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.
Richmond
Richmond's core stretches from Chimborazo Park in the east, to 395 on the west; and from Diamond in the north to around Richmond Highway and Maury. Core Richmond basically includes 4 areas---->Downtown, the Uptown neighborhoods on The West End, Old Town Manchester on the Southside, and Shockoe and Church Hill on The East End...
As of 2021, this defined region of Richmond had a population of 65,813 across 10.15 square miles of land, population density of 6484 ppsm...
As it compares to Norfolk, it's interesting that Norfolk's core is about 11% more people per square mile, because structurally Norfolk isn't built more densely (I can't state this with 100% certainty but my guess would be because Core Norfolk has about 5 different low income housing projects within, compared to one in Core Richmond). Richmond has a clearly larger core, it maintains its density and vibrancy over a larger radius than Norfolk, and I think this is easily identifiable to the eye if you spend time in both...
Richmond's core contains a plethora of museums, and fir my money I think Richmond has one of the strongest museum cultures of any city irrespective of weight class. They are outstanding in Richmond...
Additionally within Richmond you have the James River and all of its activity (The Canal, Belle Isle, Mayo Island, kayaking, rafting, etc); nightlife districts around Shockoe Bottom, Manchester, Broad Street; Maymont, Monroe, as well as other parks; VCU and MCV; Carytown which is basically Georgetown DC on a smaller scale; absolutely outstanding neighborhoods; and an elite arts and creative culture...
I've been to handful of these cities and one takeaway I noticed was that many of the downtown cores in midsize metros had a lot of damage done during mid 20th century urban renewal and the highway building era. Especially Hartford. Given the size of some of the cities, the highway networks were overbuilt at the time. Richmond has some awesome old historic neighborhoods but I wish I-95 didn't cut right through the middle of it and same for the downtown expressway by the James River. Norfolk has some lovely old core neighborhoods, but the downtown waterfront area left me wondering what it must have looked like prior to WWII.
All cities large and small have this element to some degree. But from the selection, I like the cities that have most of their old bones intact and near seamless connections to adjacent neighborhoods. New Orleans is on top here, the streetcar lines stitch the city together pretty well. Providence performs well here, it's a great city to explore on the ground and walking through its core neighborhoods (Downtown/College Hill/Federal Hill).
I haven't been, but I have the impression that Milwaukee has a fairly vibrant downtown and adjacent neighborhoods. Richmond also does well, it would just be nice if they buried and capped the downtown highways. In Salt Lake City I-15 & I-80 are far enough away from downtown. The city is very clean and has very good transit options. It also has massively wide streets.
I'd be interested if you can give rough boundaries of the cores of Providence, Milwaukee, New Orleans, Salt Lake..
I've been to Providence and Salt Lake; Salt Lake is more urban than I'd assumed, and Providence is super urban but is just so small feeling. It's a beautiful city...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Landolakes90
Of these cities the ones I have experience with are Birmingham, Milwaukee, New Orleans, Norfolk, Richmond, Louisville, and Grand Rapids. For some reason I've developed a fascination of cities in this population bracket. I think due in part to my proximity and travels to Milwaukee, Grand Rapids, and Louisville.
This is always hard for me since I don't know the concrete criteria what is or is not urban. Though I don't know that one truly exists. Typically the cities that peaked before suburbanization tend to be the most dense/urban. I usually can rank their cores urbanity based on where they were in population rankings around 1950.
Of these I think Milwaukee is the most urban. Milwaukee is a unique city on here in that most folks that contribute on City-Data have not been there. It's location in Chicago's shadow, and the upper Midwest means that most folks on here don't even have a regional awareness of it(given that this forum is largely dominated by posters from the Northeast, and South). It has a surprising expansive, dense, and tall core. Even it's periphery neighborhoods have both height and density for this weight class. In lieu of actual on the ground experience a lot of folks "urbanity impressions" come from skyline photos. The signature skyline shot of Milwaukee comes from the lake front looking west. That is the most anemic view of the city and gives a misleading impression of it's skyline. Viewed from almost any other angle it is far more impressive.
That said I don't think the separation between Milwaukee and the others is that great. I would rank them as follows:
Very Close:
Milwaukee
Buffalo
New Orleans
Louisville -tie
Providence -tie
Richmond - tie
Salt Lake City
Hartford Small gap
Norfolk
Birmingham
Rochester Small gap
Grand Rapids
Grand Rapids is at a disadvantage in this grouping IMO. 15 years ago it was still considered part of the tier below these cities. It has only really come into peoples awareness over the last 10 years. In the 1950's when the built environment of most of these cities was peaking, urban Grand Rapids was less than half the size it is now. Like Milwaukee it suffers from being in an out of the way location in the upper Midwest that most folks aren't likely to know much about. Like Milwaukee it has a similar skyline issue, in that it's signature skyline shot show's a few high rises on the riverfront, but completely hides the 3 sq mi of density behind them(not to mention the two tallest buildings in the city are actually on the other side of the river). It's a statisticians nightmare in that it has the smallest urbanized footprint of the cities in the grouping, but it anchors the 3rd largest media market. A commuter shift of 2-3 points could add another 2 counties to it's MSA putting it closer to 1.3-1.4 million people. Creating an even more confusing impression for folks who have not been there.
That said Grand Rapids is surprisingly urban when put in context to the size of it's urban area. The NIMBY nature of it's outer ring suburbs has put an unofficial urban growth boundary around GR and is forcing it to getting denser much faster. It's also seeing a consolidation of regional corporations moving their headquarters downtown which is also contributing to the proliferation of its urban health. I say all of this to say that I think GR still really belongs toward the top of the tier II midsized cities. I think Omaha is still ahead of it, certainly in perceived urbanity. I think in another 10 years GR will have definitively moved to the next tier.
I spent some good time in Buffalo, and I don't think there's a gap between it and Richmond at all, because Richmond is more vibrant, has more street level activity, whereas Buffalo is just more built up. It isn't a more active city than Richmond, and this is where Richmond really rises to me, when talking "urbanity" I include the "busy" factor, energy and activity on the streets...
Richmond has more people moving around, more artists on the streets (people doing music or street art or street vendors, etc)...
Any advantage Buffalo has in being more filled in, which it is, is nullified by Richmond being so noticeably busier...
Do you have an outline on what would be considered Core Grand Rapids?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckhthankgod
Rochester is actually removing its Inner Loop and has always had housing development built in the portion that has already been removed. There is more slated in that right of way, once the loop is removed.
Can either of you give outlines of Rochester and Buffalo core urban stretches? I could attempt but yall are much more familiar with both cities than I, so I'd trust your boundaries more...
Quote:
Originally Posted by 585WNY
Rochester deserves some recognition for successfully pulling off an ambitious project to restore part of the urban core. Of course I’m referring to filling in the Inner Loop. The eastern infill is now complete and it’s incredible.
The northern stretch is currently being filled in which will finally reconnect the High Falls and Public Market areas with downtown. Not sure if any similar infill has occurred in Hartford.
Edit: ckhthankgod beat me to it! But I'll leave this post since it shows a different side of the development not visible in their links. Just goes to show how large the project was.
Founded in 1871, Birmingham is by far the youngest city on this list. Fortunately it was able to boom before the automobile took over, so it has relatively strong urban bones despite its age.
Part of my curiosity on asking people to frame the urban cores of these cities is because of the nuances in urban functionality they have...
Buffalo is built up pretty well, plenty of people, has light rail, but is lacking a vibrancy quotient that places like Richmond or Salt Lake have. Hartford is probably the biggest illustrator of this, as that city has to be quite possibly the deadest of any of these cities---->but has arguably the most urban build...
New Orleans is one I hear all the time how urban it is and it has to be because of the vibrancy because while it has an urban build, I don't think it's build gives it an advantage over the top end of these cities...
I've been to Birmingham, Milwaukee, New Orleans, and Louisville. They are all quite beautiful in terms of their historic buildings.
The last time I drove through Birmingham, I thought the drive between Red Mountain (where Mountain Brook starts) and downtown was quite beautiful. They have the 5 Points area and long ago did a landscaping plan for their Main Street downtown. But the area in between seems to be filling in and the architecture is great.
Milwaukee of course has a huge set of historic areas and a gorgeous lakefront setting. My favorite parts of Milwaukee were the part just off downtown where all the little restaurants and bars are..and those beautiful lakefront suburbs which themselves have a historic feel.
Louisville's Bardstown Rd is adorable. It seems like such a serene place to live, with all those little restaurants and bars, with historic neighborhoods behind them.
I didn't see Omaha on this list but they have a terrific downtown and amazing historic neighborhoods...and a very pretty, hilly terrain. It would be a tough choice if I had to pick between these places. They all have great points. I guess it would come down to what your dealbreakers are. Alabama have horrible politicians that almost ruin an otherwise lovely state. Wisconsin is cold as xxxx. Louisville might be a little short on scenery (lakes, mountains) although the river is pretty.
New Orleans speaks for itself. The amount of historic character boggles the mind. The dealbreakers might be the heat/humidity and the crime. Omaha's dealbreaker might be just the location being a bit away from everything.
Jackson, MS is a size-tier smaller than these metros and also was much smaller at the turn of the 20th century. So its charm is more as kind of a large small-town. The downtown hasn't yet quite been revived, but the adjacent neighborhoods (Belhaven, Fondren, Eastover, Highland Village area) are charming with a mixture of historic residential areas, colleges, medical centers, museums, parks, and restaurant/shopping districts .
The state has created the remarkable Capitol Police which protects the entire area and with the feds' help the water system has been fully fixed. They are months away from fed approval of a 10-mile lake through the heart of the city, complete with parks, trails and mixed-use communities, and an adjacent 3,000 acre park is currently under construction which will connect the 10-mile lake to the existing 30 square mile Barnett Reservoir and the Natchez Trace. The adjacent suburbs in Madison and Rankin Counties are crime-free and thriving, and the area is beginning to add up to a cool place.
Buffalo's core urban stretch begins downtown and fans out to the north up to the city limits, but there are dense (>10k) neighborhoods in all parts of the city with the exception of industrial stretches south of the Buffalo River, along the lakeshore, and along railroad corridors, primarily on the East Side.
Just the immediate few neighborhoods, starting downtown and fanning out to the north, and staying south of Delaware Park:
There are multiple other neighborhoods of over 10k density that retain "urban" fabric that are not fully contiguous or adjacent to the "core" neighborhoods:
New Orleans seems like an outlier given it's massive tourism corridor. It's a very unique city that really punches above it's weight culturally.
In terms of most urban, I'm torn between Milwaukee and Providence. Milwaukee gives the feel of a bigger city and seems closer in stature to Cleveland or St Louis than many of the cities on the list. Providence is smaller by city area, but it definitely feels like a node on the I95 megalopolis with it's dense triple decker neighborhoods and urban commercial corridors.
Buffalo is pretty dense and has seen a modest revival in recent years, but I still feel like Milwaukee tops it. Ditto with Richmond vs Providence. It's arguably the tail end of the 95 corridor with a fairly urban core. But Providence feels bit more urban to me.
Norfolk feels like the part of a big MSA, but not super urban. Salt Lake City probably has the best downtown and feels like a city that will be dramatically larger than the other on the list 20 years. But it doesn't feel super urban.
I don't know enough about Louisville and Birmingham. I hear nice things about Louisville. But I'm not sure how urban it is outside the core? Hartford is just sad. In a slightly different world it could be a major old east coast city. Rochester is like a slightly smaller, less urban Buffalo. But the city has more struggles. The downtown is terrible and the universities aren't as integrated into the city in a way that could be as conducive to urbanism. GR had a nice downtown and some nice areas. But it feels a little smaller in the neighborhoods given it has historically been a smaller city
New Orleans seems like an outlier given it's massive tourism corridor. It's a very unique city that really punches above it's weight culturally.
In terms of most urban, I'm torn between Milwaukee and Providence. Milwaukee gives the feel of a bigger city and seems closer in stature to Cleveland or St Louis than many of the cities on the list. Providence is smaller by city area, but it definitely feels like a node on the I95 megalopolis with it's dense triple decker neighborhoods and urban commercial corridors.
Buffalo is pretty dense and has seen a modest revival in recent years, but I still feel like Milwaukee tops it. Ditto with Richmond vs Providence. It's arguably the tail end of the 95 corridor with a fairly urban core. But Providence feels bit more urban to me.
Norfolk feels like the part of a big MSA, but not super urban. Salt Lake City probably has the best downtown and feels like a city that will be dramatically larger than the other on the list 20 years. But it doesn't feel super urban.
I don't know enough about Louisville and Birmingham. I hear nice things about Louisville. But I'm not sure how urban it is outside the core? Hartford is just sad. In a slightly different world it could be a major old east coast city. Rochester is like a slightly smaller, less urban Buffalo. But the city has more struggles. The downtown is terrible and the universities aren't as integrated into the city in a way that could be as conducive to urbanism. GR had a nice downtown and some nice areas. But it feels a little smaller in the neighborhoods given it has historically been a smaller city
Providence is tough because it kind of feels like really urban but not really big.
Like Buffalo is laid out like a major city. Gaudy, Massive city hall big circles and boulevards etc.
Richmond has capital vibes too with Monument Ave.
Providence seems like a city that just kind of happened.
Boston gets the same observations. That it “feels small” even though by objective measures it really isn’t.
I think it’s because it’s a square/intersection based city. Vs a street based city. In Buffalo Main Street is the Main Street of like every neighborhood it passes thru fir miles. There is a degree of Cohesiveness that doesn’t exist in Providence. This means neighborhoods feel much more physically separate. And the city feels smaller.
Plus it does quite literally lack the broad shoulders of most of these cities as other than Milwaukee it’s pretty significantly denser
Defining the urban core is a bit tricky because as mentioned previously, Rochester's urban fabric is a little fractured due to mid-century urban renewal. There are stretches, particularly in the 14621 neighborhood, where you'll go from peak density around downtown, to suburban plazas and public housing complexes, then back to dense commercial corridors heading towards the edge of city limits.
The City of Rochester does a pretty good job defining "Center City" in the terms shown on the below map: https://i.imgur.com/MbajUGI.jpg
I would probably define the urban core of Rochester in a somewhat broader sense, with the following:
The entirety of the city's SE Quadrant from the University of Rochester College Town area, following just north of Highland Ave to Cobbs Hill Park, then using Winton Road as an eastern border until E. Main Street.
In the NE Quadrant I would use Goodman Street as the eastern boundary and Norton Street on the northern end.
On the west side, everything from Brooks Ave in the 19th Ward to Kodak at Lake & Ridge are solidly within the urban core, however the western boundary narrows significantly as you head north. In the SW Quadrant it's probably the Erie Canal. By the NW Quadrant using Dewey Ave is even a stretch.
This definition encompasses the most urban corridors of the city as well as the majority of its amenities and cultural enclaves. Each of these neighborhoods have a population density in the 8,000 to 12,000/sq mi range.
Generally speaking, for Birmingham, I-20/59 to the north, I-65 to the west, the Red Mountain Expressway (US-28-/31) and Red Mountain are generally good markers for the downtown-ish area. This area can roughly be divided into two parts: the more traditional downtown north of the tracks and more recent, more UAB/medical focused south of the tracks (the avenues are numbered based off being north or south of the tracks). That said, these borders aren't a hard stop, and more recent answers would probably include some areas to the north or east. (The Birmingham area has "good bones" for potential urban growth as far as Woodlawn, Ensley or Bessemer, so it's a bit hard to make longer range guesses as to what way things will build up as downtown becomes more popular and picking up more quickly. If public transit actually got good, I'd have considered adding Homewood or possibly even parts of Mountain Brook, but that'd be moreso so that Vulcan and the botanical gardens could be part of the core.).
Oddly enough, while highways definitely cut things up, if you look closer, a lot of it was where the city had already been cut up by railroads or notable creeks. If the grid on both sides of the highway would match up, there's not a creek or river, and it's residential on both sides, that's where the worst damage was done.
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.
