which city do you think would be really good if it had more people?

[londonbarcelona]

Originally Posted by 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".

Who said it wasn't vibrant? That wasn't my impression. It's plugging along, but it would be great if there were even more people in it. You know the old saying, "the more the merrier!"

[darstar]

Originally Posted by Sparks

Pittsburgh would be doing much better if it had more republican people.

Then we could keep an eye on em ? Hi ho, lets round them all up and build a fence. Turn out all the lights, and feed them , the same stuff they have been trying to get the rest of us to eat !

[bellafinzi]

Syracuse...city and suburbs. I've always believed if the Syracuse area had a population boom the region would improve drastically. Right now, there are eyesores right next door to beautifully maintained properties. More people = better looking city neighborhoods. More people = less run down rural hick towns.

[darstar]

The city that would benefit the most by having more people, is the city that is the least.
Anchorage. Its hard to believe , that a place with only 280,000 can have such diversification, rural outback , so close , yet , downtown services that rival anywhere else in the US. Just think what they could do with a larger population. ( they have lost some these past few years, at least at the rate they were going ). The area ( metro incorporated Anchorage), is larger than the state of RI.

[Minnehahapolitan]

Originally Posted by 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".

The density of San Francisco and Boston were actually pretty common. Pittsburgh, Newark, Saint Louis, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, et. cetera. They were dirty because of the heavy pollution from industry, not because of alot of people. Why can't cities be like Boston and San Francisco? Pittsburgh was a hundred years ago. But to really make my point, I think I should explain the difference between overcrowded and dense. Overcrowded is a Chicago slum with a family to a small apartment without running water. Bangladesh is overcrowded because its resources cannot support its population. New York (and Boston, and San Francisco) is just dense, people can still live comfortably (albeit in smaller quarters), they have kitchens, and plumbing and heating. San Francisco, even for its density (12,000/mile), has some pretty quiet areas. The whole city isn't dense, even with its density.
Now Pittsburgh will never have 2 million people, but I think they could fit 500,000 or 600,000 again. The downtown land mass in Pittsburgh is similar, so it can take a similar population. The city neighborhoods aren't any less dense, it too can take more people. You can make the best use of a great city, and still have the conveniences. A win-win, IMO.
---Minnehahapolitan

[darstar]

Originally Posted by Minnehahapolitan

The density of San Francisco and Boston were actually pretty common. Pittsburgh, Newark, Saint Louis, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, et. cetera. They were dirty because of the heavy pollution from industry, not because of alot of people. Why can't cities be like Boston and San Francisco? Pittsburgh was a hundred years ago. But to really make my point, I think I should explain the difference between overcrowded and dense. Overcrowded is a Chicago slum with a family to a small apartment without running water. Bangladesh is overcrowded because its resources cannot support its population. New York (and Boston, and San Francisco) is just dense, people can still live comfortably (albeit in smaller quarters), they have kitchens, and plumbing and heating. San Francisco, even for its density (12,000/mile), has some pretty quiet areas. The whole city isn't dense, even with its density.
Now Pittsburgh will never have 2 million people, but I think they could fit 500,000 or 600,000 again. The downtown land mass in Pittsburgh is similar, so it can take a similar population. The city neighborhoods aren't any less dense, it too can take more people. You can make the best use of a great city, and still have the conveniences. A win-win, IMO.
---Minnehahapolitan

These places should all take a lesson from northern Europe.Talk about dense,and , they somehow make it work, with a much smaller land mass.

[happymom4]

Originally Posted by mpope409

Atlanta would be an even greater city if it was more populous and more diverse.

yikes, really? I think it's OVERCROWDED...

[chitownwarrior]

St. Louis totally. It was built for a lot of people and has the potential.

I DONT think Chicago would benefit. I think Chicago has too many people.

Detroit and Cleveland.

[Minnehahapolitan]

Originally Posted by darstar

These places should all take a lesson from northern Europe.Talk about dense,and , they somehow make it work, with a much smaller land mass.

Exactly. Until suburbanization, et. cetera. There wasn't much difference between the US and the British parts of Europe. They were designed by the same people. People add tacky names, or add a "u" to the word color, et. cetera in order to make it seem more European, well. We had it all here. More people in the Northeast, South and Midwest would make it inherently more European: with the benefits of better infrastructure, quality of life, sustainability, et. cetera. Thats my 2c.

[bchris02]

Chicago doesn't need more people. LOL at the OP for saying that. Its a healthy city with tons to do as is Houston. Houston needs mass transit before they have too much more growth, the traffic there is HORRID.

As for cities that need more people, I would say Detroit tops the list. That city once had 1.9 million and is now down to 800,000 and falling. The last grocery chain recently pulled out of the area. I was watching a documentary that said it is easier to buy illegal drugs in Detroit than fresh produce. How sad is that?

Another one I say is Little Rock. Little Rock is on the verge of actually being something but just doesn't have enough people to make it happen.