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.
Enean-to add, your point about usable lakefront space... near Downtown is really a primary point of differentiation, but overall, I'd say too that Cleveland's lakefront is very aesthetically beautiful, very useful moving west into Lakewood, and will only get better with time.
sub-You make some interesting points most of which I really can't disagree with.
Was Hopkins Airport a part of Cleveland City limits by 1950 too? I wasn't aware but was assuming some spots like that might have been added later.
mjlo or someone: Is there a reliable spot to find city square mileage/size by census count/decade?
I think the most interesting instance I've found was San Juan, PR, which was only about 7 SqMi, with a population of like 250,000, as of 1950.
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.
Indeed. Especially since that's almost entirely where St. Louis' former residents went. St. Louis County went from 406k in 1950 to 951k by 1970. This is why a lot of the inner ring suburbs share a similar built form with the same section of the city they connect with.
But alas, St. Louis has remained stuck with the same geographic boundaries since 1876.
Indeed. Especially since that's almost entirely where St. Louis' former residents went. St. Louis County went from 406k in 1950 to 951k by 1970. This is why a lot of the inner ring suburbs share a similar built form with the same section of the city they connect with.
But alas, St. Louis has remained stuck with the same geographic boundaries since 1876.
8 mile looks very different on one side vs the other because one side is Detroit and one side is not.
The Suburbs wouldn’t have grown like they did if they were in the city.
Also it’s not like Detroit is particularly small. Nor is Milwaukee.
Lakewood maintained itself because it isn’t Cleveland.
Wow what a silly statement. your KC envy seems invincible.
KC has 3X more downtown construction and 2X more downtown residents as your city, is that what this is about?
Sorry man, didn't mean to offend. KC is just a much younger city with a very different orientation and evolution compared to STL. I wasn't talking about construction or growth rate or anything else-- just overall vibe and layout. St. Louis was one of the most populous US cities from 1850-1960, so naturally it has a more settled, more mature, more eastern, more dense and more urbane quality about it. KC is more spread out, more homespun type of city. St. Louis feels like a big city that shrunk; KC feels like a smaller town that grew. Same is true for KC vs. Cleveland. As a metro area, St. Louis and Cleveland feel much bigger and the central cities feel much more urban in general. It was just a nutshell description. I like KC, it's a nice town. I had an on-off girlfriend there for 3 years and got to know it well. Very friendly place, just feels like a different animal compared to STL, which is much more similar to legacy cities like Cleveland, Baltimore and Pittsburgh than to KC. Sorry to offend.
For the record Central Minneapolis (3.02 sq miles) has a density of 17,000 ppsm. Powderhorn, Central and Phillips combined are 13,400 ppsm. That 9.41 sq mile area has a higher density than any neighborhood in central St Louis (Downtown, Downtown West, Midtown, Central West End, Layfayette Square, Carr Sq, Columbus Sq let alone an average of those neighborhoods.
8 mile looks very different on one side vs the other because one side is Detroit and one side is not.
The Suburbs wouldn’t have grown like they did if they were in the city.
Also it’s not like Detroit is particularly small. Nor is Milwaukee.
Lakewood maintained itself because it isn’t Cleveland.
But the Detroit suburbs would be even stronger with a stronger Detroit at their center. There's research that shows that metropolitan economies are intertwined, and the suburbs of strong cities do better than the suburbs of weak ones:
(The author of this research paper was at the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia when he wrote it. He is now a principal with an economic consulting firm here in Philadelphia. I'm acquainted with both him and his architect wife.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by STLgasm
Sorry man, didn't mean to offend. KC is just a much younger city with a very different orientation and evolution compared to STL. I wasn't talking about construction or growth rate or anything else-- just overall vibe and layout. St. Louis was one of the most populous US cities from 1850-1960, so naturally it has a more settled, more mature, more eastern, more dense and more urbane quality about it. KC is more spread out, more homespun type of city. St. Louis feels like a big city that shrunk; KC feels like a smaller town that grew. Same is true for KC vs. Cleveland. As a metro area, St. Louis and Cleveland feel much bigger and the central cities feel much more urban in general. It was just a nutshell description. I like KC, it's a nice town. I had an on-off girlfriend there for 3 years and got to know it well. Very friendly place, just feels like a different animal compared to STL, which is much more similar to legacy cities like Cleveland, Baltimore and Pittsburgh than to KC. Sorry to offend.
I've long said that "St. Louis is the last great city of the East, and Kansas City is the first great city of the West."
The cross-state rivalry (such as it is) notwithstanding, it seems to me that both cities cast their gazes beyond the state's borders more than they do across the state at each other (though that too does happen).
Though that's not total: St. Louis is very much in Missouri, while Kansas City has one foot in the state next door. (Author John Guinther referred to Kansas City, Mo., as "the capital of a state it's not even in" in his 1948 book "Inside U.S.A.")
But there is this: While St. Louis feels more urban than Kansas City, its skyline has generally been the less impressive of the two: from 1931 until sometime in the 1970s, and once again now, the tallest skyscraper in the state was in Kansas City, and KC's skyline still rises higher today - partly, I suspect, so that nothing in downtown St. Louis overshadows the Gateway Arch.
mjlo or someone: Is there a reliable spot to find city square mileage/size by census count/decade?
Yes there is. I compiled a spread sheet to study the populations/land areas over the decades a few years ago that would be very pertinent to this conversation. Alas I cant find it on my one drive I'll see if I can find the source I used for it. I want to say it was on the census bureaus page itself but I don't have enough time to hunt this morning. I'll keep you posted.
But the Detroit suburbs would be even stronger with a stronger Detroit at their center. There's research that shows that metropolitan economies are intertwined, and the suburbs of strong cities do better than the suburbs of weak ones:
(The author of this research paper was at the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia when he wrote it. He is now a principal with an economic consulting firm here in Philadelphia. I'm acquainted with both him and his architect wife.)
I've long said that "St. Louis is the last great city of the East, and Kansas City is the first great city of the West."
The cross-state rivalry (such as it is) notwithstanding, it seems to me that both cities cast their gazes beyond the state's borders more than they do across the state at each other (though that too does happen).
Though that's not total: St. Louis is very much in Missouri, while Kansas City has one foot in the state next door. (Author John Guinther referred to Kansas City, Mo., as "the capital of a state it's not even in" in his 1948 book "Inside U.S.A.")
But there is this: While St. Louis feels more urban than Kansas City, its skyline has generally been the less impressive of the two: from 1931 until sometime in the 1970s, and once again now, the tallest skyscraper in the state was in Kansas City, and KC's skyline still rises higher today - partly, I suspect, so that nothing in downtown St. Louis overshadows the Gateway Arch.
The obvious next step for St. Louis is to build a bigger arch.
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.
I'll see if I can find the source I used for it. I want to say it was on the census bureaus page itself but I don't have enough time to hunt this morning. I'll keep you posted.
