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.
Between Cleveland and Richmond, which one would you say has better urban 'bones?' This isn't necessarily a question about 'walkability' or 'population density.' The question rather is which one 'feels' more traditionally 'urban' or has more and better traditional urban fabric. Richmond is a relatively 'historical' southern city. Cleveland may not be as 'historical,' but it was an industrial and manufacturing powerhouse back in the day, so this should be a good matchup.
Cleveland, and it's not really fair to compare them. Cleveland has been through some tough times, but it was a major city for decades with ethnic enclaves, "old money" suburbs such as Shaker Heights, industrial areas, etc. This contributes to Cleveland feeling traditionally "urban." At one point, it was the fifth largest city in the country, and you can't say the same for Richmond.
For a southern city, Richmond is very urban, but it's not urban compared to most northern cities.
I definitely think historically Cleveland had better bones. From what I recall (I haven’t been to Cleveland in 20+ years) it seems like downtown has been separated from the neighborhoods and port by terrible freeway design and urban renewal schemes of the 60’s-80’s. Downtown felt like an island. The neighborhoods were fantastic but they kinda felt like separate towns at the time. I’m sure, like with most places, development has knitted the urban area back together to some extent though.
Richmond is much, much smaller but feels more organically connected Still (although it suffers from the same terrible freeway design of the same era).
Aerial photos from today show a more cohesive downtown Richmond but a bigger downtown Cleveland. So I don’t know....
Cleveland, and it's not really fair to compare them. Cleveland has been through some tough times, but it was a major city for decades with ethnic enclaves, "old money" suburbs such as Shaker Heights, industrial areas, etc. This contributes to Cleveland feeling traditionally "urban." At one point, it was the fifth largest city in the country, and you can't say the same for Richmond.
For a southern city, Richmond is very urban, but it's not very urban compared to northern cities.
What this person said, Richmond is urban much more than it’s population would indicate but it’s footprint is small compared to Cleveland. These are two of my favorite cities.
but it's not urban compared to most northern cities.
This part isn't true. I lived in Albany, outside Syracuse, spent ample time in Buffalo, have been to Boston, Rochester, Burlington, Manchester, Springfield, Providence, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, Manhattan, and I'm forgetting scores of even smaller cities...
Richmond is as urban as MANY northern cities, more urban than some...
Regarding Cleveland and Rich in this comparison, I spent 4 days in Cleveland three years ago and while it clear from the start Cleveland is larger, it is not dramatically more urban than Richmond at all, so my answer to this thread is Cleveland has stronger urban bones by virtue of having a larger framework to work with. But drawn to scale the difference is minimal, the most urban parts of Cleveland I saw were not at all more urban in any significant sense than the most urban parts of Rich...
Cleveland's got heavy rail which is the biggest urban bone I can think of.
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.