which city do you think would be really good if it had more people? (apartment, neighborhood)

[ScranBarre]

Scranton. This city originally housed 150,000 residents and was the 36th-largest city in our nation. It was also amongst the wealthiest in the nation in the early half of the 1900s due to the rich anthracite coal veins that ran beneath the valley floor. While vestiges of its former successes still remain with the presence of historic mansions in a few neighborhoods, much of the growth has now been in the surrounding suburbs, causing the city's population to nosedive to a present population of around 72,000. Thankfully urban blight is kept at a minimum in the city, as most cities that are currently at only half of their peak populations could look a hell of a lot worse. Nevertheless, with the influx of New Yorkers and New Jerseyans moving to the metropolitan area as of late, it would serve the city well to capitalize upon these newer upper-middle-class residents by offering them residency in hip new downtown lofts, where they could easily walk to and patronize existing city businesses and spawn the development of additional businesses (a new bookstore is actually opening downtown as I speak). The city is re-establishing itself as a cultural mecca with artsy events like "First Fridays", "Cocktails in the City", "Everhart in the Dark", etc., and increasing the population density downtown can only help to foster more of an "urban" feel to the city. In my personal opinion, Scranton, being only two hours from both NYC and Philly, is poised for a major rebirth very soon and is amongst the most "up-and-coming" cities in the nation as a result.

[ajf131]

Correction to one of my previous posts above...need to add that Chicago and Los Angeles were in the 1930s right behind New York. Initally though, St. Louis was much larger than Chicago or as large, during the 1800s. But throughout the first half of the 20th city, St. Louis, Pittsburgh and Cleveland were among the top ten largest cities in the United States. Then their populations largely retreated to their suburban areas.

[M TYPE X]

I would be happy if Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, and St Louis were still vibrant.

[BRIAN77008]

St. Louis also hosted the Olympics in 1904 along with the World's Fair. Not many cities in the U.S. can say that.

[Nafster]

Chicago??? It doesn't need more people. There's plenty to do already!!! I found just as much stuff to do in Chicago as NYC. Chicago has 10 million people living in it's metropolitan area and it continues to boom... we're set for a while.

If Bloomington, Indiana was the size of Fort Wayne, then that would be neat!!!

[ajf131]

Originally Posted by Nafster

Chicago??? It doesn't need more people. There's plenty to do already!!! I found just as much stuff to do in Chicago as NYC. Chicago has 10 million people living in it's metropolitan area and it continues to boom... we're set for a while.

If Bloomington, Indiana was the size of Fort Wayne, then that would be neat!!!

LOL at Chicago needing more people. In its city limits alone, Chicago is larger than just about every metropolitan area in the Midwest, including the St. Louis and Cleveland metropolitan areas. It has nearly 3 million in its city limits alone.

[KerrTown]

Houston. The City should jump up to 3 million or more to make it undisputedly the 4th largest city. I'd like the Metro area to have enough people to make it the undisputed 4th largest metro area. This would make Houston America's 4th city behind NYC, LA, and Chicago.

[mpope409]

Originally Posted by KerrTown

Houston. The City should jump up to 3 million or more to make it undisputedly the 4th largest city. I'd like the Metro area to have enough people to make it the undisputed 4th largest metro area. This would make Houston America's 4th city behind NYC, LA, and Chicago.

Forget metro. I say we fight for the title now.

[ScranBarre]

Originally Posted by mpope409

Forget metro. I say we fight for the title now.

Can I be the referee? Who would the opponent be---Philadelphia or Phoenix?

[Stagger Lee]

Why is pittsburgh not vibrant anymore? Having 600,000 people in the size of Pittsburgh (55 sq miles) is a lot of people. When Pittsburgh was at its largest in the industrial age it was a horrible place to live: Overcrowded, polluted, dirty, smokey, etc. Now it is very livable, nice, and the most clean it ever was. The cities over 600,000 people now are all mostley over (150 sq miles), except for San Fran and Boston. No other cities will be like San Fran and Boston though, which are very tight compact, and never went through the industrail times. Being overcrowded really does not mean "vibrant".