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.
Generally the cursed geographic belt of the Upper South and Lower Midwest that sees their metro areas become much less relevant over time as the New South and areas of the West rapidly pass them up over time. Such metros include:
Cincinnati
Louisville
St. Louis
Kansas City
Yup. The Mississippi/Ohio River cities, you could add Memphis to it as well. The relative importance of the Mississippi river has been fading since the mid 1800s. A consequence of the country growing so fast in such a short period of time combined with incredibly fast technological advances; mainly railroad.
If we had all the technology we have now, and the entire country at 1776, half those places wouldn't need to exist.
Nashville sorta bucks that trend, its growing and I would include it in your geographic belt.
Yup. The Mississippi/Ohio River cities, you could add Memphis to it as well. The relative importance of the Mississippi river has been fading since the mid 1800s. A consequence of the country growing so fast in such a short period of time combined with incredibly fast technological advances; mainly railroad.
If we had all the technology we have now, and the entire country at 1776, half those places wouldn't need to exist.
Nashville sorta bucks that trend, its growing and I would include it in your geographic belt.
Saying the Lower (Missouri/Mississippi/Ohio/Arkansas) River cities describes it pretty well. Basically, you have to go to Minneapolis/Omaha/Pittsburgh/Oklahoma City for a better off city. The notable cities on the lower rivers would be Cincinnati, Louisville, Evansville, Paducah, St. Louis, Columbia MO, Jefferson City, Kansas City, Memphis, Little Rock, Baton Rouge and New Orleans. Jackson's also connected via Vicksburg in its CSA.
The main thing is University Circle/Little Italy is great, but if it were Pittsburgh it would be where Cuyahoga Community College is rather than like 3 sorta depressed neighborhoods away from Playhouse Sq.
Similarly Southside Flats really doesn’t have an equal in Cleveland.
If you’re a visitor Pittsburgh does present better cause all the nice things are really concentrated. It’s downtown is more buzzing. Cleveland is a little more strung out. And the City of Cleveland is poorer than Pittsburgh.
Yeah, I get it: Univ. Circle/Litle Italy is further out than Oakland... Pittsburgh is denser in this regard (at least re Cleveland's East Side; the West Side? not so much (remember the Edgewater neighborhood, just past its eponymous beach, is only 3 miles from downtown). Although note in Pittsburgh one still has to navigate the Hill District to get to Oakland.
Cleveland poorer? Perhaps statistically, but we know how that goes sometimes, but I won't argue the point, just that neither city is knocking down the door of prosperity.
Yep, Southside Flats is pretty unique and cool -- it reminds me a lot of Philly's Manayunk neighborhood. Cleveland really has no equal... except you, maybe, could make a rough comparison of Cleveland's Little Italy, but on a much smaller scale; LI is similarly compact, old (although Southside is considerably older) lively, and lies at the base of a substantial hillside... but that's about it for similarities.
And as for downtown, again: Pittsburgh wins by day business/office worker/commuter, but Cleveland wins by evening/night as a much more 15-hour residential place. Downtown Pittsburgh tends to be a ghost town after the 5-6 o'clock whistle... at least that was my experience there 6 years ago.
Yeah, I get it: Univ. Circle/Litle Italy is further out than Oakland... Pittsburgh is denser in this regard (at least re Cleveland's East Side; the West Side? not so much (remember the Edgewater neighborhood, just past its eponymous beach, is only 3 miles from downtown). Although note in Pittsburgh one still has to navigate the Hill District to get to Oakland.
Cleveland poorer? Perhaps statistically, but we know how that goes sometimes, but I won't argue the point, just that neither city is knocking down the door of prosperity.
Yep, Southside Flats is pretty unique and cool -- it reminds me a lot of Philly's Manayunk neighborhood. Cleveland really has no equal... except you, maybe, could make a rough comparison of Cleveland's Little Italy, but on a much smaller scale; LI is similarly compact, old (although Southside is considerably older) lively, and lies at the base of a substantial hillside... but that's about it for similarities.
And as for downtown, again: Pittsburgh wins by day business/office worker/commuter, but Cleveland wins by evening/night as a much more 15-hour residential place. Downtown Pittsburgh tends to be a ghost town after the 5-6 o'clock whistle... at least that was my experience there 6 years ago.
While neither city is great, Cleveland has a poverty rate if 29% and Pittsburgh is 19%. That’s a huge difference and a gap not owed to gerrymandering. Generally the core of Pittsburgh is more well off than the core of metro Cleveland. But Clevelands suburbs are better.
This basically undeniable and gives people the false impression metro Pittsburgh came out of deindustrialization healthier than Metro Cleveland did. When that’s not the case.
I don’t know why you’re giving me a hard time. I’m trying to say Cleveland doesn’t get enough credit based on relatively few subpar central neighborhoods.
St Louis vs Milwaukee is another example where St Louis city suffered much more than Milwaukee city even though its region did significantly better.
St Louis vs Milwaukee is another example where St Louis city suffered much more than Milwaukee city even though its region did significantly better.
STL has clearly seen a massive population decline over the past 70 years and suffers from high crime.
But, St. Louis is currently doing better than Milwaukee (and most other rust belt cities) on most socioeconomic levels. Pittsburgh is clearly the standout, assuming Chicago doesn't count. But, STL is second on income a close 3rd on education levels and has the lowest poverty level.
Yup. The Mississippi/Ohio River cities, you could add Memphis to it as well. The relative importance of the Mississippi river has been fading since the mid 1800s. A consequence of the country growing so fast in such a short period of time combined with incredibly fast technological advances; mainly railroad.
If we had all the technology we have now, and the entire country at 1776, half those places wouldn't need to exist.
Nashville sorta bucks that trend, its growing and I would include it in your geographic belt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nemean
Saying the Lower (Missouri/Mississippi/Ohio/Arkansas) River cities describes it pretty well. Basically, you have to go to Minneapolis/Omaha/Pittsburgh/Oklahoma City for a better off city. The notable cities on the lower rivers would be Cincinnati, Louisville, Evansville, Paducah, St. Louis, Columbia MO, Jefferson City, Kansas City, Memphis, Little Rock, Baton Rouge and New Orleans. Jackson's also connected via Vicksburg in its CSA.
All true, but is getting away from the premise of the original point, which is how these cities have fared “in your lifetime” (since you were a kid). The decline in stature of many of these cities/regions listed happened in the 60’s or even well before that, so unless you’re much older this wouldn’t be “in your lifetime.”
While neither city is great, Cleveland has a poverty rate if 29% and Pittsburgh is 19%. That’s a huge difference and a gap not owed to gerrymandering. Generally the core of Pittsburgh is more well off than the core of metro Cleveland. But Clevelands suburbs are better.
This basically undeniable and gives people the false impression metro Pittsburgh came out of deindustrialization healthier than Metro Cleveland did. When that’s not the case.
I don’t know why you’re giving me a hard time. I’m trying to say Cleveland doesn’t get enough credit based on relatively few subpar central neighborhoods.
St Louis vs Milwaukee is another example where St Louis city suffered much more than Milwaukee city even though its region did significantly better.
My intention is not to give you a hard time because I'm agreeing with much of what you're saying. I'm just adding a few things... one note: the good news for Cleveland is, despite the seemingly disparate nature of some neighborhoods -- admittedly Univ. Circle/Little Italy IS off to the corner of the city separated by about 4 miles UC/LI, like most of the trendy areas mentioned, is connected directly by rail rapid transit... Pittsburgh's hot areas, not so much (exception: Station Square).
STL has clearly seen a massive population decline over the past 70 years and suffers from high crime.
But, St. Louis is currently doing better than Milwaukee (and most other rust belt cities) on most socioeconomic levels. Pittsburgh is clearly the standout, assuming Chicago doesn't count. But, STL is second on income a close 3rd on education levels and has the lowest poverty level.
Abandonment looks a lot worse than poverty though. A lot of New England cities (like say Worcester, Providence, Springfield) have a lot of poverty but maintained 70-85% of their peak population. As a result bad neighborhoods in Providence look like the houses need a paint job or a railing fixed. While large swaths of St Louis are blocks with like 4 houses left intact in them
My intention is not to give you a hard time because I'm agreeing with much of what you're saying. I'm just adding a few things... one note: the good news for Cleveland is, despite the seemingly disparate nature of some neighborhoods -- admittedly Univ. Circle/Little Italy IS off to the corner of the city separated by about 4 miles UC/LI, like most of the trendy areas mentioned, is connected directly by rail rapid transit... Pittsburgh's hot areas, not so much (exception: Station Square).
... I'm done with this one.
I always wish Pittsburgh had built at least one light rail line, north and east of downtown to cover those parts of town. That said there are buses that run to those nicer areas, plus a busway with limited stop buses that go out to that part of Pittsburgh.
And all the talk about Cleveland, makes me want to revisit there myself.
I think Atlanta, Seattle, Dallas and Houston have the most change in prominence in my life.
Austin and Raleigh Charlotte will be the cities to watch over the next 30 years. Nashville is surely growing today but I don't think the area will be functional as a 3 million plus msa for many reasons but mostly due to infrastructure.
I don't see Chicago loosing its prominence over the next 20 to 30 years. It has way too much going for it to go down.
I will have to give St Louis a shout out for stagnation and will be passed by a number of other cities. There are many great things happening in the region in biotechnology Geotechnical and innovation. The city county divide, lack of a regional growth strategy moving forward that i can see. They've been talking about things for the past 30 plus years and still have the same problems.
Memphis is an example of the next Gary Indiana. There is absolutely a head down energy to the people there. I think ai will be what takes that city out in the next ten to 20 years.
Nashville will get its act together I think, with infrastructure. I think Nashville will eventually get a rapid rail system going--I think the city is headed that way, eventually.
Austin, Charlotte and Raleigh should continue to grow, along with Nashville, over the course of the next 20-30 years.
If population trends continue, by 2050, we'll see these predicted metro numbers--
Austin--3.9 million
Charlotte--3.5 million
Nashville--3 million
(If Clarksville gets added to the MSA, then 3.5 million)
Raleigh--2.4 million
(Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill--3.2 million)
Both Memphis and St Louis will see bright spots here and there, but both cities will struggle with growth. Both are different cities, but have simillar crime and poverty, stagnation and decline.
Memphis has much more to lose since it depends heavily on logistics and shipping (FedEx/cargo in general). St Louis has a much bigger educational base and better healthcare. And overall, the St Louis suburbs are better, and of course the area is bigger with more job opportunities and corporations.
I'd say by 2050, St Louis metro will trickle in with growth at 2.925 million. Memphis will tick up with slight growth, thanks to its northern MS and eastern area TN suburbs, and come in around 1.450 million.
Both areas are in unfortunate situations where they grew due to the mighty Mississippi's flow and dependence. Now, that is waning and diminishing, and so are both cities' fast growth attempts.
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.
