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.
Just out of curiosity, which part would you say is inaccurate? The "faded" or the "gem"? At least in my mind, it seems to fit both. .
The Faded part - I mean have you been to Pittsburgh recently ??????
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caymon83
The city is relatively inexpensive, its population is less than 1/2 its peak and continues to fall. The city has a blue collar reputation and has not been as successful as cities like Boston and Chicago at transitioning to a service/knowledge economy..
Poplulation loss, has slowed to point, its now being pointed to Pittsburgh's high elderly pop is the part that now shrinking....and I believe that, just take a look at the South Side. Once a real Blue Collar, Senior living area...its nothing of the sort today, just as cosmopolitan as the East End now.
This is were you're waaaayyyyy, Pittsburgh has successfuly transistioned itself from Steel/Manufactoring, to a Meds/Ed's/Tech Hub...Its been duely noted in a number of editorials from across the country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caymon83
On the jem side, the site has an interesting skyline, great museums and universities, classic urban architecture, and row house neighborhoods with vibrant commercial strips.
An Amazing Culture Scene, Nightlife, Vibrant Nabes, Considerably less unemployment then its peers cities, and incrediably Green. Just to add to you're list here.
Its a bit Ironic that you mention in one breath that Pittsburgh didnt transition to Ed's like Chicago and Boston, and in the Next you mention Pittsburgh as having great Universities. also I would mention that the majory of the census would list Pittsburgh before Chicago when it comes to tops in Education.
Again anyone who recently been to the Burgh i dont think would classify it as a "Faded Gem" if anything its has resurged.
The Faded part - I mean have you been to Pittsburgh recently ??????
Poplulation loss, has slowed to point, its now being pointed to Pittsburgh's high elderly pop is the part that now shrinking....and I believe that, just take a look at the South Side. Once a real Blue Collar, Senior living area...its nothing of the sort today, just as cosmopolitan as the East End now.
This is were you're waaaayyyyy, Pittsburgh has successfuly transistioned itself from Steel/Manufactoring, to a Meds/Ed's/Tech Hub...Its been duely noted in a number of editorials from across the country.
An Amazing Culture Scene, Nightlife, Vibrant Nabes, Considerably less unemployment then its peers cities, and incrediably Green. Just to add to you're list here.
Its a bit Ironic that you mention in one breath that Pittsburgh didnt transition to Ed's like Chicago and Boston, and in the Next you mention Pittsburgh as having great Universities. also I would mention that the majory of the census would list Pittsburgh before Chicago when it comes to tops in Education.
Again anyone who recently been to the Burgh i dont think would classify it as a "Faded Gem" if anything its has resurged.
Thanks for the response and for reviving this dud of a thread. This bombed worse then Gigli (Sorry, I couldn't think of a more recent disaster on that level.)
I agree Pittsburg is a great town, but IMO it seemed like it is struggling a little more than a city like Boston or Chicago. It is one of the few MSAs to have negative population growth since 2000.
IMO at the end of the day is seems to have more in common with older, slightly less urban cities like Cincinnati and Baltimore, than with the expensive, trendy dense cities like Boston and San Francisco. That isn't a bad thing. For starters, middle class people can actually afford to raise a family there.
You live there and know the region better then I though, so if I am mistaken about Pittsburg and it isn't a little faded.. Mea Culpa.
I was trying to to categorize cities. I came up with 5 different types that I think cover most cities. Some might be a debatable (ie. Philly urban jewel or faded gem?)
Of course, most of these differences are at the margin. For the most part, the US is a suburban nation. Regardless of the city, the majority lives in auto oriented suburbs. I read somewhere that 96% of travel in Boston MSA is done by car vs. 99% in Phoenix. Not much of difference, despite their reputations.
Cosmopolitan, and gentrified. Beginning in the 80s-90s, these cities began to rebound as people, particularly the affluent, returned to the core. These cities continue to grow, albeit slowly.
These cities attract young professionals and immigrants. The population is transient with many moving in for the “big city” feel. Many affluent stay for the quality of life and the very poor stay due to lack of opportunity. Immigrants increasingly move to the 'burbs. The middle/working classes leave for outer-burbs or lower cost MSAs.
Civil life revolves around the core. The city centers are vibrant and home to the city's best shopping, hotels and cultural institutions.
Wealthy live in the dense core. Working class in the outer 'hoods. These cities are the densest in US w/ true urban feel. A car is not a necessity in the core. Extensive public transit system. Outside the center, the city remains dense with walkable areas and neighborhood business districts.
Economy dominated by gov, finance and professionals (consulting, law, marketing) in the CBD, with health/education in the university districts. Many reverse commute to tech and fortune 500 in the suburbs.
Cost of Living: Very high
Faded gems:
Examples: Detroit, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Baltimore, St. Louis
These are the hard luck cases of urban America. Formerly industrial powerhouses, they declined with mfg. and never recovered. Many are less then ½ their peak populations.
Residents are mostly from the region. Education levels tend to be low, crime and poverty are issues. The affluent have (mostly) left for the suburbs. These cities were at their peaks far denser the today’s new urban hubs (Portland, Seattle). Some of the urban feel remains. The cities have a few trendy areas where urban living can be had on the cheap (relatively speaking). Outside these areas, vacant houses and abandon lots are a problem. These cities are suburbanizing as rundown buildings are cleared for auto-centric development.
Downtown is a little rundown, but has great old architecture. Most new construction is reliant on gov subsidies. The CBD is gradually losing market share to the 'burbs. Downtown remains a draw for civic events, but nobody goes just to go. Most drive in for an event and then leave. A few stores remain, but most shopping is in the suburbs. These cities have Gilded Age theaters/museums that remain among the best in the US.
Most have a small warehouse district. These attract suburbanites seeking an urban experience. There are few condo buildings among the eat/drinking place.
Public transportation exists. But in practice, the car is king. Few rely on transit for everyday use.
Econ development consists of a twin approach of large tourist-centric projects (casinos, convention hotels, etc) and seemingly sensible (IT, Robotics, Clean Energy) plans that never materialize. The cities have top notch hospitals/ universities. These institutions are the one bright spot in the economy. They promote spin off development, but not at the levels needed to revitalize the city.
Politically these cities are heavily Democratic bastions of blue collar values. The white pop. is split between pro-union populists, anti-union conservatives. Heavy Democratic support among minority voters tips the balance. Socially, these cities are somewhat conservative relative to the urban jewels. Pockets of liberalism exist around universities/trendy neighborhoods.
The cost of living: low
New Urban hubs:
Examples: Seattle, Portland, Denver, San Diego, Minneapolis
The up and comers of urban America, they are regularly cited for their vibrant centers and high tech economies. 40 years ago most were marginal players.
These cities attract the young and educated and to a less extent immigrants. They rank high for their livability, with an educated pop. and fewer social issues. The population is largely nonnative. The natural surroundings of the city is a major draw. It appeals to those seeking city living, but at a more relaxed pace and with access to open space. Long noted for their overwhelmingly white populations, these cities increasingly attract people from Asia and Latin America. African-American remain underrepresented.
The CBDs tend to be relatively vibrant. Civil life increasingly revolves around the core. Formerly 9-5 hubs, these cities have undertaken massive redevelopment schemes, creating small but lively zones (LoDo, Pearl, Belltown.) The boom has attracted affluent residents to the core and brings suburbanites in for dining/culture and in some cases shopping. Seattle has a downtown approaching the urban jewel cities. Other remains behind, but all have mixed use areas.
Outside of the downtown, these cities tend to be relatively suburban, w/ most dominated by detached houses. Close in 'hoods, have some small apt. buildings and little commercial strips, but they are quieter than in the urban jewels.
Despite the commitment to smart growth, a car is a necessity in all but a few areas. Most have small but growing transit systems. They are popular with the public, but are too small and the densities too low to make these a viable alternative.
The economy is thriving and full of high skill industries. The CBD is prosperous, but the real action lies in the suburban office/research parks.
These areas are growing at healthy rates, although slower than the sunbelt.
Politically, these cities are generally liberal.
Cost of Living: high
Sunbelt Boomtowns:
Examples: Dallas, Atlanta, Houston, Phoenix, Tampa
Derided by many, these cities are the fastest growing. The cost of living and economic opportunity attracting people from all over the US and increasingly the world. Many are currently suffering from overexpansion.
Largely developed after the automobile, these cities have little traditional urbanism. They remain the most suburban of America’s cities. In some cases, the CBDs are home to huge soaring skyscrapers. In all cases, it is basically a 9-5 zone. The economy revolves around suburban office parks. Recently, these cities have made a greater commitment to building up their urban cores with new mixed use districts (Midtown Atl, Uptown Dallas, etc). These cities have changed dramatically in the past 10 yrs, but still lack dense, urban environments. The central core is not the heart of civic life, with most high end hotels and shopping located in affluent edge areas. Long considered cultural backwaters, these cities are increasingly building world class institutions.
Outside of the CBD, the cities are suburban or small town in feel (even close in). Single family homes dominate.
After personifying the suburban lifestyle, most are trying to urbanize. Many have smart growth initiatives and have seen some "new urban" infill. Projects are scattered throughout and not concentrated in the core. These projects constitute a small share of the overall city. Over the long term, these cities may be able to imitate Seattle. However, reaching the urban jewels is practically impossible.
Politically these metro areas tend to be conservative. Recently, some have been showing signs of trending more Democratic. The actually cities themselves are often Democratic, with the somewhat more liberal whites combining w/ heavily Democratic minority population. Small pockets of social liberalism exist.
Latin American hubs:
Examples: LA, Miami
These cities are hard to categorize. They are expensive, cosmopolitan, and glamorous. They are an odd hybrid of sunbelt boomtowns and the urban jewels. These cities are relatively dense by American standards, but dominated by the car. They have walkable nodes, but lack a coherent urban core. Wealthy tend to congregate in single family neighborhoods and have less contact with city center than the elite of the urban jewels. Public transit exists, but is underdeveloped and impractical for many trips. These cities tend to be international in outlook with deep ties cultural and economic ties to the rest of the world, particularly Latin America. Economic powerhouses, these cities are known for their broad and diverse economies. Local economies tend to be bifurcated with small elite and large low wage workforce. Given their large immigrant populations these cities are known for their lower education levels. Although not growing as fast as the sunbelt boomtowns, these cities continue to grow as healthy rates. Politically and culturally these areas tend to be reliably democratic and liberal.
Cost of living: very high
Great you got everything right except for Los Angeles. LA should not even be in that Latin American hub categorey. LA education levels are not low. We have a good amount of schools and some prestiges universities. LA should be in a categorey like suburban jewl are something since it's suburbs are so diverse and dense unlike Miami were it's trashy and nasty. Yes LA has a large Mexican populace, but it's still diverse. LA also is kinda going through a revitalization with trying to make it more dense and urban with future plans for more light rail lines and a larger subway system plus the restoration of downtown and new dense housing/residentail projects across the metro, but of course because of the economy somethings have been delayed.
Last edited by Hollywood Inquirer; 07-09-2009 at 12:39 PM..
Great you got everything right except for Los Angeles. LA should not even be in that Latin American hub catagorey. LA education levels are not low. We have a good amount of schools and some prestiges universities. LA should be in a catagorey like suburban jewl are something since it's suburbs are so diverse and dense unlike Miami were it's trashy and nasty.
Yeah, I agree the Latin American Hub is basically a misc. category. LA and Miami are such weird cities that they are hard to pin down.
Oddly, everyone seems to think the list is generally representative except for with their own city. It probably drives home to point that every city is unique in its own way. That being said I think there are some broad categories that can be useful for thinking about cities.
Yeah, I agree the Latin American Hub is basically a misc. category. LA and Miami are such weird cities that they are hard to pin down.
Oddly, everyone seems to think the list is generally representative except for with their own city. It probably drives home to point that every city is unique in its own way. That being said I think there are some broad categories that can be useful for thinking about cities.
Yeah the OP did a really good job at describing all U.S. Cities I was impressed.
Interesting thread! I would re-categorize Atlanta primarily as a "new urban hub", less a "sunbelt boomtown". And the "Latin American" isn't a very practical category. Miami fits more into "new urban hub", while LA doesn't seem to fit any of the categories.
I would like the culture, atmosphere and history of an Urban Jewel with the friendly, nice people of a Midwest town. Maybe Indianapolis?
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.
