Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Easy
The answer is probably Baltimore, but I voted Memphis because the poll should be much closer than it is now. To me Cleveland is like a sunbelt city, except that it boomed 50 years earlier during a more industrial time. It's not especially urban in the way that Baltimore is/was. I don't know much about Memphis, but Cleveland reminds me of Charlotte, just 50 years older.
|
Your perception really is not factual. Cleveland doesn't have the colonial history as Baltimore, but it still reached top 10 in the U.S. by 1890 at 260,000 (Cleveland was probably only 30 square miles then). Charlotte, despite a much larger land area didn't surpass 260,000 until the 1980 census (I'm assuming Charlotte was well over 100 square miles at that point). So, 90 years later.
I'm not sure what the land area was for either city (though Cleveland I believe was still annexing some formerly independent neighborhoods at that time), but by 1910, it passed Baltimore in population (560,000 to 558,000) and the two stayed pretty much neck and neck for the next 40 years before Baltimore repassed Cleveland in 1950 (949,000 to 915,000). That was both cities' peak population. Cleveland remained in the top 10 through the 1970 census. Baltimore through the 1980 census before both dropped out for good. Charlotte won't match Cleveland's peak population until 2030 (needs to grow by 40,000 more this decade), and even if it does, Charlotte is over 300 square land miles.
Cleveland, outside of possibly adding a couple square miles for airport expansion, has not added any populated land since 1950. Maryland passed annexation laws in 1948 that blocked Baltimore from being able to annex as well. So by 1950, both cities' land area was set. Cleveland 78 square miles; Baltimore at 80 square miles.
That put Baltimore's population density at roughly 11,900 PPSM and Cleveland at 11,700 PPSM in 1950. Not much of a difference. Plus, unlike Baltimore, Cleveland had two urban "suburbs" that had a higher population density than the city of Cleveland (Lakewood and East Cleveland). Lakewood's density was around 12,400 PPSM and East Cleveland around 13,000 PPSM in 1950. Add those in and "Cleveland" would have been at 1,023,000 in 86 square miles, or around 11,900 PPSM, virtually identical to Baltimore.
Aesthetically, there is no argument that Baltimore was built more dense than Cleveland, but Cleveland was hardly built in some Sun Belt type manner. The reason it was able to match Baltimore was due to Cleveland splitting its up and down "Cleveland doubles" from 2 units into 4; its 4-unit apartment buildings into 8 units; 8-unit buildings into 16; 16-units into 32. Cleveland absolutely packed more people into housing units than they were meant for, something I don't believe was as big of an issue in Baltimore. Then Baltimore has done a better job of retaining its population (Baltimore down 47 percent from peak, Cleveland 76 percent) due to not taking the bulldozer to much of its most compact neighborhoods ... See Hough in Cleveland, that while the most built urban neighborhood in the city, it was still probably built to handle a population of 40,000 in its 2 square miles (20,000 PPSM); instead it had a population of 60,000 to 70,000 (or 30,000 to 35,000 per square mile). Hough was essential wiped away following riots in the late 1960s and hundreds of dense, brick apartment buildings were bulldozed (and turned into McMansions in the early 90s in an attempt to lure black suburbanites back into the city.
So, if you want to say that Baltimore was built in a true 12,000 PPSM form where Cleveland more in an 8,000 to 9,000 PPSM form, there would be no argument from me. That's still significantly tighter than anything in the Sun Belt (sans Miami or Los Angeles, if you include those in the Sun Belt).
Back to Memphis, its land area was still about 120 square miles in 1950 and had a population of 396,000, so a density of 3,300 PPSM. I'm guessing (and if somebody has this information feel free to post it), that within 80 square miles, Memphis' density was much higher than 3,300, but doubt it approached the near 12,000 that Baltimore and Cleveland had (maybe 5-6,000 for Memphis??).
Even beyond density, in a comparison between Memphis and Baltimore, there is not argument that Cleveland isn't more similar to Baltimore.
Both cities were/are heavy industrial dominated by unions.
Both cities are more similar when it came to immigration patterns from Europe, though Cleveland had more from southern and Eastern Europe.
Both cities have some Appalachian influences due to migration. Baltimore moreso, but Cleveland has/had a couple pockets of Applachians (though Appalachians mainly settled in Akron and Canton).
I'm guessing the black migration for Cleveland and Baltimore was also more similar with it being mostly from the Carolinas/Georgia/Alabama; compared to Memphis which I'm assuming was people moving from smaller towns in the Mississippi Delta.
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.
