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 it probably does have higher density where buildable land exists, it's dense there for sure. The numbers will never tell the entire story though, due to their geography. A lot of the City is simply too hilly to build on, but that also makes it the prettiest of these 3.
I posted city density numbers, and said, as well, that Milwaukee is one of the highest density cities in the Midwest. I also posted numbers. I would disagree in the "prettiest", as Milwaukee is on a lake, that looks like an ocean. It also has a river that runs through downtown.
I posted city density numbers, and said, as well, that Milwaukee is one of the highest density cities in the Midwest. I also posted numbers. I would disagree in the "prettiest", as Milwaukee is on a lake, that looks like an ocean. It also has a river that runs through downtown.
And I disagree. Cincy has a large River and a beautiful, hilly urban setting that Milwaukee simply can't match. It is also just as structurally dense if not moreso than Milwaukee where there is buildable land.
And I disagree. Cincy has a large River and a beautiful, hilly urban setting that Milwaukee simply can't match. It is also just as structurally dense if not moreso than Milwaukee where there is buildable land.
I guess I prefer Lake Michigan to a river...which Milwaukee, also, has, right through downtown.
I have been to both and both are beautiful cities with beautiful geographic settings. Definitely both are far more appealing to me than say Atlanta, Raleigh, or Charlotte.
As for density, Here is what I cam up with for the urban core density of each city.
Milwaukee has 40,585 in the Greater Downtown Area as identified by this study (https://www.milwaukeedowntown.com/si...stimates_1.pdf). I calculated the area of that in Google Maps Area Calculator and came up with 3.20 square miles. This comes out to 12,682 people per square mile. East Side has the highest density with 18,520 people in 0.87 square miles (21,290 per square mile).
For Cincinnati, I looked at zip codes 45202 (CBD, OTR, Pendleton, and Mt Adams) and 45219 (University of Cincinnati and Clifton Heights) which together make up the densest part of Cincinnati. I excluded the hills and major parks like Eden park and used the 2018 ESRI/Census population estimates found here (http://vdot.maps.arcgis.com/home/web...f8c3882b7ceb18) which came out to 35,547 people in 3.60 square miles. This comes out to 9,874 people per square mile. OTR has the highest density with 6,692 people in 0.43 square miles (15,472 per square mile).
This is good density for both cities. Greater downtown Milwaukee grew from 32,454 in 2010 to 40,585 in 2019 (2.78% per year) while those two zip codes in Cincinnati grew from 30,748 in 2010 to 35,547 in 2018 (1.95% per year).
Obviously though these are just estimates and we won't know for sure until the 2020 Census results come out.
I have been to both and both are beautiful cities with beautiful geographic settings. Definitely both are far more appealing to me than say Atlanta, Raleigh, or Charlotte.
As for density, Here is what I cam up with for the urban core density of each city.
Milwaukee has 40,585 in the Greater Downtown Area as identified by this study (https://www.milwaukeedowntown.com/si...stimates_1.pdf). I calculated the area of that in Google Maps Area Calculator and came up with 3.20 square miles. This comes out to 12,682 people per square mile. East Side has the highest density with 18,520 people in 0.87 square miles (21,290 per square mile).
For Cincinnati, I looked at zip codes 45202 (CBD, OTR, Pendleton, and Mt Adams) and 45219 (University of Cincinnati and Clifton Heights) which together make up the densest part of Cincinnati. I excluded the hills and major parks like Eden park and used the 2018 ESRI/Census population estimates found here (http://vdot.maps.arcgis.com/home/web...f8c3882b7ceb18) which came out to 35,547 people in 3.60 square miles. This comes out to 9,874 people per square mile. OTR has the highest density with 6,692 people in 0.43 square miles (15,472 per square mile).
This is good density for both cities. Greater downtown Milwaukee grew from 32,454 in 2010 to 40,585 in 2019 (2.78% per year) while those two zip codes in Cincinnati grew from 30,748 in 2010 to 35,547 in 2018 (1.95% per year).
Obviously though these are just estimates and we won't know for sure until the 2020 Census results come out.
I know this isn't really what the thread is about, but it is noteworthy that St. Louis has a significantly more substantial urbanized and metropolitan area than both Milwaukee and Cincinnati, and it has all the stuff that goes with having a more robust population:
I will concede that downtown STL has been punching under its weight for many decades, but STL also has a very urban and rapidly re-densifying central corridor spanning from downtown to midtown to the Central West End to Skinker/DeMun and into Clayton, all linked by rail transit. That counts for something. I don't believe either Milwaukee or Cincinnati can really compete with the urban expanse of STL.
Yes, I am aware there is a River there. It pales in comparison to the Ohio River, though. It more resembles an industrial canal than a scenic river.
I'm assuming by your comments that you've never been to Cincinnati.
I assume you didn't look at my pictures. Many, many condos, shops, restaurants along this river. Condos with boat slips. Don't want to look?
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.