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.
Not sure about that. Today's populace has smaller households, so far more housing would be needed. There are far more jobs per capita, so there might be a lot more commuting per household WFH notwithstanding. Retail is far more car-oriented. Electricity use is higher. And how many would drive vs. use transit or walk?
Sort of related to where he had stated rehabbing structures, though not in the subsequent rationale used, is that these older downtown areas sometimes had a lot of factories and warehouses nearby or within downtown which were part of their industrial legacy. Some of those are quite large and still in existence and *can* be repurposed for housing. I'll also add that modern construction can allow for mid-rise and low-rise structures within the same footprint that a former masonry structure used to take up, but have a lot more interior usable room.
Not sure about that. Today's populace has smaller households, so far more housing would be needed. There are far more jobs per capita, so there might be a lot more commuting per household WFH notwithstanding. Retail is far more car-oriented. Electricity use is higher. And how many would drive vs. use transit or walk?
Considering how much of Rust belt cities are just packed in SFH it’s not hard to imagine throwing in a few apartment buildings (or rebuilding on empty lots) I don’t think geometry is going to be an issue. Most of these cities were not *that* dense even at peak. Cleveland was only 11,700 people per sq mile. Cincinnati peaked at 6,600 ppsm.
Most cities have the infrastructure. Cleveland’s RTA rail system used to have 3x its current ridership on effectively the current system. there is slack capacity. Pittsburgh’s light rail and Buffalo’s light rail rarely have full train cars.
Considering how much of Rust belt cities are just packed in SFH it’s not hard to imagine throwing in a few apartment buildings (or rebuilding on empty lots) I don’t think geometry is going to be an issue. Most of these cities were not *that* dense even at peak. Cleveland was only 11,700 people per sq mile. Cincinnati peaked at 6,600 ppsm.
Most cities have the infrastructure. Cleveland’s RTA rail system used to have 3x its current ridership on effectively the current system. there is slack capacity. Pittsburgh’s light rail and Buffalo’s light rail rarely have full train cars.
The Pittsburgh T didn't even begin construction until the city had lost about %40 of peak population.
It's mostly a train from the south side suburbs into downtown. Going east into Oakland would really be interesting with more than double today's population with just today's buses.
I'm going to Chicago in three days for a week, so I can finally graduate out of "poster who talks about city he's never been to" for that city, but on paper if you look at housing stock, local rail, suburban rail, airports, buses....they could go back to 3.6 million population like flipping a light switch.
Accounting for the reality of smaller housing sizes that mhays brought up (grandpa lived in huge household on the south side pre ww2) 3.1 million is probably more realistic.
It just boggles my mind that people are picking Columbus and Indy over Chicago when Chicago is only slightly more expensive.
The Pittsburgh T didn't even begin construction until the city had lost about %40 of peak population.
It's mostly a train from the south side suburbs into downtown. Going east into Oakland would really be interesting with more than double today's population with just today's buses.
I'm going to Chicago in three days for a week, so I can finally graduate out of "poster who talks about city he's never been to" for that city, but on paper if you look at housing stock, local rail, suburban rail, airports, buses....they could go back to 3.6 million population like flipping a light switch.
Accounting for the reality of smaller housing sizes that mhays brought up (grandpa lived in huge household on the south side pre ww2) 3.1 million is probably more realistic.
It just boggles my mind that people are picking Columbus and Indy over Chicago when Chicago is only slightly more expensive.
Yeah the Southern/some western lines on the L have seen steep ridership declines covered up by high ridership north of the loop. There is a lot of slack capacity in existing infrastructure if the south side can be properly repopulated
I think a better way to look at it would be asking how many people X city/metro can add with the current infrastructure before that existing infrastructure becomes strained. I would think the Rust Belt/Great Lakes would be way up there by that metric. Here's my take on the ones I'm most familiar with.
Chicago would obviously be at the top. It has the infrastructure to add a couple million people to the city and probably another couple million in the metro due to its transportation infrastructure alone. It's about as close as it gets to being as big as possible without adding too much strain to what is in place.
Cleveland (and not trying to be a homer here) would be next up. Cleveland (Akron) has the highway infrastructure of a 4-5 million "metro" .. 3 major E-W interstates and 2 major N-S ones; plus 2 E-W and a N-S outer belt. Combined its just under 3 million now. Though since this region has moved out, I don't think the highway areas can add too much more, but probably another 250k (if done right). The city of Cleveland, though, can easily support another 500k because it has one heavy and 2 light rail lines (and BRT) and a lot of land now to work with along those lines. Akron probably another 100k. So overall, the city of Cleveland would be back to around the 800-900k range, Akron back to the 300k range and the Cleveland/Akron area up to about 3.5 to 4 million (compared to 2.8 million) before things would start to strain.
Buffalo can easily add 250k (back to peak). Not sure how much metro growth can occur though outside of Buffalo being the big benefactor. It's more of a 1.5 million area that is a couple hundred thousand short of that.
Pittsburgh and Detroit are tougher for me to guage. Pittsburgh has a lot less vacant land to work with and due to terrain and small city size really has to go vertical now to add. But it has the rail and highway infrastructure to, like Buffalo, add another 250k. The Mon Valley also has an opportunity for another 250k based on its very Rust Belt characteristics. Again, partly due to topography here, I don't see the rest of the metro being able to add a whole lot without additional upgrades. But one that could top around 3 million overall (with 1.5 million being within 15 miles or so of downtown) before it gets strained.
Detroit is tough for me because the city can easily add another 750k (still would be below peak). Plus, I'm not sure how much more growth the outer metro can have without some infrastructure improvements. It's already spread out as far as it can go (maybe 75 south toward Toledo can add more). But Detroit definitely has a ton of room to re-grow. Even if the outlying metro is maxed, still talking about a huge 5 million person area (when including Ann Arbor and Windsor).
I'll stop there because those are the ones I'm most familiar with.
Something to consider is which of these rust belt cities has infrastructure in place today that would support their peak population.
I'm pretty sure the only city that claim they do is Chicago. I can't imagine Pittsburgh being able to support 680,000 in the 54 square mile city with two T lines and BRT, I'm guessing Buffalo would be the same or worse.
Philadelphia supported 2 million residents with the rapid transit and regoinal rail infrastructure it has now, and when it had that many residents, much of Far Northeast Philadelphia was still undeveloped.
Yes, this exactly. All of the most urban cities now also have below replacement birth rates, MUCH lower in some cases. And domestic migration is likely to continue to be negative unless there's a seismic shift in affordability.
Only immigration in overdrive is going to make an appreciable difference in population in any of the big urban cities in the coming years.
And even that is not a given considering most of the post 65 immigration went directly to the suburbs. We should really find a way to change that.
It just boggles my mind that people are picking Columbus and Indy over Chicago when Chicago is only slightly more expensive.
Has to be a perception thing. Chicago irrationally known as a high crime city. The Rights war on Chicago was successful.
As for Columbus and Indianapolis; maybe race plays a part. As much as I hate to draw that card but those are the two major Midwest cities that doesn’t have a large Black population so they are perceived differently (I would have said Minneapolis 10 years ago; before the GF made the whole country realize Prince, Dez and Andre weren’t the only ones.
That being said, I too don’t get the appeal of either. Midwest without the Lakes OR the great rivers….at least Columbus has The U and a decent in town neighborhood. I was watching a home Reno show centered on Indianapolis and just couldn’t see it for that city, and it’s blander than bland housing stock.
Has to be a perception thing. Chicago irrationally known as a high crime city. The Rights war on Chicago was successful.
As for Columbus and Indianapolis; maybe race plays a part. As much as I hate to draw that card but those are the two major Midwest cities that doesn’t have a large Black population so they are perceived differently (I would have said Minneapolis 10 years ago; before the GF made the whole country realize Prince, Dez and Andre weren’t the only ones.
That being said, I too don’t get the appeal of either. Midwest without the Lakes OR the great rivers….at least Columbus has The U and a decent in town neighborhood. I was watching a home Reno show centered on Indianapolis and just couldn’t see it for that city, and it’s blander than bland housing stock.
I had a friend who lived in Indy, and he referred to his hometown as "Indianoplace."
Given that the shortest highway route to my hometown from here is via I-70, the principal east-west Interstate across the country's midsection, I've passed through Indianapolis more times than I care to count. I think I've stopped there once. I remember my stops in Columbus more than I do my stop in Indy. I had relatives who lived in Edwardsville, Ill., in the part of Greater St. Louis they call "Metro East."
I can't say I'm intimately famlirar with all four of the big Midwest cities on I-70, but I'm familiar enough with them to share your head-scratching over Indy. My guess is it grew because the state capital was placed there because of its relatively central location in the state. You may also note that Columbus is also just about dead center in Ohio.
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.
