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.
Both cities have mundane scenery. Lakes are nice but I don't consider them very interesting to look at.
The pictures do not make Cleveland seem any more urban or "big league" than Kansas City. I think some people just read "Kansas" and assume this is a one horse town surrounded by wheat.
Cleveland's public transit alone sets the city apart from most Midwest cities. The old money iconic structures in and around downtown are breathtaking.
Cleveland's public transit alone sets the city apart from most Midwest cities. The old money iconic structures in and around downtown are breathtaking.
I agree. Cleveland, St Louis and Minneapolis are kind of in a league of their own when it comes to midsize Midwestern cities regarding public transportation. Each has multiple rail lines which make it easy to commute from suburb to city.
Detroit is a unique case in this, because even though it is the Midwest #2 city because of the way it developed it was anti public transit.
Transit is really about only thing that makes Cleveland different from KC, but it's kind of a big deal.
Luckily, KCMO was built around a very robust and comprehensive transit system. KC had one of the largest streetcar, commuter rail, bus and cable car systems between the coasts and you can tell that by the built environment of the city still today which is why urban KCMO does not appear all that different than Cleveland in photos.
But untill KCMO rebuilds a lot of that transit infrastructure and people are using it once again, I don't see how anybody can say that KC is more walkalbe than Cleveland. KC is comparable in a few high ridership bus corridors but overall, Cleveland is going to win because of their current transit options.
KC just needs to get on the ball. The city has the bones for a great transit system again which is why I don't understand why the city is one of the furthest behind in building rail etc. The streetcar is a start and KCMO is one of only a few cites where streetcars make sense due to lack of congestion on surface streets combined with a dense urban environment and compact urban core.
So, is Salt Lake City way more walkable and urban than Cleveland? Because it's transit usage is about the same percentage higher than Cleveland's as Cleveland's is over KC.
I mean, I think transit is pretty important to a city, but I'm not sure it's the only factor that matters. It's kind of like picking a single category in which KC significantly outpaces Cleveland and then declaring Cleveland was not in the same league as KC because way more people live in highly walkable neighborhoods in KC than do in Cleveland. Or arguing that Cleveland is less "diverse" or "cosmopolitan" because it doesn't have anything comparable or anywhere near the scale of KC's multiple predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods.
You are spot on. Like me, you have traveled and lived all over as evidenced by your posts. I bet you have walked these neighborhoods. Most posters here are 18-25 and their experience of cities they have opinions of are google earth and one visit!
Appreciate your comment. I've traveled many more places than I've lived, but I love to travel. It's one of the best educations one can give oneself. And, of course, I love, love, love, cities. To me, each one is like a collective person.
So, is Salt Lake City way more walkable and urban than Cleveland? Because it's transit usage is about the same percentage higher than Cleveland's as Cleveland's is over KC.
I mean, I think transit is pretty important to a city, but I'm not sure it's the only factor that matters. It's kind of like picking a single category in which KC significantly outpaces Cleveland and then declaring Cleveland was not in the same league as KC because way more people live in highly walkable neighborhoods in KC than do in Cleveland. Or arguing that Cleveland is less "diverse" or "cosmopolitan" because it doesn't have anything comparable or anywhere near the scale of KC's multiple predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods.
I never said Cleveland is in a different league. I don't think that at all. Even with Cleveland's transit, I think the cities are pretty much even because KC has a lot of positives that Cleveland doesn't. I was specifically talking about how transit makes Cleveland more walkable especially for people that have a choice and could drive if they wanted to.
You would be surprised at how walkable SLC has become, but no it's still not as urban as Cleveland (or KC) IMO and it's still as sizable step down from both KC and Cleveland. It's smaller with less amenities etc. But they also have mountains very close by, a huge airport and modern light rail transit. Too bad the city is like 7000 miles from another major city . Every city has its positives and negatives.
I never said Cleveland is in a different league. I don't think that at all. Even with Cleveland's transit, I think the cities are pretty much even because KC has a lot of positives that Cleveland doesn't. I was specifically talking about how transit makes Cleveland more walkable especially for people that have a choice and could drive if they wanted to.
You would be surprised at how walkable SLC has become, but no it's still not as urban as Cleveland (or KC) IMO and it's still as sizable step down from both KC and Cleveland. It's smaller with less amenities etc. But they also have mountains very close by, a huge airport and modern light rail transit. Too bad the city is like 7000 miles from another major city . Every city has its positives and negatives.
I wasn't responding to you. I think I was typing when you posted. Pretty sure we're on the same page on this one. And I think SLC is a real surprise (to me at least), though I've only been there once and it was about 5 or 6 years ago at least. I also don't think it's as urban as Cleveland, but I thought it was illustrative of the point, which is pretty close to the same one you are making.
Cleveland's public transit alone sets the city apart from most Midwest cities. The old money iconic structures in and around downtown are breathtaking.
Cleveland's public transit is no better than St. Louis and certainly inferior to Chicago.
So, is Salt Lake City way more walkable and urban than Cleveland? Because it's transit usage is about the same percentage higher than Cleveland's as Cleveland's is over KC.
I mean, I think transit is pretty important to a city, but I'm not sure it's the only factor that matters. It's kind of like picking a single category in which KC significantly outpaces Cleveland and then declaring Cleveland was not in the same league as KC because way more people live in highly walkable neighborhoods in KC than do in Cleveland. Or arguing that Cleveland is less "diverse" or "cosmopolitan" because it doesn't have anything comparable or anywhere near the scale of KC's multiple predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods.
Salt Lake City built up it's transit system largely to handle the crowds for the 2002 Winter Olympics but, no doubt, it's been a huge asset for the city. But it's rail line was built well after SLC sprawled with freeways and cul de sac neighborhoods, suburbs, strip development and malls.
Older cities like Cleveland, Detroit, St. Louis and KC, developed around public transit, mainly horse & buggy 'omnibuses', horse cars, ... then streetcar systems, interurbans and some commuter rail. During World War I, Cleveland was one of the few cities to actually build a full-fledged rapid transit system: the 1-line, 2-pronged Shaker LRT but, more importantly, then hold onto it while expanding in 1955 the system to include heavy rail -- today's east-west Red Line. The Red Line, 13 years later, expanded to Hopkins International Airport, making it the first of it's kind in the USA -- a downtown-to-airport high-speed rapid transit system. Now there are at least 13 others, and the list keeps growing... But while most cities in the 1950s and 60s were dumping streetcar systems (Cleveland did this, too) for a freeway-only mode, with a small limited bus system, Cleveland was actually expanding rapid transit, which was an investment in its long term future.
Despite this, Cleveland like other big cities, including those in the Midwest, built freeways and had lots of sprawl. But it never quite abandoned public transit in the way that Detroit did, although Cleveland's rail and bus system suffered tremendously to survive through the 1970s out of the fare box, until the county-wide RTA taxpayer-subsidized system was created by the voters.
In part (not fully) because Cleveland was able to keep interest in transit, it has helped many in-city neighborhoods stabilize and comeback, like Ohio City, Shaker Square, Larchmere, University Circle, etc...
City buses are the base of the system, but Cleveland's intermingling them with rail lines, has made Cleveland more accepting of transit and walkability that most mid-sized, moderate-density cities, especially those in the so-called Rust Belt. Development of the Health Line up Euclid Ave, considered one of the best examples of BRT in the nation, was spawned out of Cleveland's continued interest and innovation in transit. Neighborhoods are coming to life around Cleveland transit lines, and in areas of the city where the rail (or BRT doesn't go), there's usually a 24/7 bus line nearby; as well as bus lines that feed in the rapid transit stations -- that's what good transit cities do... And not only have neighborhoods gotten stronger, so has downtown... This is NOT to say ALL Cleveland neighborhoods are flourishing; absolutely not; there are struggling areas, esp on the East Side, and the city, overall, continues to lose population (but hell, so does Chicago even though most consider it to be a mecca among cities, with a fabulous transit network and tons of walkable neighborhoods).
Now transit is the hot new thing for cities, which started in the late 1980s and up to the present (St. Louis opened its first rapid transit line in the 1990s; Seattle and Minneapolis, in the 2000s).
Rapid transit isn't the be all/end all for Cleveland and its far from the ideal system, like say Toronto's or Bostons (both larger, denser cities anyway), but it's a significant civic infrastructure with positive structural and psychological influences for the city. It makes Cleveland seem like more of a big city and is "cool" for the millennials who are gravitating more and more to cities and their downtowns, esp older ones like Cleveland, KC and St. Louis, and they are very open to using mass transit. Indeed, some prefer it.
Last edited by TheProf; 04-21-2016 at 07:19 PM..
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.
. Every city has its positives and negatives.