem too.  Cincinnati, and other cities in the 70's and 80's had a strategy to make as many office jobs in the urban core as possible.  Nell Surber was Cincinnati's proponent of such a strategy which encouraged office construction.  The strategy increased income taxes paid to the city, but small retailers and residential were forgotten and dissapeared.  In contrast, developers in Vancouver have no incentive to build office towers, as the residential payback is much greater.  Not only could this result in a less vibrant city, but it can destroy the financial situation of a city which depends on highly paid people working within it's borders to pay the taxes.

When Marion Barry was mayor in the 1980s and early 1990s, DC did the same thing, trying to develop as much office space as humanly possible.  Well, the offices did open, and downtown became a ghost town after 5:00 and on weekends.  The last 3 of the last 4 remaining department stores closed since no one lived nearby to shop there. 

 

With the recent real estate boom, residential construction is finally making a comeback, with hundreds of new condos and apartments downtown.  Some retail has finally made its way back, too, but there is still quite a recovery to make.  I'd rather have Vancouver's problems of a lively, thriving downtown--I can't say I've ever heard a negative thing about the place. 

The situation in Vancouver is sort of unusual as the market for some of this are Chinese leaving Hong Kong, where they had experience with high-rise urban living, so less resistance to this than would be from NorteAmericanos. 

 

Yet, if one looks at Latin America, especially Brazil, urban high rise living is the way they do it down there.  Even smaller cities have clusters of high rise apatments and condos in the city core.  So Vancouver is perhaps following a more South American model?

 

 

^---  Good point. The same goes for using mass transit, etc. Immigrants from Hong Kong are used to that style of living. Someone who grew up on a farm or in the suburbs in Ohio is not.

 

  As for the free market comment, keep in mind that it's not really a free market. Typically, cities in Ohio have income taxes but townships do not. You might not think a 1 or 2 percent tax is significant, but it is. It is not the only factor, yet it is an important one.

 

  In Cincinnati, some commercial and industrial spaces are being converted to residential. This is good news for downtown if you are rooting for high population as measured by the Census. However, residential is a less intense use than commercial. Filling an empty building with condos is great, but probably results in less activity on the street than what was there originally.

less activity during the day, more activity during the night...wouldn't you say?

Not necessarily....see Miami's dead downtown thread.

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=9086.0

 

    Just for historical perspective:

 

    "Mile's Greenwood's manufactory, well known as the Eagle Iron Works, on the corner of Canal and Walnut streets, extending northwardly to Twelfth street, easterwardly to Main, on to the west to Jackson street, embraces in its operations, besides its iron and brass founderies, machine shops, a steam heating department, etc., and gives constant employment to about five hundred hands, its operations having never been suspended for a single business day since its establishment in 1832."

 

    -Cincinnati in 1859, Charles Cist

 

    500 employees in one block of Over-the-Rhine! Can you imagine? Will we EVER have that density of people again?

 

    I don't think these people commuted more than 3 miles away, either.

^Hamilton County Department of Jobs and Family Services, in the old Alms and Doepke Department Store at Main and Central Parkway may employ more than 500.  Not sure though. 

But compare that to the the current site mentioned above, which now has the Salvation Army, parking lots the Emery, a bar or two and some half-empty buildings. Interesting.

I think the priority should be commercial not residential; people follow the jobs. But if theres a good market demand for condos they should build them because if people can live downtown they'll want to work downtown and vice versa. I think they're meant to coexist. A condo building is still much better than a vacant one. The only thing that sucks about Cincinnati is that downtown is sort of landlocked and theres not much room to expand it. In Cincinnati's case I'd say focus on corporations and promote residential growth in the inner city neighborhoods, but hell, any new building project in Cincinnati is a good thing.

I find it really odd that a downtown could actually tip towards more residential-oriented than commercial-oriented, and I guess it really does raise concerns. In most instances however, I think downtowns need residential to retain or attract commercial these days. With technology today it doesn't really matter whether your office is located out in an old barn in a rural area, the basement of a suburban house, or an office in a downtown skyscraper.  It seems the only way cities could maintain their commercial centers is if they have a built-in residential population within walking distance to create the necessary employment or consumer base.