Which city seems farthest from its potential? (metropolitan, economy, restaurant)

[Trae713]

Originally Posted by kidphilly

But basically all have grown or at least stabilized in metro size. purely comparing a city population as the proxy is probably not really telling the whole story.

Chicago for one is growing in the core; and the population loss is more a factor of houshold size than flight from the region

Growth in Chicagoland is mostly coming from natural increase. The domestic out-migration is so high, that it even cancels out the international migration. Of course, this is from the Census estimates and not the real counts.

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by kidphilly

But basically all have grown or at least stabilized in metro size. purely comparing a city population as the proxy is probably not really telling the whole story.

Chicago for one is growing in the core; and the population loss is more a factor of houshold size than flight from the region

that is not what the poster was implying.

[bballniket]

Detroit, Cincinnati and Baltimore

[cpomp]

Originally Posted by bballniket

Detroit, Cincinnati and Baltimore

Baltimore has made a lot of progress, so i wouldnt put it as low as Detroit.

[Champ le monstre du lac]

Originally Posted by JJG

I could blame Dallas for what we have (or should I say DON'T have) but it's only about 35% the reason why Fort Worth still hasn't reached its full potential.

The self marketing for our own city hasn't really happened until just recently with ESPN coming to Sundance Square and Fort Worth trying to real them in with a couple TCU home games and other events. It is hard to market yourself as your own city when the rest of the country is just convinced that we belong to Dallas, ya know?

For what it's worth, when I visited the area I liked Fort Worth A LOT better than Dallas and wished I had booked my hotel in Sundance Square instead of well..anywhere in Dallas. Next time I'm in the DFW area I'll do just that. Fort Worth seemed to embody what us outsiders seem have in our minds in a Texas city, character that I thought I'd find in Dallas but just wasn't finding. I think both Dallas and Fort Worth haven't reached their potential yet. The Trinity River projects in both cities will probably increase the urban potentials in both cities exponentially.

[BPerone201]

I'd have to say St Louis. Great city, full of culture with world renown attractions- But what the hell.. America's (was) most dangerous city?

Newark always bothered me as far as what it "could" be. It has a University, a great medical center, a prestigious Performing Arts Center, and the Prudential center, and an awesome little Portugal... But it seems like they just jam it all these things one area, and jam all the crime in the western ward, and jam all the industrial crap by the airport/turnpike along the riverfront.

Newark is probably the only city with a bay, but doesn't utilize it for the public like Sf or Boston or Bmore- instead, it's industrial wasteland that only gets recognition from The Sopranos (whether it be the intro or when they bury/kill someone under the Pulaski skyway).

[nashvols]

Originally Posted by HtownLove

It depends on how far was the fall.


In that case you can add Chicago to the list then.
Detroit lost over a million since its peak
Chicago lost almost a million
St Louis lost more than half of its population
Cleveland too lost over half of its population dropping by 500k

Originally Posted by kidphilly

But basically all have grown or at least stabilized in metro size. purely comparing a city population as the proxy is probably not really telling the whole story.

Chicago for one is growing in the core; and the population loss is more a factor of houshold size than flight from the region

Originally Posted by HtownLove

that is not what the poster was implying.

kidphilly is also right, though. It's not purely about population. My point with population was more about massive population loss (as a percentage) being more of a hindrance to these cities returning to their past glory than anything else. As I stated in a previous post, these cities don't have to set a new high in population to exceed their former potential...it's just that continuing population loss speaks a lot about the current state of the city. I meant that it would be easier for a city to recover that status if it did stabilize or was not losing population. I didn't say anything about new population growth within the cities.

from my earlier post:

Originally Posted by nashvols

I think it's easier for some on that list than others. Detroit, Cleveland, and Buffalo still have some huge population loss issues, not only in the central city, but in the surrounding areas.

St. Louis and Baltimore are still losing people in the city, but seem somewhat more stable than the others, mainly because the metros are still growing.

Louisville and Newark have reversed the city population decline trend, so I would say they are more primed to "easily" reach their potentials.


None of these cities have to return to their previous population high to reach new highs as a city (although Louisville has done that via city-county consolidation)...after all, in this age of mega suburbia, central cities no longer hold the majority of their areas, at least in most cases. Population loss, though, is something that these places have to combat if they are going to reach their potential...it's hard to say a place is thriving if it's a beautiful empty shell...

So, no, I don't think Chicago belongs on that list. Despite the city losing a bit of population, the percentage wasn't huge, and the area does not seem to be in any real threat of a Detroit type of downturn, or a St. Louis, Cleveland, or Baltimore type of continuous slide over decades. Although Chicago reached its peak in the 1950s, it recorded a positive population decade in 2000, ending its slide. The 2010 numbers echo a lot of big cities that suspect large under counts.

[ForYourLungsOnly]

Cleveland, to me, has the most potential. Great location, room to grow. Go get it Cleveland!

[Darkitec]

Any portion of GA more than 20 miles outside of the Atlanta area has pretty much forgotten what forward motion is. The further you get away from the city the further back in time you move. A whole lot of disappointing.

[durf]

Philadelphia hands down since its downtown is so patchy interms of progress and gentrification. Think the convention center, Galleria, Broad, Murano condo areas.