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 most would agree that both the old school (Cleveland, Cincinnati, St Louis, and Pittsburgh) and the new school (Denver, Portland, Minneapolis, and Seattle) offer many options for urban living. What's interesting is that they are so different. The old school cities matured much earlier and are characterized by a markedly different built environment. They have all had struggles to varying degrees with white flight and urban decay but are working to turn the corner and reinvest in their respective cores. The new school cities have benefited greatly from America's "urban renaissance" and are characterized by large amounts of newer building stock.
Evaluate the cities both between the groups and against each other in the following categories.
Downtown Urban Living - Which group offers the best downtown living options?
Urban Neighborhoods - Which group has better in city neighborhoods for urban living?
Suburbs - Which group offers better urban options in the suburbs?
Walkability - Which group is more walkable?
Transit - Which group has better Transit? (Bus/Rail/Bike etc)
Vibrancy - Which group is teeming with life?
Restaurants/Nightlife - Where are the better and more plentiful restaurant and nightlife options
Shopping - Which group has better shopping for urban residents?
Employment/Economy - Which group has better employment in their urban areas?
Architecture - Which group looks better?
Attractions/Amenities - Which group offers the most for its urban residents?
Character - Which group has more character?
Diversity - Which group is more diverse, both in people and urban living experience?
Kind of a tie for me but I voted for new school mainly because I really don't care about the cities you listed for old school with the exception of St. Louis. Any way here's my 2 pennies:
Downtown Urban Living - I slightly give the edge to New School because come on downtown Seattle is awesome and the downtowns of the Twin Cities and Denver are pretty cool as well
Urban Neighborhoods - Sorry old school wins this one. You just can't beat the urban neighborhoods in St. Louis, Pittsburgh, and Cleveland
Suburbs - Old School. Cities like Portland and especially Denver lose their "urbanity" once you get away from the downtown core and become pretty suburban.
Walkability - Old School
Transit - Tie I think both are decent for the most part
Vibrancy - Tie
Restaurants/Nightlife - New School
Shopping - Tie
Employment/Economy - Ehhhh tie
Architecture - Old school Denver can't compete with St. Louis's architecture (However Denver has a cooler looking airport hehe)
Attractions/Amenities - Tie
Character - Old School
Diversity - New School is more diverse. Cities like St. Louis and Cincinnati is pretty much just black and white people. Seattle has Asians. Denver has Hispanics. Minneapolis has Somalians, etc.
I find your choices of cities to be rather interesting. The "New School" cities are probably the "oldest seeming" of the newer cities in the U.S. Denver, Portland, Seattle, and Minneapolis are fairly dense, more concentrated, and less sprawling than other "new school" cities like Houston, Phoenix, or even Los Angeles to a certain extent. Those cities have a good combination of eastern planing and western newness. They are probably my favorite cities west of the Mississippi. On the flip side, the "old school" cities you listed are very much the classic "rust belt cities" that have been through extended periods of urban decay due to many socioeconomic reasons. Pittsburgh is, however, a shining example of a city that has handled this well, diversifying its economy and attracting people and businesses once again, in large part due to the universities (Pitt and Carnegie Mellon) within the city. I hear Cincinatti is getting there too. Still, I wouldn't necessarily call those Industrial-Era cities "old school" as I would New York, Boston, Philadelphia, or Baltimore, the cities that have been around since the colonial era. I just think that the choice of cities was rather interesting, set up in a way that the "Old School" doesn't even stand a chance against the best of the "New School". My hand was forced to vote New School on this one.
Still, I wouldn't necessarily call those Industrial-Era cities "old school" as I would New York, Boston, Philadelphia, or Baltimore, the cities that have been around since the colonial era. I just think that the choice of cities was rather interesting, set up in a way that the "Old School" doesn't even stand a chance against the best of the "New School". My hand was forced to vote New School on this one.
The problem is that New York, Boston, and Philly are much bigger so it wouldn't have been fair in that direction either. I'm trying to think of some older cities that are in the same weight class as the new school ones and aren't classic rust belt. All I can come up with is New Orleans which has its' own set of issues.
I don't really think of Denver, Portland, Seattle, and Minneapolis as "New School" cities as their initial growth spurts happened around the turn of the last century from about 1890-1930. Minneapolis was already a top 20 city in population by 1890. Most of the popular neighborhoods in these cities are redevelopment from older neighborhoods built in this time-frame--the older core neighborhoods and streetcar suburbs with old commercial strips and pre-ranch homes are what the popular areas to live. I think of New School cities as the ones that really first boomed in the post-World War II era--the Sun Belt cities.
In part these cities benefited by not being afflicted by the problems of the Rust Belt as much--including massive white flight. Also places like Seattle and Portland and Minneapolis and Denver were better suited for a post-industrial age as they weren't as stuck relying on certain industrial sectors that were losing jobs from the 1970s on... That's why gentrification came easier to these places--plus the West became a more popular location due to the outdoor lifestyle.
I'm a sucker for the architecture and charm of the old school. Though those cities aren't in their brightest hour right now, they are improving and IMO they have more potential post-revitalization than the newer cities that lack the cultural idiosyncrasies and dense built environments of awesome architecture. Basically, the old cities have things the new cities never will, and anything the new cities have the old can always pick up. The old school has a structural long-term advantage.
I don't really think of Denver, Portland, Seattle, and Minneapolis as "New School" cities as their initial growth spurts happened around the turn of the last century from about 1890-1930. Minneapolis was already a top 20 city in population by 1890. Most of the popular neighborhoods in these cities are redevelopment from older neighborhoods built in this time-frame--the older core neighborhoods and streetcar suburbs with old commercial strips and pre-ranch homes are what the popular areas to live. I think of New School cities as the ones that really first boomed in the post-World War II era--the Sun Belt cities.
In part these cities benefited by not being afflicted by the problems of the Rust Belt as much--including massive white flight. Also places like Seattle and Portland and Minneapolis and Denver were better suited for a post-industrial age as they weren't as stuck relying on certain industrial sectors that were losing jobs from the 1970s on... That's why gentrification came easier to these places--plus the West became a more popular location due to the outdoor lifestyle.
That is a good point. Minneapolis rose at the same time as Detroit and only a couple decades after Cleveland, Chicago and Milwaukee. The main difference is that it never went through a period of decline. I was walking around, taking pictures in Minneapolis yesterday, the area I was in has a density of about 20,000 ppsm which is higher than anything in the Midwest outside of Chicago and Milwaukee. I'm not sure I would call this "new", much of the inner south side looks like this:
I don't really think of Denver, Portland, Seattle, and Minneapolis as "New School" cities as their initial growth spurts happened around the turn of the last century from about 1890-1930. Minneapolis was already a top 20 city in population by 1890. Most of the popular neighborhoods in these cities are redevelopment from older neighborhoods built in this time-frame--the older core neighborhoods and streetcar suburbs with old commercial strips and pre-ranch homes are what the popular areas to live. I think of New School cities as the ones that really first boomed in the post-World War II era--the Sun Belt cities.
In part these cities benefited by not being afflicted by the problems of the Rust Belt as much--including massive white flight. Also places like Seattle and Portland and Minneapolis and Denver were better suited for a post-industrial age as they weren't as stuck relying on certain industrial sectors that were losing jobs from the 1970s on... That's why gentrification came easier to these places--plus the West became a more popular location due to the outdoor lifestyle.
Cincinnati, St Louis, and Cleveland were all top 10 cities in 1900. Some combination of 3 of the 4 cities I listed under "old school" remained in the top 10 at least until 1940. Cleveland and St Louis were still top 10 as of 1960. The historic neighborhoods of those cities, particularly St Louis and Pittsburgh are quite expansive compared to the "new cites." Even Cincinnati has a pretty impressive historic core. You are right about the redevelopment though, and that was my point. Comparing urban living in the primarily newer redeveloped historic areas of the "new cities" to the largely intact historic areas of the "old cities."
I'm a sucker for the architecture and charm of the old school. Though those cities aren't in their brightest hour right now, they are improving and IMO they have more potential post-revitalization than the newer cities that lack the cultural idiosyncrasies and dense built environments of awesome architecture. Basically, the old cities have things the new cities never will, and anything the new cities have the old can always pick up. The old school has a structural long-term advantage.
I agree 100%. Any city can build new towers and planned communities and all of the things that the new school cities have, but those places will never have the gritty, charming, and classically urban feel of the old school. All it would take is for the old school cities to experience the same levels of population growth that the new school has seen and they would become much more desirable than the current new school almost overnight due to having old AND new. The infrastructure is already there. All we'd need to do would be to expand on it.
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.
