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.
Detroit obviously still has great bones of its past glory but has yet to reclaim its brilliant international legacy albeit on a smaller scale, ... which all the old industrial powerhouse cities like Cleveland must face... I've said it a zillion times -- I guess this will be the zillion-oneth -- Detroit will never realize the connectedness, residential mixed-use density of a quality urban city unless it finally gets serious and build a serious rail rapid transit network -- HRT or LRT, but NOT a glorified streetcar/trolley like Houston. Detroiters who continue to thumb their nose a rail transit like it's an unneeded fancy toy do so at the city's peril.
In the 1950s or before, Detroit would have been the equivalent of Houston today, while Cleveland would have been the equivalent of Dallas or possibly Greater Atlanta. Both of them were true major cities in every sense, it was a good time for the industrial heartland of America. The Browns and Lions also dominated professional football back then, that's true!
Detroit wins this because of the auto industry. Cleveland didn't exactly have a unique brand of industry, it was a steel city akin to Pittsburgh but it also benefited because of its great location along Lake Erie, roughly halfway between New York and Chicago. However, at its peak, Cleveland was the biggest city in that region of the country apart from Chicago and Detroit.
It seems like Cleveland and Pittsburgh are often compared for obvious reasons, but Cleveland was actually bigger and more prominent than Pittsburgh at their peaks. The only issue was that Cleveland struggled more so than Pittsburgh after the decline of steel and heavy industry.
In the 1950s or before, Detroit would have been the equivalent of Houston today, while Cleveland would have been the equivalent of Dallas or possibly Greater Atlanta. Both of them were true major cities in every sense, it was a good time for the industrial heartland of America. The Browns and Lions also dominated professional football back then, that's true!
Detroit wins this because of the auto industry. Cleveland didn't exactly have a unique brand of industry, it was a steel city akin to Pittsburgh but it also benefited because of its great location along Lake Erie, roughly halfway between New York and Chicago. However, at its peak, Cleveland was the biggest city in that region of the country apart from Chicago and Detroit.
It seems like Cleveland and Pittsburgh are often compared for obvious reasons, but Cleveland was actually bigger and more prominent than Pittsburgh at their peaks. The only issue was that Cleveland struggled more so than Pittsburgh after the decline of steel and heavy industry.
Not so sure about that struggle comparison. Pittsburgh had some rough times in the 70s and 80s. Both metros struggled a lot. A lot.
If Detroit peaked at#4 and Cleveland peaked at 7, comparing the later to Charlotte or Austin would be an undershot.
Most would agree that #4 today would probably be the Bay Area or DC and #7 would be Houston/Philadelphia.
Detroit has many parallels to SF and Cleveland has a lot of parallels to Houston. Instead of the Austin, Charlotte comparison it would probably be better to say at its peak Cleveland would be where Houston or Atlanta is right now.
The current metro rankings seem to be lack luster compared to the top ten 70-100yrs ago. Detroit at#4 seems to have made much more of a national impact than today's #4 - DFW. The current top 10 seem to be impactful on population and not much else. A patchwork of suburbs with no innovation and with jobs from companies grown somewhere else.
Detroit and Cleveland even today compare favorably with top 10 metros such as Phoenix and even DFW. In talking about in certain metrics previously detailed in this thread such as Arts, Higher Education, Healthcare etc
I was going to post something very similar to this. Very well put.
In the 1950s or before, Detroit would have been the equivalent of Houston today, while Cleveland would have been the equivalent of Dallas or possibly Greater Atlanta. Both of them were true major cities in every sense, it was a good time for the industrial heartland of America. The Browns and Lions also dominated professional football back then, that's true!
The struggle I have with this comparison and the premise of this thread(and your post) is it assumes they were peers at their peaks. If anything I think they are closer to peers now. I know they weren't separated by that much in the rankings, but the size disparity between them when they were at their peak is quite significant.
Given their size differences is it truly intellectually honest to really consider them peers at that time? From an urban/metro standpoint there's very little separation between Houston and Dallas in today's metrics. When on the ground they are virtually indistinguishable in size to me (as someone not from there).
Detroit 1950: 1,838,517
Cleveland 1950: 905,686
City proper isn't a fair comparison since Detroit covered nearly twice as much land area as Cleveland at that time so I looked at Urban area. (1950 Demographia is the source so take it as a reference point and not exact data)
1. New York: 12,914,000
2. Chicago: 5,587,000
3. Los Angeles: 4,368,000
4. Philadelphia: 3,671,000 5. Detroit: 3,016,000
6. Boston: 2,411,000
7. San Francisco: 2,241,000
8. Pittsburgh: 2,213,000
9. St. Louis: 1,719,000 10. Cleveland: 1,466,000
If i'm being fair I believe the both peaked at an urban level 20 years later in 1970. I don't think you can really make a modern day equivalence between Detroit and Cleveland then, and the current top 10. The difference in size between them in 1950 was more than double. The 5th largest urban area in 2010 was Philadelphia, the closest one to half it's size is #16 Minneapolis.
I understand the premise of this thread but I think it's OP didn't realize how big the difference between the two actually was at their peaks. The lopsided poll shows how unfair it is to Cleveland IMO.
Last edited by Landolakes90; 11-10-2022 at 10:16 AM..
Is no one going to talk about the massive issue with tons of abandoned and vacant lots in most of the Detroit city limits? How does that impact future zoning, development, and redevelopment when you have no cohesive intact neighborhoods in large geographical areas?
Is no one going to talk about the massive issue with tons of abandoned and vacant lots in most of the Detroit city limits? How does that impact future zoning, development, and redevelopment when you have no cohesive intact neighborhoods in large geographical areas?
This is about them at their peaks, not their current states. Seems like a conversation for a different thread maybe?
Last edited by mjlo; 11-10-2022 at 11:50 AM..
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.
