Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I freely admit that just because an area doesn't have the proper design for pedestrian activity doesn't mean that with high residential density it can overcome its design shortcomings. That said, as far as I know there really isn't any objective way to measure pedestrian volume, at least not in a systematic way across the country.
Eh, I dunno. Lot coverage is okay, and the setback of the buildings isn't terrible (around 15 I think). But the neighborhood is too low slung, with most of the building single story. Coupled with this, the road fairly wide. In my experience when you're considering urban feel, the ratio of building height to street width can be quite essential, as it provides an "indoor room" feeling to the streetscape. To a much lesser extent, I'd say this even hurts the street feel for say New Orleans "shotgun" neighborhoods, as it's very hard to get an urban streetscape with only one floor.
Speaking personally, while I found Baltimore's neighborhoods to be pedestrian friendly, I didn't find Downtown to be very pedestrian friendly. The lack of well-spaced amenities is one reason, but bad road design is another. It seemed like every single street in Downtown Baltimore was a one way street with at least four lanes of traffic. Coupled with the grid pattern, this is a road system which encourages speeding, and indeed it did seem like people treated downtown roads as highways if there was no rush hour traffic. I would guess converting downtown streets back to two-way traffic could make a big difference.
I agree with making some of the main streets downtown two-way. The city is also bringing retail closer to the street by building "bump outs" to.existing buildings. The existing pedestrian infrastructure was built in the early 80s. Another issue is that neighboods bordering downtown Baltimore are bustling with all of the amenities that downtown Baltimore lack. Although those neighborhoods are technically considered downtown, they aren't withing the CBD limits. Also, another overlooked reason is the Harbor, which takes people off the the street, and puts many of them in the waterfront. The Harbor brings in millions of people are year, and is always a very busy place, so if they were pushed closer to the street, Baltimore could rival any city not named New York.
Since no one brought them up, what are people's thoughts on the urban fabrics of Cincinnati and Saint Louis. After Chicago they do clearly have the densest traditional urban neighborhoods in the Midwest after all.
Cincinnati I feel like lost its chance to be a contender due to urban renewal. I've seen aerials of it before the construction of the highways, the demolition of Queensgate to make an industrial zone, and the destruction of much of the old West End. If it had kept the full extent of its urban core intact it would be an impressive city today - quite possibly denser in its core than even Philly, because so many more of its structures were multi-story tenement apartment buildings rather than rowhouses. But the only old urban areas which survived urban renewal were Over-The-Rhine, Pendleton, Mt. Adams, segments of Mount Auburn and the West End, and Lower Price Hill. Most everything else remaining is further out, and streetcar suburbia or newer.
I know a lot less about Saint Louis. While Northern Saint Louis is a blighted mess, the southern half seems to have retained most of its historic character pretty well, minus highways chopping up the urban fabric a bit. Saint Louis also seems to have retained a denser urban vernacular for longer, although aside from some of the oldest neighborhoods like Soulard, it developed pretty generous setbacks.
I won't try to claim that Milwaukee is the *most* urban after the Top 10, but after looking at places like Baltimore and Seattle, I think it's up there. Maybe a tier below those two. Portland hasn't been mentioned yet, surprisingly.
I won't try to claim that Milwaukee is the *most* urban after the Top 10, but after looking at places like Baltimore and Seattle, I think it's up there. Maybe a tier below those two.
Milwaukee looks pretty typical to me for an upper Midwestern city. Decent density in downtown, but not very high levels of density outside of it. The main exceptions seem to be the East Side (infill closer into town, and big modern apartment towers along the lakefront) and Avenues West (due to Marquette I'm guessing). Overall it looks a bit denser than Cleveland or Detroit, but not as dense as Minneapolis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ARrocket
Portland hasn't been mentioned yet, surprisingly.
Portland isn't that dense of a city really. It has a nice Downtown, which blends well with nearby dense neighborhoods like Pearl District, Goose Hollow, Nob Hill, and Northwest. But that's pretty much it, because this core is constrained by industrial zones, the river, 405, and topography, with the next residential neighborhoods out streetcar suburban at best.
Milwaukee looks pretty typical to me for an upper Midwestern city. Decent density in downtown, but not very high levels of density outside of it. The main exceptions seem to be the East Side (infill closer into town, and big modern apartment towers along the lakefront) and Avenues West (due to Marquette I'm guessing). Overall it looks a bit denser than Cleveland or Detroit, but not as dense as Minneapolis.
By numbers, it's close to Minneapolis. Minneapolis is #2 in the Midwest, mainly because most other urban Midwest cities experienced severe core population loss.
Eh, I dunno. Lot coverage is okay, and the setback of the buildings isn't terrible (around 15 I think). But the neighborhood is too low slung, with most of the building single story. Coupled with this, the road fairly wide. In my experience when you're considering urban feel, the ratio of building height to street width can be quite essential, as it provides an "indoor room" feeling to the streetscape. To a much lesser extent, I'd say this even hurts the street feel for say New Orleans "shotgun" neighborhoods, as it's very hard to get an urban streetscape with only one floor.
Eh, I just don't measure "urban feel" that way. I'd go by structural density more so than a specific type of streetscape.
Since no one brought them up, what are people's thoughts on the urban fabrics of Cincinnati and Saint Louis. After Chicago they do clearly have the densest traditional urban neighborhoods in the Midwest after all.
Cincinnati I feel like lost its chance to be a contender due to urban renewal. I've seen aerials of it before the construction of the highways, the demolition of Queensgate to make an industrial zone, and the destruction of much of the old West End. If it had kept the full extent of its urban core intact it would be an impressive city today - quite possibly denser in its core than even Philly, because so many more of its structures were multi-story tenement apartment buildings rather than rowhouses. But the only old urban areas which survived urban renewal were Over-The-Rhine, Pendleton, Mt. Adams, segments of Mount Auburn and the West End, and Lower Price Hill. Most everything else remaining is further out, and streetcar suburbia or newer.
I know a lot less about Saint Louis. While Northern Saint Louis is a blighted mess, the southern half seems to have retained most of its historic character pretty well, minus highways chopping up the urban fabric a bit. Saint Louis also seems to have retained a denser urban vernacular for longer, although aside from some of the oldest neighborhoods like Soulard, it developed pretty generous setbacks.
Outside of maybe Soulard, St. Louis neighborhoods even in the southern half which has experienced little decay don't appear to be that dense. I'd admit I've never been to St. Louis, just checked it on streetview. Cincinnati appears denser but as you said there aren't many dense areas. Both Milwaukee and Minneapolis have higher residential densities outside of downtown than either of these cities, except for a couple tracts in Cincinnati.
Milwaukee looks pretty typical to me for an upper Midwestern city. Decent density in downtown, but not very high levels of density outside of it. The main exceptions seem to be the East Side (infill closer into town, and big modern apartment towers along the lakefront) and Avenues West (due to Marquette I'm guessing). Overall it looks a bit denser than Cleveland or Detroit, but not as dense as Minneapolis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
By numbers, it's close to Minneapolis. Minneapolis is #2 in the Midwest, mainly because most other urban Midwest cities experienced severe core population loss.
If you go by weighted density, which you should be, I think that Milwaukee is significantly denser than Minneapolis. I know for sure that comparing metro areas, Milwaukee is considerably denser than MSP.
Here's something I found based on 2010 numbers - Milwaukee has seen some growth since then, though I'm sure MPLS has as well.
Since no one brought them up, what are people's thoughts on the urban fabrics of Cincinnati and Saint Louis. After Chicago they do clearly have the densest traditional urban neighborhoods in the Midwest after all.
Cincinnati I feel like lost its chance to be a contender due to urban renewal. I've seen aerials of it before the construction of the highways, the demolition of Queensgate to make an industrial zone, and the destruction of much of the old West End. If it had kept the full extent of its urban core intact it would be an impressive city today - quite possibly denser in its core than even Philly, because so many more of its structures were multi-story tenement apartment buildings rather than rowhouses. But the only old urban areas which survived urban renewal were Over-The-Rhine, Pendleton, Mt. Adams, segments of Mount Auburn and the West End, and Lower Price Hill. Most everything else remaining is further out, and streetcar suburbia or newer.
I know a lot less about Saint Louis. While Northern Saint Louis is a blighted mess, the southern half seems to have retained most of its historic character pretty well, minus highways chopping up the urban fabric a bit. Saint Louis also seems to have retained a denser urban vernacular for longer, although aside from some of the oldest neighborhoods like Soulard, it developed pretty generous setbacks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
Outside of maybe Soulard, St. Louis neighborhoods even in the southern half which has experienced little decay don't appear to be that dense. I'd admit I've never been to St. Louis, just checked it on streetview. Cincinnati appears denser but as you said there aren't many dense areas. Both Milwaukee and Minneapolis have higher residential densities outside of downtown than either of these cities, except for a couple tracts in Cincinnati.
If talking about built environment, both St. Louis and Cincy certainly need to be in the discussion. I'd say Cincy peaks a little higher, but St. Louis carries its high density over a bigger area. I disagree with what you're saying nei, there are a lot of neighborhoods on the southside packed with either rowhouses or more commonly houses with just enough space for a person to squeeze between them. I'll try and post some pics here soon.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
