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'm surprised that Shawnee Mission Park isn't part of KC's UA, though, development is contiguous right up to its eastern edge. Are any parks included in UA measurements, or are the all excluded?
According to Wiki's urban area in the US definition:
Urban areas in the United States are defined by the U.S. Census Bureau as contiguous census block groups with a population density of at least 1,000/sq mi (390/km2) with any census block groups around this core having a density of at least 500/sq mi (190/km2).
So from that definition, I would say parks can be included if they're part of a census block over 500/sq mi. Does that sound right?
msa, you are correct. I have seen historic photos of Indy and they did tear down some stuff, but nothing like Louisville. Also keep in mind Indy was not an impressive urban city in the 19th century. Indy grew in the post railroad era as a crossroads of the Midwest. It managed to maneuver these advantages, along with autos, while Louisville was still focused on riverboat traffic. Prohibition crushed the bourbon industry in Louisville, the great flood of 37 ravaged 2/3 of the city like Katrina did to New Orleans, and the outsourcing of manaufacturing by the 1960s and 70s to overseas area was the icing on the cake for Louisville's decline. But then, around the late 90s, the preservation movements started in the 60s in Louisville after urban renewal destroyed much of the city really gained momentum, and that is when the city became an artist's haven.
Louisville merged like Indy's Unigov in 2004, and it has been on the up and up ever since. In the last 2 decades, that has progressed in to a hipster haven, and with the rise of foodies and bourbon, it has became a major regional and even national/ (and starting to be international) tourist destination. Louisville, for example, has at least a half dozen tour companies operating just downtown in the old city. You can catch a trolley tour of the city almost any time of the day, everyday of the week. It is not unusual to see Chinese, or especially, Japanese tourists. Japanese LOVE bourbon. The city is finally getting infrastructure (bridges) that should have been built 50 years ago. Imagine, for example, if 65 was the only major road that went to Carmel or Fishers (imagine no I-69), and there was a one mile wide river separating downtown Indy from Broad ripple, meridian/Kessler, going north to Hamilton County. Without good roads, those areas would be 25% of their size.
Every city over a certain size has local tour companies. Pickled peddler, Indy brew bus, etc. Nothing new or unique. Go to city, use said company.
I get what you are trying to say about infrastructure. Living in Tampa-st Pete only so many ways you can go between the two. But have you ever been on Indy roads? Road infrastructure not its bread and butter but that is typical with snow cities.
Kentucky kingdom opening back up will definitely drive in more tourismvesp from the north as it's not as expensive as kings island and 2 hours closer than holiday world.
This is very misleading...again, for over 100 years, KC and Indy have aggressively been annexing land. Louisville's city limits were, until 2004, less than a half of KC's or Indy's in terms of sq. miles, and by census 2000, Louisville's city in sq miles was probably not even 25% the size of Indy or KC.
Also, if you are including KC, KS in the 1800s, you must include the corollary in Louisville which are Jeffersonville/Clarksville/New Albany, IN. Remember, several of the "Falls Cities" were flooded out: Shippingport, much of Portland, Corn Island, and even parts of Clarksville and the Indiana shore. You really have to understand the history of this area to understand why its a historically grand city, in the vein of New Orleans, who went through some very hard times after a catastrophic event (flood of 1937 worse than Katrina), and who, in the last 15 years since merger, has reinvented itself and become quite hip. Think the "Detroit of the South" if you will?
Jeffrey at urbanohio has done excellent expose on the history of louisville. It is almost like there is a lost louisville it's residents do not even know about!
Kansas City didn't really start annexing a lot of land till the mid 1950's. However the city did annex a large chunk of land in 1909 which doubled the geographic size of the city while adding very few residents or land that could be developed. The areas annexed were the vast Blue River Valley which includes the massive swope park area and surrounding forest along with the Blue River valley. The city also added a huge portion near the Missouri River bottoms east of the city. So the city went from 26 sq miles to 58 sq miles but the developed portion of the city remained the same and all the growth was still occurring within the original city limits.
In 1890, KCMO had 133,000 in only 13 sq miles. In 1900 KCMO had 164,000 in 26 sq miles. Louisville had 205,000 in 21 sq miles. So KC's urban core population density was much higher than stats might show but was still lower than Louisville. However, in the next 30 years, nearly all the population growth in KCMO was still in the original 26 sq miles, not in the newly annexed areas around swope park and the river bottoms. So KCMO's urban density was actually around 8000-10000 plus into the 1940s. Today the numbers are exaggerated even more so with KCMO having so much land area, but the original core of the city is still modestly dense to very dense (by Midwestern standards).
Here are the density stats. Like I said, nearly all the residents in KCMO were in an area closer to 26 sq miles or half the land area of the city. In 1930, KCMO had 400,000 people with the vast majority of them residing in an area under 30 sq miles which is why most of the original city limits of KCMO has areas that historically had population densities of over 10,000 per sq mile and you can tell that today by the housing stock and built environment of the city.
So yes, Louisville was more dense than KC pre 1900, but KC pulled away and was larger and more dense than Louisville in the 1900's. You have to really look at the numbers and actual density of the built up portions of the cities to really compare them. You can't drive around urban KCMO today and honestly think it was a lower density city than any of these others in the early 1900's. KCMO was a very built up city back then and even then they had a lot of extra land throwing off stats.
The Density of KCMO would have easily been at least 75% higher than these stats show because it was really still a city of 26 sq miles, not 58. So you could almost double the densities for KCMO:
1900
Kansas City 13 sq miles 10230
Louisville 21 sq miles 9571
Indianapolis
Nashville
KCMO Annexed 32 sq miles, but growth still mostly occurred in original city limits throwing off stats:
1910
Louisville 21 sq miles 10818
Indianapolis 33 sq miles 7080
Kansas City 58 sq miles 4246
Nashville 17 sq miles 6454
1920
Louisville 22 sq miles 10486
Indianapolis 43 sq miles 7200
Kansas City 58 sq miles 5555
Nashville 18 sq miles 6575
1930
Louisville 36 sq miles 8548
Kansas City 58 sq miles 6822
Indianapolis 54 sq miles 6719
Nashville 26 sq miles 5918
1930
Louisville 36 sq miles 8548
Kansas City 58 sq miles 6812
Indianapolis 54 sq miles 6719
Nashville 26 sq miles 5918
Kansas City didn't really start annexing a lot of land till the mid 1950's. However the city did annex a large chunk of land in 1909 which doubled the geographic size of the city while adding very few residents or land that could be developed. The areas annexed were the vast Blue River Valley which includes the massive swope park area and surrounding forest along with the Blue River valley. The city also added a huge portion near the Missouri River bottoms east of the city. So the city went from 26 sq miles to 58 sq miles but the developed portion of the city remained the same and all the growth was still occurring within the original city limits.
In 1890, KCMO had 133,000 in only 13 sq miles. In 1900 KCMO had 164,000 in 26 sq miles. Louisville had 205,000 in 21 sq miles. So KC's urban core population density was much higher than stats might show but was still lower than Louisville. However, in the next 30 years, nearly all the population growth in KCMO was still in the original 26 sq miles, not in the newly annexed areas around swope park and the river bottoms. So KCMO's urban density was actually around 8000-10000 plus into the 1940s. Today the numbers are exaggerated even more so with KCMO having so much land area, but the original core of the city is still modestly dense to very dense (by Midwestern standards).
Here are the density stats. Like I said, nearly all the residents in KCMO were in an area closer to 26 sq miles or half the land area of the city. In 1930, KCMO had 400,000 people with the vast majority of them residing in an area under 30 sq miles which is why most of the original city limits of KCMO has areas that historically had population densities of over 10,000 per sq mile and you can tell that today by the housing stock and built environment of the city.
So yes, Louisville was more dense than KC pre 1900, but KC pulled away and was larger and more dense than Louisville in the 1900's. You have to really look at the numbers and actual density of the built up portions of the cities to really compare them. You can't drive around urban KCMO today and honestly think it was a lower density city than any of these others in the early 1900's. KCMO was a very built up city back then and even then they had a lot of extra land throwing off stats.
The Density of KCMO would have easily been at least 75% higher than these stats show because it was really still a city of 26 sq miles, not 58. So you could almost double the densities for KCMO:
1900
Kansas City 13 sq miles 10230
Louisville 21 sq miles 9571
Indianapolis
Nashville
KCMO Annexed 32 sq miles, but growth still mostly occurred in original city limits throwing off stats:
1910
Louisville 21 sq miles 10818
Indianapolis 33 sq miles 7080
Kansas City 58 sq miles 4246
Nashville 17 sq miles 6454
1920
Louisville 22 sq miles 10486
Indianapolis 43 sq miles 7200
Kansas City 58 sq miles 5555
Nashville 18 sq miles 6575
1930
Louisville 36 sq miles 8548
Kansas City 58 sq miles 6822
Indianapolis 54 sq miles 6719
Nashville 26 sq miles 5918
1930
Louisville 36 sq miles 8548
Kansas City 58 sq miles 6812
Indianapolis 54 sq miles 6719
Nashville 26 sq miles 5918
Louisville has had some impressive density for quite some time. The 1930 number is significant. That was before the flood of 37, and a couple other major floods thereafter that decimated much of the city's historic housing stock. If you think Louisville has great architecture and urbanity now (it does), you should see photos from then. Nashville's historic low density even in a much smaller area than Louisville, explains while I see the "cool" in the city, I just cannot love it like Louisville. I am an authenticity and architecture snob. How many cities have festivals centered around vernacular housing forms? Here is one celebrating the shotgun house in Louisville. Louisville has the most shotgun homes in America, which is a form of row housing adapted to humid subtropical climates, that made it's way up the river from 18th and 19th century New Orleans (especially since Katrina in NO, Louisville has the most shotguns).
^Louisville looked fantastic. Downtown Nashville had decent low-rise density (sans residential) before the 1970s came along, and neighborhoods were sliced up with interstate highways (the city is still adding lanes to the interstates to accommodate the increased traffic). Nashville is the outlier in this group in terms of development because it largely took off during the automobile age, similar to other New South cities. Nashville never had the urban housing stock (rowhouses, block by block of urban commercial/residential that other southern cities thrived on such as Louisville, Baltimore, and Richmond etc. Nashville looks new because it is new. The few historic buildings that are left are being torn down to make way for residential apartment and office towers. Some little known facts about Nashville in this group.
The Life and Casualty Tower was the tallest skyscraper in the South when completed in 1957.
Nashville is still the only city in this group that has commuter rail. The meager rail line opened in the summer of 2006. For the other cities to be more urban, especially Louisville and Kansas City, that is an embarrassment (and yes I do know about Kansas City's street car and Indianapolis's transit proposals). Take a look at this interesting article showing what has happened to city development in the last 60 years for cities across the U.S. The aerials show the before and after affects of urban renewal and highway development. Cincinnati made my jaw drop.
^Louisville looked fantastic. Downtown Nashville had decent low-rise density (sans residential) before the 1970s came along, and neighborhoods were sliced up with interstate highways (the city is still adding lanes to the interstates to accommodate the increased traffic). Nashville is the outlier in this group in terms of development because it largely took off during the automobile age, similar to other New South cities. Nashville never had the urban housing stock (rowhouses, block by block of urban commercial/residential that other southern cities thrived on such as Louisville, Baltimore, and Richmond etc. Nashville looks new because it is new. The few historic buildings that are left are being torn down to make way for residential apartment and office towers. Some little known facts about Nashville in this group.
The Life and Casualty Tower was the tallest skyscraper in the South when completed in 1957.
Nashville is still the only city in this group that has commuter rail. The meager rail line opened in the summer of 2006. For the other cities to be more urban, especially Louisville and Kansas City, that is an embarrassment (and yes I do know about Kansas City's street car and Indianapolis's transit proposals). Take a look at this interesting article showing what has happened to city development in the last 60 years for cities across the U.S. The aerials show the before and after affects of urban renewal and highway development. Cincinnati made my jaw drop.
^Louisville looked fantastic. Downtown Nashville had decent low-rise density (sans residential) before the 1970s came along, and neighborhoods were sliced up with interstate highways (the city is still adding lanes to the interstates to accommodate the increased traffic). Nashville is the outlier in this group in terms of development because it largely took off during the automobile age, similar to other New South cities. Nashville never had the urban housing stock (rowhouses, block by block of urban commercial/residential that other southern cities thrived on such as Louisville, Baltimore, and Richmond etc. Nashville looks new because it is new. The few historic buildings that are left are being torn down to make way for residential apartment and office towers. Some little known facts about Nashville in this group.
The Life and Casualty Tower was the tallest skyscraper in the South when completed in 1957.
Nashville is still the only city in this group that has commuter rail. The meager rail line opened in the summer of 2006. For the other cities to be more urban, especially Louisville and Kansas City, that is an embarrassment (and yes I do know about Kansas City's street car and Indianapolis's transit proposals). Take a look at this interesting article showing what has happened to city development in the last 60 years for cities across the U.S. The aerials show the before and after affects of urban renewal and highway development. Cincinnati made my jaw drop.
Shakeesa, I agree. And for a "newly built" city like Nashville, there is no newly booming (i.e. last decade) area like the Gulch in the southeast except along FL's coast or midtown ATL. Every time I am in Nashville I see a new tower crane for a high-rise or a midrise at least. If Nashville can keep that up, it will be impressive....however, what I see is a bust. Eventually, millennials will start buying homes. And no city in this region, perhaps outside STL or Cincy, has such an impressive urban housing stock for so cheap as Louisville. In Louisville, you can actually have your urban house in the city and be safe and still have your yard and walk to parks, coffee, etc. And you are already seeing it here. The amount of flippers I am seeing here in Louisville, especially in the shotguns of Germantown or Shelby park, or even the single family century homes of the Highlands or Clifton or Crescent Hill is astounding. So, while Louisville is also building plenty of new high-rise and mid rise infill, the majority of the work is on historic rehabs which are restoring the city closer to its historic density.
Light rail was proposed in Louisville 15 years ago and has failed several times, largely due to the way KY does things. There are still groups working to move it forward.
After all, Louisville had the most advanced transit system in the SE after NO historically. Look at what this city lost. It had an elevated train system like Chicago!
Louisville had other lines too! The above was the last surviving station. When I first moved to the city for a brief stint a few years back, I saw it and thought, man, this is a southern mini chicago.
You guys have any threads showing all the projects in Louisville, Indy or Nashville?
I put the link together below for KC, but I would like to see what's going on in the other towns. I have follwed much of what Nashville has been doing, but not such much in Indy and Louisville.
You guys have any threads showing all the projects in Louisville, Indy or Nashville?
I put the link together below for KC, but I would like to see what's going on in the other towns. I have follwed much of what Nashville has been doing, but not such much in Indy and Louisville.
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.
