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 think that some people like to use the term urbanity because it's nebulous, a moving target, and it can't be measured with data in the same way that density can. This way all, "non-deserving" cities can be dismissed, ridiculed, or shamed in a highly subjective manner.
Even "walkable" has become subjective and measurements of it are met with suspicion when cities that aren't deemed "walkable", by a particular narrative, are mentioned as such.
To the OP's question. My answer is, in a way, yes they do often receive a pass. Their starting line is often halfway down the track and their legacy built environment, whether leveraged or not, is always deemed better than a newer model. This completes the circular narrative that everything older is always better than anything newer, regardless of the data.
But most growing Legacy Cities have both? I think it's different when one has both, while the other just has one...maybe that's the advantage here?
I don't think St. Louis gets much respect on city-data or real life, hell many people in the region don't even respect St. Louis.
What other measures of city comparison have Charlotte and Portland caught up? Not saying they haven't, just wanting to know your criteria for comparison.
Something Interesting: According to the GaWC world cities ranking St. Louis as a region is still a Beta-, same level as Minneapolis (which I know most people on and off this forum would disagree with). Chicago is the only alpha city in the Midwest, Minneapolis and St. Louis are the only 2 beta cities in the Midwest. Detroit is classified as Gamma+ with Cleveland. Charlotte is a Gamma- and Portland is listed as having high sufficiency (meaning it's not technically a world city yet).
I will say in many respects St. Louis is an underachiever and a lot of it's problems as a region are self inflicted. St. Louis' archaic 19th century government structure is definitely holding the city back more than any other competitive advantages other regions have. I mean St. Louis is a top 5 inland port, a top 5 rail hub, located in the middle of the country at the convergence of North America's two largest rivers, only inept leadership (which is exactly what's happening there) could not grow a major city in that geographic location. Even if the American Empire collapses there will likely always be a rather large settlement where St. Louis is for purely logistical reasons.
GaWC used to trick me too, until I learned more about it lol...
Speaking of the real world rather than on here, I've found that St. Louis is pretty highly regarded, so that's what I was alluding to. Maybe it's gets bashed on here, but I haven't saw the same thing in real life. Then again, maybe I have a certain affection towards St. Louis that creates a bias: I had two good friends as a teenager who were unrelated but both from St. Louis; one of my mom's best friends where I grew up in VA was a lady from St. Louis and her husband (they lived about four houses down); my mom herself lived in St. Louis as a young adult 18-21 and recalls her time there as one of the more memorable moments of her life, so I grew up hearing her stories of St. Louis in the '80s; one of my mom's sisters has currently been living in St. Louis for about 4-5 years--my favorite cousin graduated high school there...
I also planned on going to St. Louis when I attended my grandmother's funeral in Memphis two weeks ago, but i couldn't get enough time off work. So maybe it's me, but still, I've met people from there or have been there and have rarely heard anyone dislike it, that I remember...
Anyway, I tend to view the most important metric of cities as economy. Both Charlotte and Portland have caught up to St. Louis in GDP, and as a former Charlotte resident (and probably again in my future), I'll speak more for it. It has a diverse economy but it's status as one of the banking and financial centers in the country gives it a certain cache. Metro Charlotte is a Tri-State metropolis that is now within 333,000 of St. Louis, so it's population is catching up quickly. Charlotte is the most ethnically diverse city in the Carolinas, so by that measure of people too, it's catching/caught up to St. Louis (diversity in restaurants, shopping, citizens, etc). Charlotte probably has one of the fastest expanding rail systems in the nation; it obviously is younger than Metrorail and I also heard St. Louis is considering expansion, but the availability of mass transit options brings it closer to St. Louis than apart...
Charlotte also has ample luxury shopping, dining, boutiques, etc. Much of the same I can say for Charlotte, would also apply to Portland. Those cities are now more or less peers of St. Louis and because their growth rates are so much higher, both are in position to eventually pass St. Louis, though I wouldn't say either has passed it yet...
So in this scenario, the Legacy City could receive biased treatment from people who would automatically assume Portland and Charlotte aren't on St. Louis' level, instead of actually considering what those two cities have that make them peers to St. Louis...
Can't believe this thread is serious. Everyone loves hating on the rust belt, here and everywhere else. Coasters I guess really hate when even one person says they don't think the coast is all that great.
People forget that some of the first ring(think older) suburbs of legacy cities can be continuations of the density of the core city based upon the direction of higher density in that area. That is why legacy city suburbs like Kenmore(Buffalo), Dormont(Pittsburgh), Hamtramck(Detroit) and Lakewood(Cleveland) are in or are very close to being the top 100 for population density for incorporated municipalities in the United States. That could indicate the direction of highest density in legacy city areas.
YOU ARE SO RIGHT! At their population peaks in 1930, Hamtramck and adjacent Highland Park had population densities of 26,900 pp/sqmile and 17,800 pp/sqmile, respectively. Those two cities surrounded by Detroit, reflect the pre-exodus population density of the near east and west sides, and demonstrate how dense Detroit could be again.
YOU ARE SO RIGHT! At their population peaks in 1930, Hamtramck and adjacent Highland Park had population densities of 26,900 pp/sqmile and 17,800 pp/sqmile, respectively. Those two cities surrounded by Detroit, reflect the pre-exodus population density of the near east and west sides, and demonstrate how dense Detroit could be again.
Exactly and perhaps it may be a good idea for Detroit to add more density around Hamtramck and Highland Park given the proximity to Woodward Avenue and the Q Line.
GaWC used to trick me too, until I learned more about it lol...
Speaking of the real world rather than on here, I've found that St. Louis is pretty highly regarded, so that's what I was alluding to. Maybe it's gets bashed on here, but I haven't saw the same thing in real life. Then again, maybe I have a certain affection towards St. Louis that creates a bias: I had two good friends as a teenager who were unrelated but both from St. Louis; one of my mom's best friends where I grew up in VA was a lady from St. Louis and her husband (they lived about four houses down); my mom herself lived in St. Louis as a young adult 18-21 and recalls her time there as one of the more memorable moments of her life, so I grew up hearing her stories of St. Louis in the '80s; one of my mom's sisters has currently been living in St. Louis for about 4-5 years--my favorite cousin graduated high school there...
I also planned on going to St. Louis when I attended my grandmother's funeral in Memphis two weeks ago, but i couldn't get enough time off work. So maybe it's me, but still, I've met people from there or have been there and have rarely heard anyone dislike it, that I remember...
Anyway, I tend to view the most important metric of cities as economy. Both Charlotte and Portland have caught up to St. Louis in GDP, and as a former Charlotte resident (and probably again in my future), I'll speak more for it. It has a diverse economy but it's status as one of the banking and financial centers in the country gives it a certain cache. Metro Charlotte is a Tri-State metropolis that is now within 333,000 of St. Louis, so it's population is catching up quickly. Charlotte is the most ethnically diverse city in the Carolinas, so by that measure of people too, it's catching/caught up to St. Louis (diversity in restaurants, shopping, citizens, etc). Charlotte probably has one of the fastest expanding rail systems in the nation; it obviously is younger than Metrorail and I also heard St. Louis is considering expansion, but the availability of mass transit options brings it closer to St. Louis than apart...
Charlotte also has ample luxury shopping, dining, boutiques, etc. Much of the same I can say for Charlotte, would also apply to Portland. Those cities are now more or less peers of St. Louis and because their growth rates are so much higher, both are in position to eventually pass St. Louis, though I wouldn't say either has passed it yet...
So in this scenario, the Legacy City could receive biased treatment from people who would automatically assume Portland and Charlotte aren't on St. Louis' level, instead of actually considering what those two cities have that make them peers to St. Louis...
But most growing Legacy Cities have both? I think it's different when one has both, while the other just has one...maybe that's the advantage here?
Legacy cities aren't growing. Or if they are, it's just very minimally, like Philadelphia. It doesn't just mean an older city, it means an older city which has gone through a period of mid/late 20th century decline it has yet to recover from. Basically a rebranding and slight widening of the term rust belt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by usroute10
YOU ARE SO RIGHT! At their population peaks in 1930, Hamtramck and adjacent Highland Park had population densities of 26,900 pp/sqmile and 17,800 pp/sqmile, respectively. Those two cities surrounded by Detroit, reflect the pre-exodus population density of the near east and west sides, and demonstrate how dense Detroit could be again.
I would not put Highland Park in the same boat as Hamtramck. Highland Park has had white flight as extensive as Detroit (it was 93.5% black in 2010) and horrendous fiscal issues (at one point the state was mulling forcibly merging it with Detroit, and six years ago two-thirds of the streetlights were removed due to lack of funds). It's lost over 80% of its population from its 1930 peak. There still are some reasonably intact blocks in the city, but there are also very blighted areas. Really it's just like the surrounding areas of Detroit.
Hamtramck is very, very different though, both in terms of demography and how the core neighborhoods are basically still 100% intact. It's basically the last remaining example of what a typical working-class Detroit neighborhood would have looked like in the early 20th century. Though it still has well less than half its peak population, as it's seen its share of blight around the edges, and household size is likely much smaller than in 1930.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckhthankgod
Exactly and perhaps it may be a good idea for Detroit to add more density around Hamtramck and Highland Park given the proximity to Woodward Avenue and the Q Line.
I don't know the neighborhood name in particular (some sub-section of Davison) but the area just to the north of Hamtramck within Detroit is very intact, and has seen an explosion in its Asian population over the last 20 years.
Personally I think they do with the exception of Detroit. Detroit is actually an awesome city that takes unnecessary heat but still offers to much. Cleveland on the other hand gets pass after pass despite being smaller than Detroit, less international, less diverse, and just as down trodden. Both cities are going through a renaissance and its great that they are, but why Cleveland gets pass after pass and Detroit doesnt is beyond me.
Personally I think they do with the exception of Detroit. Detroit is actually an awesome city that takes unnecessary heat but still offers to much. Cleveland on the other hand gets pass after pass despite being smaller than Detroit, less international, less diverse, and just as down trodden. Both cities are going through a renaissance and its great that they are, but why Cleveland gets pass after pass and Detroit doesnt is beyond me.
Actually, Cleveland is more diverse than Detroit in terms of the city limits. I think it may get a pass in comparison due to being a more diverse city that didn't have as much white flight.
Legacy cities aren't growing. Or if they are, it's just very minimally, like Philadelphia. It doesn't just mean an older city, it means an older city which has gone through a period of mid/late 20th century decline it has yet to recover from. Basically a rebranding and slight widening of the term rust belt.
I'm talking about physical growth (Residential, Retail, etc.)
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.
