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.
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 ; )
... or, just go 1 mile west of downtown Cleveland, and you'll find this:
(all the above, btw, plus urbanized Shaker Square in your photo, sit either directly at, or within a few blocks, of an RTA rapid transit station, so each is extremely convenient, car-non-essential and, walkable)
If you were to take every Midwestern major city's historical density/"bones by dividing its peak population by the square miles of the city (an inaccurate exercise of course, given annexations, etc. which under exaggerate the true size), it may give you an idea of where certain cities reached at certain points. I think there is merit in what btownboss mentions about urban character regarding what is still present and not knocked down, as well as modern functionality which I do believe is relevant. But, I believe a lot of the 'je ne sais quoi' factor (given we are talking about urban character-which is more subjective than just overall urbanity) can be accounted for by finding these numbers for the cities at hand. First, we will put in Chicago's present-day density as a "baseline" of sorts. If someone else wants to get into other factors like "weighted density" or actually look up the square mileage of the cities at those times... have at it.
Chicago (2018)-11,943
---
Chicago (1950-3,620,962: 15,909 PSQM)
Saint Louis (1950-856,796: 13,819 PSQM)
Detroit (1950-1,849,568: 13,306 PSQM)
Cleveland (1950-914,808: 11,774 PSQM)-I know for a fact that Cleveland's boundaries have expanded some since
Minneapolis (1950-521,718: 9,505 PSQM)-I would not have expected just how competitive/comparable in size Minneapolis and St. Paul are over time. Minneapolis is bigger, but certainly not vastly so.
Milwaukee (1960-741,324: 7,712 PSQM)-Milwaukee hasn't lost all that much off it's peak-
Cincinnati (1950-503,998: 6,470 PSQM-I have a strong feeling Cincy annexed a decent a significant amount of land*)
Columbus is at it's present peak. It now has 922K with 3,625 PSQM. Sprawling or not, Columbus looks like it will pass the 1M threshold within city limits sometime in the next decade? Good to see that for the midwest.
Indianapolis is also at its present peak. It will also likely pass 1M as some point, though after Columbus by a while.
Kansas City is only 3% smaller than it was when it peaked in population in 1970.
Kansas City is only 3% smaller than it was when it peaked in population in 1970.
This number is misleading. Kansas City annexed 250 sq mi of suburbia in the 1960s, to bring it to 314sq mi by the 1970 census. It was about 60 sq mi in 1950. The fact that it quintupled in size and is STILL below its peak population is quite telling for how much population it's core actually lost. It's likely more urban than simply using population loss as a metric would suggest.
If Detroit, St. Louis, Chicago, Cleveland, and Cincinatti had ever been able to annex their inner rings, their population losses would also seem far less.
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?
Doesn't come close to comparing. Milwaukee has made the most of its waterfront....you need to go see it in person, and you will see what I mean. Milwaukee and Chicago have maximized their waterfronts, and Cleveland's waterfront can't compare. It's too bad Cleveland didn't have the foresight to turn theirs into what it could have been.
I'll add this link...it shows how the lakefront is usable (beaches, yacht club, etc. all along the lake to downtown...where there is a park and you can walk to downtown. Unless you're there, I guess, one can't imagine it. The link is showing the view from the lake, which isn't the best view, but it illustrates how it's all usable up to the lake, and that downtown goes up to the lake.
If you were to take every Midwestern major city's historical density/"bones by dividing its peak population by the square miles of the city (an inaccurate exercise of course, given annexations, etc. which under exaggerate the true size), it may give you an idea of where certain cities reached at certain points. I think there is merit in what btownboss mentions about urban character regarding what is still present and not knocked down, as well as modern functionality which I do believe is relevant. But, I believe a lot of the 'je ne sais quoi' factor (given we are talking about urban character-which is more subjective than just overall urbanity) can be accounted for by finding these numbers for the cities at hand. First, we will put in Chicago's present-day density as a "baseline" of sorts. If someone else wants to get into other factors like "weighted density" or actually look up the square mileage of the cities at those times... have at it.
Chicago (2018)-11,943
---
Chicago (1950-3,620,962: 15,909 PSQM)
Saint Louis (1950-856,796: 13,819 PSQM)
Detroit (1950-1,849,568: 13,306 PSQM)
Cleveland (1950-914,808: 11,774 PSQM)-I know for a fact that Cleveland's boundaries have expanded some since
Minneapolis (1950-521,718: 9,505 PSQM)-I would not have expected just how competitive/comparable in size Minneapolis and St. Paul are over time. Minneapolis is bigger, but certainly not vastly so.
Milwaukee (1960-741,324: 7,712 PSQM)-Milwaukee hasn't lost all that much off it's peak-
Cincinnati (1950-503,998: 6,470 PSQM-I have a strong feeling Cincy annexed a decent a significant amount of land*)
Columbus is at it's present peak. It now has 922K with 3,625 PSQM. Sprawling or not, Columbus looks like it will pass the 1M threshold within city limits sometime in the next decade? Good to see that for the midwest.
Indianapolis is also at its present peak. It will also likely pass 1M as some point, though after Columbus by a while.
Kansas City is only 3% smaller than it was when it peaked in population in 1970.
This is interesting.
St. Louis and Detroit have fallen hard since those days and are a shell of what they used to be. They have the bones, but lack the population. If not for their suburbs they'd be a lot less relevant than they are today, assuming a scenario in which the population loss had been the same.
It's why I voted Milwaukee, which is still largely intact and relies less on it's suburbs than probably anyone else on the list. Well maybe Columbus and Grand Rapids would compare there, but not with urbanity.
This number is misleading. Kansas City annexed 250 sq mi of suburbia in the 1960s, to bring it to 314sq mi by the 1970 census. It was about 60 sq mi in 1950. The fact that it quintupled in size and is STILL below its peak population is quite telling for how much population it's core actually lost. It's likely more urban than simply using population loss as a metric would suggest.
If Detroit, St. Louis, Chicago, Cleveland, and Cincinatti had ever been able to annex their inner rings, their population losses would also seem far less.
Certainly if these cities had been able to annex post-WWII this would be the case... Cleveland's last annexation was in the 20s which, I believe was a suburb called "Miles Heights" on the SE side along the Lee Rd corridor south of the Lee Rd-Miles Ave intersection (actually south of the nearby Erie RR tracks). Cleveland's population at the time was booming to over 900K; not sure Miles Hts, which to this day is semi-rural, added much in terms of population.
Doesn't come close to comparing. Milwaukee has made the most of its waterfront....you need to go see it in person, and you will see what I mean. Milwaukee and Chicago have maximized their waterfronts, and Cleveland's waterfront can't compare. It's too bad Cleveland didn't have the foresight to turn theirs into what it could have been.
I'll add this link...it shows how the lakefront is usable (beaches, yacht club, etc. all along the lake to downtown...where there is a park and you can walk to downtown. Unless you're there, I guess, one can't imagine it. The link is showing the view from the lake, which isn't the best view, but it illustrates how it's all usable up to the lake, and that downtown goes up to the lake.
It's a matter of perspective. No American major city comes close to Chicago in terms of residential lakefront development. To say that Milwaukee and Chicago are in the same class in this regard, is highly misleading-- Milwaukee doesn't come close.
I do not believe Cleveland has developed its lakefront to Milwaukee's, but I also don't believe the 2 cities are as far apart in this regard as you're trying to make it seem. They're really not. You are ignoring Edgewater Park, not only a beach but the rocks, pier and recreation area, in addition to the multi-million dollar estates just west of EP. Also Cleveland has Gordon Park, Whiskey Island and North Coast, downtown, where the Rock 'N Roll HOF is located (which I linked)...
And don't forget that the Gold Coast, which features .7 miles of expensive, Chicago-type lakefront high-rises is in adjacent, nearby Lakewood (a very close-in urban suburb) just 3 miles from downtown Cleveland -- which is really like an extension of Cleveland (the cities are so similar that you can't tell you're passing from Cleveland to Lakewood, and vice versa, accept for the change in color of the street signs).
Milwaukee's main lakefront area is the Lower East Side and part of the Upper East side (but it's really the LES where there are (some) high rise apts and beaches kinda-sorta similar to Chicago's; which is nice, but not as extensive as you make it seem.
NOTE ADDENDUM: actually cavsfan137 came stronger than I did in terms of photos... in particular, he/she noted Lakewood park (beach) which is yet another close-in Cleveland area beach.
... and then there's the sexy shot of Pier-W restaurant in the Gold Coast at the base of the exclusive Winton Place towers, which I believe is the tallest apartment building in Ohio -- certainly one of the tallest ... I would be shocked if Milwaukee has any restaurant close to the quality and with the lakefront view as Pier W...
It's a matter of perspective. No American major city comes close to Chicago in terms of residential lakefront development. To say that Milwaukee and Chicago are in the same class in this regard, is highly misleading-- Milwaukee doesn't come close.
I do not believe Cleveland has developed its lakefront to Milwaukee's, but I also don't believe the 2 cities are as far apart in this regard as you're trying to make it seem. They're really not. You are ignoring Edgewater Park, not only a beach but the rocks, pier and recreation area, in addition to the multi-million dollar estates just west of EP. Also Cleveland has Gordon Park, Whiskey Island and North Coast, downtown, where the Rock 'N Roll HOF is located (which I linked)...
And don't forget that the Gold Coast, which features .7 miles of expensive, Chicago-type lakefront high-rises is in adjacent, nearby Lakewood (a very close-in urban suburb) just 3 miles from downtown Cleveland -- which is really like an extension of Cleveland (the cities are so similar that you can't tell you're passing from Cleveland to Lakewood, and vice versa, accept for the change in color of the street signs).
Milwaukee's main lakefront area is the Lower East Side and part of the Upper East side (but it's really the LES where there are (some) high rise apts and beaches kinda-sorta similar to Chicago's; which is nice, but not as extensive as you make it seem.
I never inferred that Milwaukee's lakefront was a massive as Chicago's lakefront. It's the next best, though, in the Midwest.
Minneapolis is close to 7,950 ppsm, that’s 66% denser than St Louis/Cleveland.
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.
