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.
2014 Metro GDP, in Millions
St. Louis: $149,951
Indianapolis: $125,864
Cleveland: $124,609
Kansas City: $121,638
Cincinnati: $121,407
Columbus: $117,824
Milwaukee: $97,307
Omaha: $57,885
Grand Rapids: $51,921
Madison: $44,071
Wichita: $30,267
2010-2014 Total Growth, in Millions
Columbus: +$21,324
Cincinnati: +$17,287
St. Louis: +$15,661
Cleveland: +$15,419
Indianapolis: +$14,921
Kansas City: +$14,227
Grand Rapids: +$10,828
Milwaukee: +$10,528
Omaha: +$9,910
Madison: +$6,652
Wichita: +$2,118
Per-Capita GDP 2014, in Dollars
Madison: $63,910
Omaha: $58,302
Indianapolis: $58,117
Milwaukee: $57,279
Cleveland: $55,128
Columbus: $54,193
Kansas City: $54,123
Cincinnati: $51,768
St. Louis: $48,885
Grand Rapids: $46,672
Wichita: $42,984
2010-2014 Per-Capita GDP Change, in Dollars
Grand Rapids: +$5,272
Columbus: +$4,052
Omaha: +$3,520
Cincinnati: +$3,182
Cleveland: +$3,179
Madison: +$2,725
Milwaukee: +$1,838
St. Louis: +$1,368
Kansas City: +$1,221
Indianapolis: -$113
Wichita: -$856
Make of these numbers what you will.
The Indianapolis metro GDP per capita in 2014 was actually $63,849 ($125,864,000,000÷1,971,274=$63,849) Its 2010 metro GDP per capita was $58,771 ($110,943,000,000÷1,887,722=$58,771) That means the change in its GDP per capita was actually plus $5,078 from 2010 to 2014.
The OP included Louisville Buffalo Pittsburgh etc. They are generically Midwest with each having shades of south, north east, etc or close enough to it. Do you decide how we rewrite someones's thread?
It is convenient to leave Louisville out of the discussion since it has the fastest growing immigrant population in the USA...Columbus is not far behind:
"Louisville has emerged as one of the hottest urban centers for immigrants in recent years. Its foreign-born population rose an estimated 42 percent between 2009 and 2014, more than in any other jurisdiction with at least a half-million residents."
The posts on CD are all the same...always someone trying to prove that because their city has this great city legacy from 100 years ago, that they are doing better than the ones that have reinvented themselves and are successfully attracting residents in the 21st century.
In the city limits, which is what this thread speaks of, Cleveland actually LOST around 3000 foreign residents from 09-14. St Louis lost about 1000 people.
Columbus gained 20,000 in that same time frame! Indianapolis gained 18,000. Louisville gained 12,000. Even Cincinnati, which has the smallest city limits of these 4, gained 2,000.
This illustrates the undeniable fact that the most successful cities in the Midwest are at its southern terminus, namely, the lower Ohio Valley, and this only excels as you enter the Tennessee Valley. If these rust belt folks would get out and travel more, they would see it clear as day! Look at the construction and cranes in a city like Louisville vs St Louis....and then go to Nashville and see even more...
Sorry, but those cities are not "generically Midwest" or Midwest at all, neither culturally nor officially designated. Louisville is South, Pittsburgh and Buffalo are Northeast. It's pretty much always been that way and not something I personally made up. But really, including an ACTUAL Midwestern city shouldn't be controversial.
The Lousiville metro had 69,830 foreign-born residents in 2014, ranking it 8th in total behind Columbus, KC, Indy, St. Louis, Cleveland, Milwaukee and Cincinnati. That total represented 5.52% of the total metro population, ranking it at at tie for 10th place behind Des Moines, Wichita, Columbus, Milwaukee, Omaha, Madison, Grand Rapids, Indy and KC. Not exactly an impressive showing, especially when you remember that I did the numbers for 2010-2014, not 2009-2014, so this is giving Louisville an extra year advantage over the others. Louisville did have a good growth rate over those 5 years, though. Its 22,400 over 5 years is at least comparable to Grand Rapids and Columbus, but again, fails to be at the top spot. Only its % growth is impressive, if only because it started at a pretty low number. So yeah, not as pretty on the surface as it might appear.
This is not really a knock against Louisville, but really a knock against hyperbole. Obviously everyone has their own biases and perceptions about what a city is all about, but too often those perceptions are just factually wrong and they shouldn't go uncorrected.
According to the US Census estimates, Cleveland did NOT lose foreign-born population 2009-2014 or 2010-2014. It gained at one of the highest totals of the bunch. Its METRO did lose, however. St. Louis gained in both the city and metro. I am not sure what accounts for the differences between that link and the real census numbers.
The Indianapolis metro GDP per capita in 2014 was actually $63,849 ($125,864,000,000÷1,971,274=$63,849) Its 2010 metro GDP per capita was $58,771 ($110,943,000,000÷1,887,722=$58,771) That means the change in its GDP per capita was actually plus $5,078 from 2010 to 2014.
1.) Pittsburgh: Cleveland's boosters on here have a very unrealistic view of certain things about THEIR city relative to OTHER cities. One of those things would be skylines. Pittsburgh INARGUABLY has the most impressive skyline out of the three cities. St. Louis would be boring without the assistance of the Gateway Arch, and we struggled to find the "power" in Cleveland's skyline relative to the size of its metropolitan area, even when viewing it from the much-lauded perspectives of Lakewood's lakefront park or the roof of the President Garfield Tomb in Lake View Cemetery. Pittsburgh is just a city of 300,000 within a metropolitan area of less than 2.5 million, yet its skyline rivals a city/metropolitan area twice the size. The Key Tower is taller than the U.S. Steel Tower. Ok. Whoop-de-doo. After that being taken into consideration which city has the larger AND more diverse (in terms of height, architectural design, age, and character) skyline? Pittsburgh. PNC Park is often rated as one of the nation's best MLB parks due to its impressive skyline views. Pittsburgh's city proper knocks the wind out of the sails out of the city propers of either Cleveland OR St. Louis when it comes to cosmopolitan atmosphere outside of Downtown. Show me what part of the city proper of Cleveland or St. Louis could rival Shadyside, Squirrel Hill, the South Side, Bloomfield, Lawrenceville, the Strip District, the Mexican War Streets, Highland Park, Polish Hill, Friendship, or Mt. Washington. Ohio City? Nice? Sure. Small? You betcha! The West Side Market is impressive in Ohio City, but it's pretty much just taking Pittsburgh's entire Strip District marketplace scene on the weekends and shoving it under one (admittedly impressively historic) roof instead of scattering it about an uninterrupted stretch of numerous city blocks.
2.) Cleveland: The Rock 'n Roll Hall of Fame? Awesome architectural design and truly incredible exhibits. I can't think of one individual museum in Pittsburgh that would have a broader international appeal unless you really wanted to see our Andy Warhol Museum. Downtown Cleveland's Euclid Avenue between Public Square and Playhouse Square features a lot of impressive architecture, interesting public spaces (including a massive chandelier suspended over the street), AND the most impressive urban grocery store I've ever visited, including NYC, Heinen's. Ohio City is cool, as I said, but the way the Cleveland boosters pump it up on here you'd think you were in Greenwich Village in NYC or at least Pittsburgh's South Side or Shadyside when it is VERY underwhelming compared to the "fluff" those on here infuse it with. It is home to the West Side Market and Great Lakes Brewing, along with a great coffeehouse, ice cream parlor, cool taqueria, and a few other businesses. It DOES seem like the epicenter of the new "hip" Cleveland scene, but it's so small relative to the sheer size of the city proper and entire metropolitan area that it doesn't impress me in the least. Tremont is another Cleveland neighborhood that its boosters boast about as being cosmopolitan, hip, trendy, amazing, etc., but I just don't see it. Same with Detroit-Shoreway. I don't see how any of those neighborhoods can be considered "better" than Squirrel Hill, Shadyside, or the South Side in Pittsburgh in terms of walkability, urbanity, etc. I love Cleveland overall, but some of the boosters on here really do a disservice when they inflate the reputations of totally unremarkable neighborhoods because there is arguably more vitality in many of its streetcar suburbs than in the city proper neighborhoods (outside Downtown) whereas Pittsburgh's vitality is mostly in its largely intact URBAN neighborhoods while Metro Pittsburgh's suburbs, save for Mt. Lebanon, largelysuck due to poor long-range urban planning.
3.) Downtown St. Louis is cool and feels cosmopolitan, albeit with a somewhat underwhelming skyline considering it anchors a large metropolitan area (the edge city of Clayton with its own competing skyline can be blamed for this). Soulard is an awesome neighborhood with a great eponymous public market space. The Cathedral Basilica of St. Louis is GORGEOUS and is right up there with the Cathedral in St. Paul for being among one of my favorite religious institutional buildings in the U.S. The French-inspired architecture of Lafayette Square gives a very unique European flair to that part of the city. St. Louis gives Pittsburgh a run for its money in terms of architecture and built environment whereas Cleveland destroyed too much of its historic architecture over the years to really compare favorably with either city.
Also, you cannot discount the streetcar suburb of Cleveland Heights because it is right next to University Circle and Little Italy. The Cedar-Fairmont district is only a mile from Little Italy.
Show me what part of the city proper of Cleveland or St. Louis could rival Shadyside, Squirrel Hill, the South Side, Bloomfield, Lawrenceville, the Strip District, the Mexican War Streets, Highland Park, Polish Hill, Friendship, or Mt. Washington.
I wonder if you've visited these cities. I'll let the Clevelanders respond on behalf of their own city, but when it comes to St. Louis, I honestly wonder if you've ever been here and if so, whether you ventured beyond downtown proper. Some neighborhoods you may want to check out next time you're in Saint Louis, each with its own distinctive character (some cosmopolitan, others not but still very cool). The Central West End in particular, I would argue is the most cosmopolitan urban neighborhood in the Midwest outside Chicago:
City proper (excluding downtown):
Central West End
Tower Grove East/South (S. Grand district)
Lafayette Square
Soulard
Delmar Loop
Benton Park
Cherokee Street (Benton Park West/Gravois Park)
The Hill (Little Italy)
Midtown/Grand Center
Skinker-DeBaliviere
Old North St. Louis
Forest Park Southeast (aka The Grove)
Shaw
Compton Heights
Southwest Garden
Southampton
Fox Park
Holly Hills
Bevo Mill
St. Louis Hills
Dogtown
Inner-ring suburbs worth checking out:
University City
Clayton
Richmond Heights
Maplewood
Please....this is turning into a Cleveland/St. Louis "look at me" thread. I really don't know if anyone cares, if they don't live in Cleveland or St. Louis. You're taking over, when the thread just might die a natural death....what more is there to say? Now, we're showing pictures and suggesting neighborhoods to check out?
I don't know why this thread has turned into what it has. Neither Cleveland nor St Louis nor Pittsburgh are international at all. Nice cities and fun to visit, but not international nor multicultural.
Please....this is turning into a Cleveland/St. Louis "look at me" thread. I really don't know if anyone cares, if they don't live in Cleveland or St. Louis. You're taking over, when the thread just might die a natural death....what more is there to say? Now, we're showing pictures and suggesting neighborhoods to check out?
lol, you're right. Just responding to some misinformation, that's all.
Please....this is turning into a Cleveland/St. Louis "look at me" thread. I really don't know if anyone cares, if they don't live in Cleveland or St. Louis. You're taking over, when the thread just might die a natural death....what more is there to say? Now, we're showing pictures and suggesting neighborhoods to check out?
Come now though.. We're all likely somewhat of nerds since we're on this forum anyways.. What harm is there in debating meaningless things like whether 4 random
Midwestern cities are more well known based on various things, or describing the dozens of walkable and semi-walkable areas in said cities? : p
I thought about crafting a response with evidence to mjlo's last post, but have multiple teaching interviews in the am, so, #priorities.
I would use the direct source for GDP numbers rather than Wiki, if I were you.
Um, those are the numbers from the BEA. You even used the same correct overall 2014 GDP figure that I used, but you calculated the per capita figure wrong, either purposely or in error. So if you quarrel with my numbers then you quarrel with one of your own as well. And the Wikipedia article I cited shows the 2010 GDP figure in 2014 dollars, so that is correct as well.
Here's the actual PDF report straight from the BEA, so no roundabout-way links from me:
As you can see, the official 2014 metro GDP report has the exact same overall 2014 number that you, I and Wikipedia gave. And it has the exact same 2010 number that I and Wikipedia gave.
Again, you calculated wrong.
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.
You even used the same correct overall 2014 GDP figure that I used, but you calculated the per capita figure wrong, either purposely or in error. So if you quarrel with my numbers then you quarrel with one of your own as well. And the Wikipedia article I cited shows the 2010 GDP figure in 2014 dollars, so that is correct as well.
