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.
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.
It would be nice if Milwaukee had commuter rail and that streetcar line was expanded into something more useful though. There have been proposals for both, and it would be great if they actually happened so that dense, walkable core would see even more life and infill.
Milwaukee didn't do as big of a number on its downtown and waterfront the way that St. Louis and others did, but it'd still be nice if I-794 in the Historic Third Ward were removed and boulevardized and the below grade segments without ramps for all the other freeways in the city had a cap placed on them.
The one thing that Milwaukee has that no other Midwestern city has (outside of Chicago), is it sits on a lake, that looks like an ocean. Downtown Milwaukee is on Lake Michigan. Cars are parked from all over the USA along the lake, with people out everywhere looking at the beauty. I do not exaggerate, as I see it every time I'm there. Maybe not so much in the winter, but every other season....the lakefront is loaded with sightseers. I know Cleveland is on a lake, but Milwaukee's lakefront is stunning, and a huge draw to the city. Public beaches, restaurants, coffee shops, and downtown itself.
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).
Yes but very few riders.
People matter not just physical stuff. People didn’t stop riding the Red Line or Green/Blue Lines because they got bored it’s bevause 65% of Downtown Cleveland’s employer base left and about the same number of residents from the city.
I actually couldn't either. I'll say this with a bit of duality. First off, geographically/geologically, I think Cleveland's Lakefront is every bit as stunning at Milwaukee or Chicago's, if not moreso (Milwaukee would be closer, because it has the relative topography on top of the lake compared to Chicago. But, Cleveland has it closer in.
I think though what is true, perhaps, is that Milwaukee has done a better job capitalizing on and utilizing areas of it's lakefront surrounding downtown. I'm as big a Cleveland booster as anyone... and a Browns fan-but I think the "Factory of Sadness" (LOL), could have stood to be somewhere else other than right on the waterfront next to downtown where it sits empty and without surrounding activity 350 days a year... https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5073...8i8192!5m1!1e4
I don't have any qualms with the R&R HOF and getting it was a good thing for Cleveland-in hindsight though, perhaps more could have, or still could be done to engage with the space? Milwaukee has Summerfest on it's waterfront, which draws 800-900K visitors each year.
I don't see any reason why Cleveland couldn't take steps to have a major music festival in that vicinity each year also-really kinda capture the rock heritage-which is so beloved on a global basis-don't leave it to the Rock Hall to plan anything-screw them, whether they are on board or not, why not make an iconic performance venue that builds into the near Lake Erie setting as perhaps a water version to what Red Rocks Amphitheatre is to mountain performing venues in Colorado?
I think this thread is about more than just density, but to respond to your point - I think that's short-sighted thinking. There are other measures that can be taken to prevent/mitigate the spread of disease. Encouraging urban density is one of the most important things we can do to combat climate change, which is a huge existential threat, and has been shown to improve physical and mental health.
Not to mention, America greatly lags behind the rest of the world in terms of urbanity and density and we're still being hit pretty hard by COVID beyond NYC.
I agree with those who have already posted saying basically, urban character, when you boil it down, is pretty much all about density. I mean, the cities with the least urban character are those with the lowest density, i.e., Oklahoma City, Mesa AZ (and Phoenix, for that matter), Dallas, Charlotte, Fresno, etc.)
People matter not just physical stuff. People didn’t stop riding the Red Line or Green/Blue Lines because they got bored it’s bevause 65% of Downtown Cleveland’s employer base left and about the same number of residents from the city.
As I said, it's a matter of timing. Cleveland had the population and the ridership and, again, people flock to new rail lines like they're new toys. Yes, Cleveland has lost 2/3rds it's population since the time the Red Line opened and much of this was because heavy industry closed and corporate HQs left. Life in the so-called "Rust Belt." But the City is coming around. The City's stronger (and growing) downtown along with the movement toward's building TOD around Rapid stations (along with adding new rail cars) will undoubtedly boost ridership.
As to the debate on most urbane overall-I'm not necessarily saying Cleveland is for sure 2nd in the midwest as I think there is a need for nuance and it's too difficult to say one clearly stands out from the others in this regard, at least in my experience. But what I will say is... this is relevant, esp. given the density numbers listed earlier.
Lakewood 9,190 PSQM
Cleveland Heights 5,408 PSQM
University Heights 7,292 PSQM
Shaker Heights 4,270 PSQM (impressive considering its literally mansions for much of the city)
Rocky River 4,201 PSQM
What I get from this is, parts of Cleveland's suburbs are more urbane, and very well connected to the city and it's core, than many parts of the primary city itself.
Cleveland's grid and number system extend very, very far IMO by most city standards. https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6433...7i13312!8i6656
This is East 364th St, for instance. Not particularly walkable or urban but still with a respectable WalkScore of 47 thanks to being along a grid system, and being able to walk from said site to a Minor League Ballpark, and the inviting/walkable Downtown Willoughby, about a mile further to the east: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6417...7i16384!8i8192
18.6 Miles to the East of Downtown ; )
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.