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.
Great question by the OP, and based on the answers I've seen so far, it sounds like the answer is "no". However, "major revitalization" is a relative term, so cities like Cleveland or Detroit that are experiencing a "renaissance" right now are growing MUCH more slowly than the "it" cities on the coasts and in the Sun Belt, but relative to where these cities were for the past 40 years, the growth is probably MORE robust than almost any of the aforementioned cities.
So, in short, it seems like there are no major cities that are not experiencing a major revitalization, when relativity is factored in.
Great question by the OP, and based on the answers I've seen so far, it sounds like the answer is "no". However, "major revitalization" is a relative term, so cities like Cleveland or Detroit that are experiencing a "renaissance" right now are growing MUCH more slowly than the "it" cities on the coasts and in the Sun Belt, but relative to where these cities were for the past 40 years, the growth is probably MORE robust than almost any of the aforementioned cities.
So, in short, it seems like there are no major cities that are not experiencing a major revitalization, when relativity is factored in.
I'd argue that cities like Detroit and Cleveland, although experiencing a revitalization, are not experiencing a major one, insofar as redevelopment of Downtown to include more residential elements and gentrification of the inner ring of neighborhoods is not yet enough to offset the decline in population in outer neighborhoods.
Of course, population growth/decline isn't the be all end all of revitalization. Individual neighborhoods can grow in desirability while declining in population if low-income families are displaced by single high earners. In theory the same process can happen on a city-wide basis, but it seldom does because cities as a whole tend to have old under-utilized industrial properties where overall population density can increase. More notably, cities can see a population increase without any gentrification to speak of if they are in an area which captures a lot of immigrants, there is a high birth rate, or if they are still annexing suburban land. Hartford and Stockton, for example, are both growing cities, but no one would say they have more than a whiff of gentrification.
I didn't perceive any kind of revitalization in San Antonio or Albuquerque when I was there a couple years back. They weren't dying by any means, but it seemed like the growth was happening at the fringes.
Which major cities are not experiencing a major revitalization right now? Let's define major as >~1 million MSA (can give or take a bit).
All over the nation the younger millennial generation is moving back into urban areas and making them vibrant and fashionable again -- even areas like Detroit and Pittsburgh that people thought would never come back.
What major cities are not seeing this major change? I don't necessarily mean just the cities that are continuing to decline (although they would apply too, but also those that are just not seeing a ton of growth and an influx of young white professionals and families.
Pittsburgh and Detroit have young, urban loving millennials moving into them, but I wouldn't say they're experiencing major revitalization. That may actually be an acceptable term relative to the decades-long stagnation they've experienced but both cities aren't even growing in population yet. Philly's experiencing more growth I think but I wouldn't even call that anything major.
Great question by the OP, and based on the answers I've seen so far, it sounds like the answer is "no". However, "major revitalization" is a relative term, so cities like Cleveland or Detroit that are experiencing a "renaissance" right now are growing MUCH more slowly than the "it" cities on the coasts and in the Sun Belt, but relative to where these cities were for the past 40 years, the growth is probably MORE robust than almost any of the aforementioned cities.
So, in short, it seems like there are no major cities that are not experiencing a major revitalization, when relativity is factored in.
I see this is a four-year-old thread that got kicked back up, but this still remains the best answer. Every major city is seeing revitalization, some are doing it in a different way.
For Cleveland (and Detroit), it may not be 4-5 crains in the sky (though I believe both cities do have at least one ... know Cleveland had two a couple months ago) because those cities already had an inventory of massive old buildings that went empty and are now are being redeveloped, or have already been redeveloped.
Take 925 Euclid in Cleveland, for example. It's one of the most immaculate buildings in the USA (at the time it was originally built, it was either the largest, or at least top 5 largest, buildings in the world at something like 1.2 million square feet ... "only" 20 stories but on a massive footprint). That's essentially the same square footage of the 947-foot Key Tower (also in Cleveland). You won't see a tower crain 900 feet in the air, so there isn't much visual evidence of what is being done there.
And Cleveland, like Detroit, has had dozens of other older buildings that have also been redeveloped that hasn't added anything new to the skyline, but has done just as much as new construction in terms of vibrancy.
Plus, in terms of new construction, Cleveland has pretty much had at least one tower crane at all times for a 300-plus foot building at all times since 2010 when the Ernst and Young building started; then the 320-foot downtown Hilton; then the 355-foot Beacon apartment tower which is being wrapped up; then the 400-foot Lumen apartment tower which is underway; then hopefully NuCLEus will finally break ground, and being that it has been scaled back from a 650 foot tower and a smaller second tower to two 30-story towers, probably has a real chance of breaking ground soon; then by the time that wraps up a very good chance that Sherwin-Williams will be breaking ground on a new 500-foot-plus new corporate headquarters.
So, until Sherwin-Williams moves forward on a new headquarters, probably won't see anything skyline altering, but that doesn't mean that there hasn't been a massive amount of construction going on.
I see this is a four-year-old thread that got kicked back up, but this still remains the best answer. Every major city is seeing revitalization, some are doing it in a different way.
For Cleveland (and Detroit), it may not be 4-5 crains in the sky (though I believe both cities do have at least one ... know Cleveland had two a couple months ago) because those cities already had an inventory of massive old buildings that went empty and are now are being redeveloped, or have already been redeveloped.
Take 925 Euclid in Cleveland, for example. It's one of the most immaculate buildings in the USA (at the time it was originally built, it was either the largest, or at least top 5 largest, buildings in the world at something like 1.2 million square feet ... "only" 20 stories but on a massive footprint). That's essentially the same square footage of the 947-foot Key Tower (also in Cleveland). You won't see a tower crain 900 feet in the air, so there isn't much visual evidence of what is being done there.
And Cleveland, like Detroit, has had dozens of other older buildings that have also been redeveloped that hasn't added anything new to the skyline, but has done just as much as new construction in terms of vibrancy.
Plus, in terms of new construction, Cleveland has pretty much had at least one tower crane at all times for a 300-plus foot building at all times since 2010 when the Ernst and Young building started; then the 320-foot downtown Hilton; then the 355-foot Beacon apartment tower which is being wrapped up; then the 400-foot Lumen apartment tower which is underway; then hopefully NuCLEus will finally break ground, and being that it has been scaled back from a 650 foot tower and a smaller second tower to two 30-story towers, probably has a real chance of breaking ground soon; then by the time that wraps up a very good chance that Sherwin-Williams will be breaking ground on a new 500-foot-plus new corporate headquarters.
So, until Sherwin-Williams moves forward on a new headquarters, probably won't see anything skyline altering, but that doesn't mean that there hasn't been a massive amount of construction going on.
You’re kind of proving his point. “A Building here, Renovation there” is relatively major for Cleveland. There are cities like Charlotte or Austin where you notice what was there 15 years ago, not what has changed in 15 years.
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.
