How close are we to being a "real" city?

[jliv]

tl;dr -

What makes a "city"?  IMHO it forms the beating heart of human civilisation over eons.  Without cities, there is no civilisation.  Its a collection of shared economic and cultural interests that draw people into a geographical cluster.  Most of those interests have been traditionally been about food distribution, as people naturally cluster where food is available, and as these systems have grown more complex, so have the reasons people chose to live in an area.  "Orlando" was a railroad town built on agriculture, much like its sister cities of Kissimmee and Sanford.  Winter Park was built as a residential community for well-heeled Northerners on the same railroad line.  In the 20th century, modern concerns such the defense economy, increased mobility, and cheap real estate made Florida an attractive destination for migrating people, including the two families I am descended from.  They all became part of the late 20th century organisation of American into communities seeking better weather and affordable lifestyles, which led to the great Sunbelt migration and major subsequent political shifts.   Orlando is any American city without the layers of history of older "people clusters" with their home-grown corporations and streetcar suburbs.  However, I believe if you remove those layers from more-esteemed American cities, you have Orlando.   One thing that people forget is that the grandest cities of the world, especially in Europe, were built by dictators.  Perhaps it's ok to aim a little lower.

Orlando could use a little less transience of its population, and more civic-minded folks setting roots.  Check out the Nashville and Charlotte forums on this site; the posters on those forums are quite passionate about their communities.  I've never sensed that same level of passion from Floridians.  I could go into another long-winded post about why that is, but I'll spare everyone

[jliv]

40 minutes ago, JFW657 said:

So then the question would be, what makes a tier 3 city a "real city"? Is any tier 3 city a "real city"? 

Downtown Orlando is still deficient with regards to shopping and quick, in and out eating establishments.

I think a downtown ought to be like a lot like a mall, but with sidewalks and no roof.

I found an interesting, relevant article on the topic. Unfortunately, it didn't go as far down the list as tier 3, but as for 1 and 2:

"Studies have continued in collaboration with Dr. Emil Malizia of the University of North Carolina/Chapel Hill, who independently pursued the topic of “vibrant cities” from an urban planning perspective. Our studies are examining a taxonomy of American cities, a grouping together of cities with common characteristics that point toward economic and social success, characteristics that have supported superior real estate investment performance over nearly three decades now.

Those attributes include diurnal activity (measured by the number of drugstores in 24/7 operation), population density (more than 9,000 per square mile), low crime (fewer than 5,000 FBI Index Crimes per 100,000 residents), transportation (a minimum 10% of the workforce using public transit), live/work proximity (at least 30% of workers living within one mile of downtown), and high Walk Scores. Cities that rank at the top of four of the six criteria are Tier One cities, and are popularly termed “24-hour cities.” Those that meet three of the criteria are clustered as Tier Two cities, matching a grouping termed “18-hour cities” in the industry survey Emerging Trends in Real Estate.

Studying 42 cities in detail, we find six Tier One cities at present: New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Boston, and Washington DC. Eight cities qualify as Tier Two: Seattle, Los Angeles, Oakland, Portland OR, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Minneapolis, Austin, and Miami."

https://realtoru.edu/americas-top-tier-cities-real-estate-investment-seeks-urban-quality-choices/

Here's another good way of comparing world cities: https://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/world2018t.html.  According to this categorisation, Orlando is a Gamma- world city, comparable to Sacramento, San Antonio, and Milwaukee.  It's remained stuck in that level through a few iterations of rankings, while Austin and Nashville have moved upwards.  We should be asking why that is...

[AndyPok1]

4 minutes ago, jliv said:

Here's another good way of comparing world cities: https://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/world2018t.html.  According to this categorisation, Orlando is a Gamma- world city, comparable to Sacramento, San Antonio, and Milwaukee.  It's remained stuck in that level through a few iterations of rankings, while Austin and Nashville have moved upwards.  We should be asking why that is...

That... categorization.... seems... uhhh.... flawed at best and random at worst.

[Dale]

1 minute ago, jliv said:

Here's another good way of comparing world cities: https://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/world2018t.html.  According to this categorisation, Orlando is a Gamma- world city, comparable to Sacramento, San Antonio, and Milwaukee.  It's remained stuck in that level through a few iterations of rankings, while Austin and Nashville have moved upwards.  We should be asking why that is...

Austin has for years been THE It City, with Nashville threatening of late. It has more to do with intangibles than with brick and mortar. Amazon basically admitted that it came down to the feels for Nashville.

Move Orlando’s theme parks downtown and Orlando immediately vies with Austin and Nashville.

Yes, that last bit was slightly tongue-in-cheek.

[jliv]

22 minutes ago, AndyPok1 said:

That... categorization.... seems... uhhh.... flawed at best and random at worst.

Probably less random than the typical click-bait/book-pushing city rankings we've seen over the years.  It's from Loughborough University in the UK:  https://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/group.html

[HankStrong]

Besides breakfast tacos, Austin has one of the better music scenes in the world.  Easily top 5.  

• Nashville
• Havana
• Vienna
• Prague
• Austin

In no particular order.  For me, at least.  Probably could round out the top 10 with:

• Ibiza
• Tokyo
• Berlin
• Rio
• Bologna

 

[dcluley98]

Uh, Memphis, NY,  London, Chicago? 

Hell you could throw Atlanta in there for Hip Hop/R&B too, and probably Seattle for rock/grunge and N'awlins for jazz/blues/zydeco.  

[Xander]

4 hours ago, JFW657 said:

It's whatever you consider it to be.

Then how in the world can there be a true answer? 

[Dale]

5 minutes ago, Xander said:

Then how in the world can there be a true answer? 

I’m in the agnostic camp myself. I mean, is Orlando a fake city at present ?

[JFW657]

1 hour ago, Xander said:

Then how in the world can there be a true answer? 

If something is just a matter of opinion, I suppose there can't.

Until some official, recognized authority on the subject comes up with a definitive, universally accepted, quantitative system of tier grading cities, you or I or anyone else can claim any city is any rank we want to.

Obviously, the farther away from reality one goes, the less seriously most people will take your opinion, though. So if you want your opinion on the matter to be taken seriously, you should try to be realistic.

For example: "NYC is a second tier city and Knoxville, Tenn. is a first tier city."

I doubt anyone in their right mind actually thinks that, but disagreements on less obvious examples can be had. 

Etc, etc. 

[spenser1058]

20 minutes ago, JFW657 said:

If something is just a matter of opinion, I suppose there can't.

Until some official, recognized authority on the subject comes up with a definitive, universally accepted, quantitative system of tier grading cities, you or I or anyone else can claim any city is any rank we want to.

Obviously, the farther away from reality one goes, the less seriously most people will take your opinion, though. So if you want your opinion on the matter to be taken seriously, you should try to be realistic.

For example: "NYC is a second tier city and Knoxville, Tenn. is a first tier city."

I doubt anyone in their right mind actually thinks that, but disagreements on less obvious examples can be had. 

Etc, etc. 

I dunno - Dolly and RedStar might take that case:

 

[Dale]

FWIW, I’ve lived in ever-ascendant Charlotte since 2013. Just last week we landed a Fortune 100 company.

But I miss Orlando. I think it’s an awesome city.

[jliv]

FWIW, I’ve lived in ever-ascendant Charlotte since 2013. Just last week we landed a Fortune 100 company.
But I miss Orlando. I think it’s an awesome city.

I’ve been to Charlotte plenty of times. Beautiful city, which benefited from deep civic participation in the 1990s by its corporate leaders (another hallmark of great cities). My only gripe is that it feels very conservative and staid, but that’s just a mirror of the industries it aims to attract. It looks like a city full of bankers. If you’re looking for that, it’s nirvana. Not my cup of tea, but I’m impressed by what I’ve seen it achieve over the past 30 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[orlandouprise]

17 hours ago, AndyPok1 said:

I don't think it has anything to do with random metrics like 24/7 drugstores.

What I do care about...

We have a downtown population of over 45,000.  Austin has 14,000. 
Employee wise, Austin has 92,000 in 10 million sqft.  We have 150,000 in 13 mil sqft.

I will never understand the love for Austin.  The only metric they win in is Breakfast Tacos.  And boy do I love breakfast tacos.

You may be right, BUT I doubt we have 45k people living DT. If true Austin with 14k has a TON of retail/food/entertainment options that ORL lacks. why would that be if we really have triple the residents DT?  

[spenser1058]

4 minutes ago, orlandouprise said:

You may be right, BUT I doubt we have 45k people living DT. If true Austin with 14k has a TON of retail/food/entertainment options that ORL lacks. why would that be if we really have triple the residents DT?  

Two reasons: one, cities with state capitals tended not to entirely lose their downtowns in the ‘60’s and ‘70’s because state employees, lobbyists and legislators were still using facilities downtown (see also Nashville and Atlanta); two, Austin’s city government more aggressively worked on retail downtown than the totally worthless Thomas Chatmon and his DDB (it’s no accident when Buddy pushed for Publix and the movie theater we got both and both have been successful - after that, the ball was dropped and, unsurprisingly, crickets in retail ensued.)

I’m not sure how close UT is to downtown Austin but if it’s close that also would have helped just as UCF/Valencia may do the same for us.

It’s well-documented that downtown Orlando has been one of the most successful in attracting residents. The only piece of the puzzle missing has been retail, mainly because the city dropped the ball on it.

[Dale]

1 hour ago, jliv said:

 

I’ve been to Charlotte plenty of times. Beautiful city, which benefited from deep civic participation in the 1990s by its corporate leaders (another hallmark of great cities). My only gripe is that it feels very conservative and staid, but that’s just a mirror of the industries it aims to attract. It looks like a city full of bankers. If you’re looking for that, it’s nirvana. Not my cup of tea, but I’m impressed by what I’ve seen it achieve over the past 30 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Ironically, Charlotte probably ranks higher than Orlando in every department that makes a city a real city. 

And I suppose that makes my point.

[Uncommon]

23 minutes ago, Dale said:

Ironically, Charlotte probably ranks higher than Orlando in every department that makes a city a real city. 

And I suppose that makes my point.

Agreed. I like Charlotte. A little too vanilla for my taste, but a pretty nice city overall. But it’s true, it ranks higher than Orlando in most important  categories. In some ways, I feel like Charlotte is both Orlando’s closest competition and also what Orlando should be trying to strive for.

[orlandouprise]

Charlotte is nice, but I think Austin reminds me so much of Orlando. To me Austin is Orlando on STERIODS. IMO, we should be trying to emulate Austin, not Charlotte

[orlandouprise]

2 hours ago, spenser1058 said:

Two reasons: one, cities with state capitals tended not to entirely lose their downtowns in the ‘60’s and ‘70’s because state employees, lobbyists and legislators were still using facilities downtown (see also Nashville and Atlanta); two, Austin’s city government more aggressively worked on retail downtown than the totally worthless Thomas Chatmon and his DDB (it’s no accident when Buddy pushed for Publix and the movie theater we got both and both have been successful - after that, the ball was dropped and, unsurprisingly, crickets in retail ensued.)

I’m not sure how close UT is to downtown Austin but if it’s close that also would have helped just as UCF/Valencia may do the same for us.

It’s well-documented that downtown Orlando has been one of the most successful in attracting residents. The only piece of the puzzle missing has been retail, mainly because the city dropped the ball on it.

valid points...but what I want to know is...do we really have 45K residents DT??? if so...its shameful the amount of retail we have.

[Dale]

Bear in mind that what constitutes a real city is going to vary greatly between age groups and sensibilities. Example: as an older guy, scooters and fish tacos aren’t my cup of tea. Also, I actually like to drive. Today, I drove 15 miles for a meeting in Charlotte. Took me 25 minutes.

[spenser1058]

9 minutes ago, orlandouprise said:

valid points...but what I want to know is...do we really have 45K residents DT??? if so...its shameful the amount of retail we have.

Remember to include the close in neighborhoods and Parramore and that number is indeed accurate (one of Downtown Orlando's biggest strengths is the preservation of our nearby neighborhoods relative to downtown whereas most cities lost theirs to "urban renewal".) The failure on retail is the glaring error of Buddy's reign.

[JFW657]

25 minutes ago, spenser1058 said:

Remember to include the close in neighborhoods and Parramore and that number is indeed accurate (one of Downtown Orlando's biggest strengths is the preservation of our nearby neighborhoods relative to downtown whereas most cities lost theirs to "urban renewal".) The failure on retail is the glaring error of Buddy's reign.

The thing about Parramore and retail is, those residents probably aren't what you'd call "avid shoppers". Groceries and necessities like clothing and most of those probably from very discounted outlets that wouldn't likely have stores on Orange Ave. anyway.

[jliv]

2 hours ago, spenser1058 said:

Two reasons: one, cities with state capitals tended not to entirely lose their downtowns in the ‘60’s and ‘70’s because state employees, lobbyists and legislators were still using facilities downtown (see also Nashville and Atlanta); two, Austin’s city government more aggressively worked on retail downtown than the totally worthless Thomas Chatmon and his DDB (it’s no accident when Buddy pushed for Publix and the movie theater we got both and both have been successful - after that, the ball was dropped and, unsurprisingly, crickets in retail ensued.)

I’m not sure how close UT is to downtown Austin but if it’s close that also would have helped just as UCF/Valencia may do the same for us.

It’s well-documented that downtown Orlando has been one of the most successful in attracting residents. The only piece of the puzzle missing has been retail, mainly because the city dropped the ball on it.

I wonder if that's more a product of how real estate investment capital gets allocated in Central Florida, and the ability of the city to build relationships with deep-pocketed investors.  There was once a lively retail center around Church Street in the 80's and 90's, but I don't need to rehash that story.    I've always been surprised that Urban Outfitters never gave downtown Orlando a glance, since they've always been willing to make risky bets on site locations.  However, a lot of developers got burned in Orlando during the Great Recession, and the conservative nature of development over the past 10 years reflects that.   

[spenser1058]

11 minutes ago, JFW657 said:

The thing about Parramore and retail is, those residents probably aren't what you'd call "avid shoppers". Groceries and necessities like clothing and most of those probably from very discounted outlets that wouldn't likely have stores on Orange Ave. anyway.

As of today, that is of course true. Just as UCF/Valencia will bring more folks to spend in more retail to the former Fairgrounds/Callahan area, investment in Parramore will likely increase disposable income there as well. The good news is with under-I and other initiatives those developments will be tied ever closer to the core.

[spenser1058]

It's also important to note that we had the misfortune of adding the significant numbers for added retail just as the retail apocalypse was getting underway. Also, as rents are increasing in downtowns, retail has had challenges (even Manhattan has been affected.)

To jliv's point, festival marketplaces like Church Street Market/Exchange fell out of favor at about the same time in many cities like Jacksonville. WPB and Atlanta. Some places avoided it (like Boston's Faneuil Hall) but it was not an uncommon phenomenon.