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.
By some interpretations Cincinnati would have more urban character than Chicago.
Population density is a part of urban character, and Cincinnati has a low density. No way, does it have more character than Chicago. I know you're not saying that, but responding to those who might think that.
Population density is a part of urban character, and Cincinnati has a low density. No way, does it have more character than Chicago. I know you're not saying that, but responding to those who might think that.
I see what you're saying, nut population density doesn't automatically determine how much character a city has (or doesn't). Houston is more densely populated than New Orleans, but there's no question which city has more character.
I see what you're saying, nut population density doesn't automatically determine how much character a city has (or doesn't). Houston is more densely populated than New Orleans, but there's no question which city has more character.
Well, I think it makes more sense to break things down to more human-scaled / walkable sections and calculate the population density in tracts like that rather than on the scale of some of these city limits with Houston being 600 square miles and New Orleans being 170 square miles. That's just not the kind of areas and distances that people routinely walk.
I really like St. Louis, and it's one of about half of the city's listed here that I've actually spent more than a few days in. I think Central West End and Delmar Loop are fantastic neighborhoods while there are also some very promising other neighborhoods. In several St. Louis neighborhoods outside of those two neighborhoods, I saw great deal of structural density in parts, but it gets really splotchy or disconnected pretty quickly. I'm guessing a good deal of the surface parking lots, vacant lots, and space taken up by highways and their ramps were formerly developed plots that had buildings that were as densely built in terms of amount of lot size developed and height that existing nearby buildings did. I think if far fewer of those buildings were removed, then St. Louis would come out easily on top, but the unfortunate thing is that in most neighborhoods I went to, you really don't need to go very far before you see vacant lots, surface parking lots, or freeways and their ramps.
I agree, highways really did a number on St. Louis. St. Louis is a city of great neighborhoods, but they are disconnected in many ways by transportation infrastructure or blighted land. I've always said that St. Louis' biggest development issue will be to generate enough demand to fill in the voids. That's one area where I think cities like Milwaukee and Minneapolis definitely surpass St. Louis.
I see what you're saying, nut population density doesn't automatically determine how much character a city has (or doesn't). Houston is more densely populated than New Orleans, but there's no question which city has more character.
First off that neglects the ~70-80 sq miles of New Orleans East that is marshlands so the real size of New Orleans is in the 80 sq mile range.
2ndly those cities were built very differently. One with Garden Apartments the other closely spaced SFH.
These cities were built maybe 25 years apart from each other. (With St Louis being first)
They have basically the same grid and same build style (closely spaced SFH/duplexes). St Louis might be 20% more structurally dense than Milwaukee or Minneapolis, but it’s also much less full.
Minneapolis is a city built as 10,000 ppsm with about 7900ppsm, Whats left of St Louis is probably built for 12-13000ppsm but holds only 4,800 ppsm.
Roughly the same thing for Milwaukee.
As a result they might feel less built up but IMO are more functionally urban in lifestyle.
First off that neglects the ~70-80 sq miles of New Orleans East that is marshlands so the real size of New Orleans is in the 80 sq mile range.
2ndly those cities were built very differently. One with Garden Apartments the other closely spaced SFH.
These cities were built maybe 25 years apart from each other. (With St Louis being first)
They have basically the same grid and same build style (closely spaced SFH/duplexes). St Louis might be 20% more structurally dense than Milwaukee or Minneapolis, but it’s also much less full.
Minneapolis is a city built as 10,000 ppsm with about 7900ppsm, Whats left of St Louis is probably built for 12-13000ppsm but holds only 4,800 ppsm.
Roughly the same thing for Milwaukee.
As a result they might feel less built up but IMO are more functionally urban in lifestyle.
You made some good points here. Although, on the ground I don't think St. Louis feels like it is any less functionally urban than Milwaukee or Minneapolis. Definitely more blighted in areas for sure, but I just think St. Louis has more variety of urban neighborhoods than the other two cities. I don't really think Milwaukee or Minneapolis has an urban offering that St. Louis doesn't at this point.
I agree, highways really did a number on St. Louis. St. Louis is a city of great neighborhoods, but they are disconnected in many ways by transportation infrastructure or blighted land. I've always said that St. Louis' biggest development issue will be to generate enough demand to fill in the voids. That's one area where I think cities like Milwaukee and Minneapolis definitely surpass St. Louis.
I’ll chime in too, I love St Louis lots of good neighborhoods but the highways really screwed up the connectivity. The blight? Every city has that to some extent and especially the eastern cities. A real eye opener is driving from STL on Interstate 70 to the airport you really see the decay more than when you go west on 64. Once I took a train from St Charles (I think) out to a baseball game downtown and that ride in really shows some decay.
If you want to talk Transit. Minneapolis is the standout, with Milwaukee 2nd then Cleveland then St Louis.
This is neither accurate nor fair. First of all, throwing Milwaukee in the mix is ridiculous. They have no rapid transit. Comparing their small downtown streetcar to the actual rapid transit of Cleveland, MSP and St. Louis is comparing apples to oranges. Milwaukee is a bus-based transit network. Milwaukee's only advantage is the 7-round trip (daily), 86-mile Amtrak line to Chicago which effectively operates as a long commuter rail line. (thank God for Chicago, right?)
Secondly, all new rapid transit systems bulk up in terms of ridership; it's a new toy for the public. Cleveland's rapid transit is old; more of a legacy system. The heavy rail division opened 65 years ago, and even then, it was really an expansion of the existing light rail (Shaker Heights) division which is now 100+ years old (107 years old, to be exact). The Red Line's early ridership -- for at least 20 years, eclipsed MSP, which is barely a decade old. I think Cleveland's Red Line outpaced St. Louis' system, but don't quote me on this... St. Louis, trackage wise, is more robust than either Cleveland or MSP (and still larger than MSP even after the SW Green Line extension opens).
This is neither accurate nor fair. First of all, throwing Milwaukee in the mix is ridiculous. They have no rapid transit. Comparing their small downtown streetcar to the actual rapid transit of Cleveland, MSP and St. Louis is comparing apples to oranges. Milwaukee is a bus-based transit network. Milwaukee's only advantage is the 7-round trip (daily), 86-mile Amtrak line to Chicago which effectively operates as a long commuter rail line. (thank God for Chicago, right?)
Secondly, all new rapid transit systems bulk up in terms of ridership; it's a new toy for the public. Cleveland's rapid transit is old; more of a legacy system. The heavy rail division opened 65 years ago, and even then, it was really an expansion of the existing light rail (Shaker Heights) division which is now 100+ years old (107 years old, to be exact). The Red Line's early ridership -- for at least 20 years, eclipsed MSP, which is barely a decade old. I think Cleveland's Red Line outpaced St. Louis' system, but don't quote me on this... St. Louis, trackage wise, is more robust than either Cleveland or MSP (and still larger than MSP even after the SW Green Line extension opens).
Milwaukee and Chicago will have 10 round trips daily to Chicago, within the next couple of years. Aside from that, rapid transit isn't Milwaukee's strong point. Rapid transit, however, is not the only way to judge "character" outside of Chicago. Milwaukee (after Minneapolis), is the most densely populated city, with tracks of density over 25,000 psm.
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.
