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.
Yeah I thought about that but there is quite a bit of debate if Louisvile is Southern or Midwestern, so that's why I included it. I always thought of Kentucky as Southern and never questioned it until I started reading this CD Forum and found the location of Louisville to be quite controversial. It was when I was in 5th grade in 1965, Oklahoma was grouped with the Midwestern States, so that's why I included Oklahoma, City. It was after I moved to Texas did I realize that alot of people considered Oklahoma to be a Southern State.
Tulsa has a few Midwestern elements but I see none in Oklahoma City. Louisville is about a 50/50 split between the South and Midwest. Even Cincinnati has some Southern elements, especially when you look at some of the newer developments in the larger retail areas. Some of those developments found in Kenwood, Mason, West Chester etc. look identical to what can be found in Atlanta or Nashville suburbs. Culturally, some of these cities are harder to identify solidly one way or the other. However, to really experience any of the cities you have to get out of your car instead of driving by on the interstate.
Of the ones from the OP, I like Milwaukee, Cincinnati, Cleveland, St. Louis, and Louisville. I think Louisville's inclusion is a bit odd in calling it Midwestern, but it does share the kind of older major river city heritage of Cincinnati and St. Louis. Kansas City is another city that fits the category and I find it interesting, but hasn't been included.
Milwaukee I like because of its great waterfront location and how intact much of the city is in being pretty dense and walkable. It's one of the few cities on this list that didn't have as severe a population loss and that plays out in having fewer desolate neighborhoods. Its proximity to two also very good Midwestern cities in Madison and Chicago of very different sizes is also interesting.
Cincinnati I like for its old rowhouse neighborhoods and the tight, condensed footprint a lot of its neighborhoods have owing to its geography. The city proper is again growing and hopefully it comes with better transit to mesh its neighborhoods.
Cleveland has several great neighborhoods and cultural institutions. I also like the potential Cleveland has with its large legacy rail network and its Lake Erie waterfront. Hopefully better use will be made of these and the empty lots in the neighborhoods and the massive parking lots downtown will be fodder for helping the city grow again. I think Cleveland has the potential to be a powerhouse of a city again.
St. Louis has great architecture in its western and southern parts. Its downtown is quiet for its size and it'd be great if it meshed better with its neighborhoods and that the northern parts of the city had some kind of plan or ideal to work towards.
Louisville is also one of the old major river cities that were settled earlier and that's visible in a lot of its architecture. I like how laid back the city feels.
Kansas City is missing from the list, but it also has a very solid urban core with several great historic high-rises and a lot of modern architecture that tastefully complements the historic architecture.
I really wish that the Wisconsin and Ohio state governments had used those funds for the intercity passenger rail networks. The development and revitalization the urban core of these cities have been seeing in the past several years really makes traveling into these cities without a car a pretty good proposition.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 07-08-2018 at 03:57 PM..
St. Louis has great architecture in its western and southern parts. Its downtown is quiet for its size and it'd be great if it meshed better with its neighborhoods and that the northern parts of the city had some kind of plan or ideal to work towards.
I will say that north city is seeing a major uptick in construction since the first of the year. I don't know what is the cause of it but there is a lot of construction.
Downtown is improving with Ball Park Village. 2 new apartment buildings. New hotel and a office building and retail space. That will finally anchor the area around Bush Stadium as a neighborhood. As it stands now BP Village will not sustain itself outside of baseball season when other developments are completed towards the Central West End.
There are plenty of old factories being converted into mixed use apartments, retail, hotels and other amenities.
I personally don't see DT growing into a major success story like Indianapolis or anything like that because of the close proximity of poverty. We would need to see a dramatic increase in workforce 150k to 200k. I dont see that type of shift with Clayton and Cortex nearby. I do see things improving within the next 2 years when all DT the projects are completed. And yes the skyline will see some changes on the south end of DT.
Up until about a year ago I thought Grand Rapids was about the same size as Fort Wayne. I considered Grand Rapids to be Michigan's Fort Wayne. I was shocked when I heard Grand Rapids was over a million. There must be a ton of suburbs around Grand Rapids, because, unless I'm mistaken, the city itself is less than 200,000.
The urbanized portion of Grand Rapids is larger than Fort Wayne's entire CSA. Over the last 30 years Fort Wayne has annexed it's way to 110sq mi, giving it a deceiving city pop on paper. Whereas Grand Rapids is land locked at 44 sq mi. Grand Rapids could merge with it's two largest suburbs which would give it 50k more residents than Fort Wayne, but it would still be 20sq mi smaller. Yet another great example of why city pop stats are meaningless.
Of the ones from the OP, I like Milwaukee, Cincinnati, Cleveland, St. Louis, and Louisville. I think Louisville's inclusion is a bit odd in calling it Midwestern, but it does share the kind of older major river city heritage of Cincinnati and St. Louis. Kansas City is another city that fits the category and I find it interesting, but hasn't been included.
An oversight on the part of the OP, who acknowledged it upthread and said it couldn't be fixed.
We can't know who here would have voted for KC were it in this poll (save me - I had mentioned this in my original post to this thread - and a few others who also noted its absence), But I would encourage others to indicate where they would have put it in their comments after voting on the cities listed (I picked St. Louis).
From what I've gathered here and other places, it seems like St. Louis has a lot of people who either love or hate it, kind of like Chicago or California. It's city assets should put it on top, but it has more big problems that have been lingering for quite some time than any of the other cities on this list. The other cities cities seem to get a more muted positive response but have less people who really don't like them.
My favorite of these cities is Milwaukee. It's definitely larger than it appears on paper. Per the OP for brightest future I think It's likely Columbus, though I think a strong case could be made for Indy too given it's economic health.
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.
