Cities#

Convention centers in context. Each city is a case study — the facility, its finances, governance, surrounding corridor, key players, and timeline.

Comparison Table#

All scores from walkscore.com at each facility’s street address.

CityFacilityWalkTransitPattern
SeattleArch (1988)98100Freeway lid
SeattleSummit (2023)98100Vertical high-rise
BostonHynes (1988)9995Urban core
BostonBCEC (2004)6277Greenfield waterfront
New YorkJavits (1986)95100Edge of core
VancouverConvention Centre (1987/2009)96100Waterfront civic
NashvilleMusic City Center (2013)9569Urban core
DenverColorado CC (1990)9182Urban core
San DiegoConvention Center (1989)9277Waterfront
PortlandOregon CC (1990)9182Across river
Washington DCOld CC (1982–2004) → CityCenterDCDemolished
ChicagoMcCormick Place (1960)2863Isolated superblock
TokyoBig Sight (1996)N/AN/ADeliberate isolation

The Centrality Spectrum#

Transit Score sharpens the Walk Score picture:

TierFacilitiesWalkTransit
Urban core, full transitSeattle (Arch/Summit), Javits, Vancouver95–98100
Urban core, good transitHynes, Nashville, Denver, Portland91–9969–95
Peripheral, limited transitBCEC, San Diego62–9277
IsolatedMcCormick Place2863
RemoteTokyo Big SightN/AN/A

The Javits scores 95/100 — high on both metrics — yet produced a 29-year dead zone. Scores measure access to existing amenities and transit stops, not what the convention center contributes to its surroundings.