What cities have a high quality of life? - Page 8

Nouvellecosse · #**141** Posted **Apr 5, 2024, 4:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford

I don't think it's particularly close. Detroit was easily twice the size of any Canadian city, and has legacy instructions befitting that era. Detroit was much larger and more important than Toronto or Montreal. The art museum, the symphony, the theaters all reflect this era.

And it almost certainly has the third greatest collection of prewar highrises on earth.

Granted, this is all irrelevant to 99% of people on globe.

The size/age difference is certainly true but I worry that it can lead to unwarranted assumptions. Historical size and prominence certainly gives a place a head start. But a head start is something that has to be maintained. Just like when running a race, if you slow down or stop, having a head start doesn't guarantee a win. And in the case of urban fabric there can even be a reversal of direction if stuff gets destroyed or degraded. It's also important to remember that culture isn't limited to high culture.

edale · #**142** Posted **Apr 5, 2024, 5:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AviationGuy

Then you haven't been there in the last decade. Typical Edale comment.

I was last there in 2019. I found downtown Austin very underwhelming and sterile.

Acajack · #**143** Posted **Apr 5, 2024, 5:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Depends on what you want out of it - coming from someone who has spent a decent amount of time in both cities. Ottawa is definitely more transit supportive and would be supportive of a more traditional "urban" lifestyle with low car use, etc. - but Detroit in many ways offers far more cultural events - major concerts, sports teams, etc. - and all major sports teams are actually downtown for Detroit, unlike Ottawa.

The food scene in both Cities is probably relatively comparable as well, if Detroit doesn't actually pull ahead, albeit slightly.

It depends what you want out of it, I guess. Personally I would take Detroit - especially once you consider how much warmer Detroit is. But I also really like driving and transit access isn't something I rank highly on my priorities.

I don't think that's an insult to Ottawa either, remembering that Detroit has roughly triple the metro population, and serves as the major city centre for a population probably 6 times that which Ottawa serves.

This is actually how I'd see it as well, to be perfectly honest.

Steely Dan · #**144** Posted **Apr 5, 2024, 6:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford

But I'm not sure the average family on this planet places any QoL weight on urban vibrancy. It's usually stuff like job, home, school, family.

I can't speak for the planet at large, but given how much traditional urbanism was thrown away like rotten garbage in rust-belt, while sprawl simultaneously gobbled up tens of thousands of square miles of new land, it's pretty damn clear that access to urban vibrancy is not a top priority for most American families.

That said, when other things like house, schools and safety are equalized, there is often a bit of a price premium for walkable access to traditional urbanism in the US

Or at least there is in Chicagoland. Take two roughly equivalent 4 bedroom houses in the same suburban school district. The first one is only a short 2 block walk away from a traditionally urban village center built around a metra station. The second is located 2+ miles away from anything pleasantly walkable and traditionally urban. The first house will usually cost more per square foot.

So I think walkable access to traditional urbanism (when all else is equal) is viewed by a many as a "nice to have" bonus, but nowhere near a top priority like it is for us urbanist nerds

TWAK · #**145** Posted **Apr 5, 2024, 6:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wigs

Why is Sac so...I dunno what the word is...lacklustre? It should be one of the fastest growing Metros in the country with a vibrant downtown, considering California has 40 million people and a 4 Trillion dollar economy

It actually has been fast growing (the metro), and it generally benefits whenever bay area home prices get to be too much. For downtown it has gotten a lot better with the new arena, but some of that is a lack of corporate sponsorship and stuff. Couple that with all the cool projects being proposed right before downturns or crashes

. A lot of the buildings downtown are for the state, so if you ever go to sac you will notice that the buildings aren't lit up at night.
-Edit: a disadvantage is the geography around the city to the west.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

Hey don't fret! You're getting a baseball team next year, albeit temporarily (presumably!?)

Possibly temporary hoping for permanent (as an A's fan) and at one time the A's were going to move to sac...there's even a husk of a ballpark. The fandom seems about split on it and it probably boils down to location.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JManc

Sacramento kinda reminds of what Austin was like 15-20 years ago. It's got a more laid vibe while Austin grew from a big funky college town to Bay Area lite.

They might have been equal around that time, at least the downtowns...but like I said Austin's downtown went supercharged.
The MSAs are still incredibly close population wise.

iheartthed · #**146** Posted **Apr 5, 2024, 6:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

I can't speak for the planet at large, but given how much traditional urbanism was thrown away like rotten garbage in rust-belt, while sprawl simultaneously gobbled up tens of thousands of square miles of new land, it's pretty damn clear that access to urban vibrancy is not a top priority for most American families.

However, prewar urban neighborhoods in America that escaped the urban renewal era with the least wounds are among the priciest real estate in the world today.

Steely Dan · #**147** Posted **Apr 5, 2024, 6:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed

However, prewar urban neighborhoods in America that escaped the urban renewal era with the least wounds are among the priciest real estate in the world today.

There is absolutely a subset of upper/upper middle class Americans who will pay a super premium for the precious little (relatively speaking) non-devastated intact traditional urbanism that we have in a handful of the big coastal markets.

But it's niche in the grand scheme of things.

Your typical American just wants a big house with a big yard that doesn't cost a lot of money. They don't much care that they have to drive everywhere, largely because they've never known anything else.

ssiguy · #**148** Posted **Apr 5, 2024, 6:48 PM**

I would put Cleveland ahead of Detroit.

Cleveland started it's rejuvenation a good decade ahead of Detroit and it shows and it has a booming medical/health sector as well as great museums, galleries, and one of the foremost orchestras in the world. It obviously has a lot of decay but I think they are further along in getting rid of it. Both Detroit & Cleveland are finally seeing declines in their crime/murder rates.

Cleveland does have one important advantage over Detroit...........it's transit system. While still leaving a lot to be desired, it does have a subway and 2 LRT lines and it's subway was the first to have a station at it's airport in all of NA and they are currently reinvesting in both systems with new trains coming on line. It also has an excellent BRT line which is rated amongst the best in NA. Detroit, however, has basically no transit and certainly no rail or even rapid transit.

Transit is essential for a vital and urban city and it's Detroit's, along with it's crime, biggest failure.

iheartthed · #**149** Posted **Apr 5, 2024, 7:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

There is absolutely a subset of upper/upper middle class Americans who will pay a super premium for the precious little (relatively speaking) non-devastated intact traditional urbanism hat we have in a handful of the big coastal markets.

But it's niche in the grand scheme of things.

Your typical American wants a giant house with a giant yard that doesn't cost a lot of money.

I do think it's about a little more than just preferences, though. A lot of metros pour a ton of money into highways to support sprawl, while putting very little into transit. Allocating resources in that way heavily tilts the cost-benefit calculation in favor of car centric places within those regions. While cities that invest in mass transit typically follow a pattern where housing prices correlate with access to rail based transit lines, because being close to transit makes people's lives easier.

But even in a super car centric place like Detroit, walkable urbanity commands a premium over most of suburbia. Condos in downtown or midtown Detroit sell for far above the median home price in Metro Detroit.

Crawford · #**150** Posted **Apr 5, 2024, 7:09 PM**

If you highly value urbanist stuff, I'd also put Cleveland ahead of Detroit. Somewhat more intact prewar fabric, less white/wealth flight, an actual transit system, and generally superior legacy cultural/civic institutions. The art museum is ridiculous. It might be my favorite outside the Met and the Orsay. Also right on a Great Lake and cheaper RE costs.

Detroit's advantages are that it's bigger/more cosmopolitan, far more immigrants and non-locals, much better airport, better job opportunities, more stuff in general and I'd much rather live in MI political climate than OH.

Crawford · #**151** Posted **Apr 5, 2024, 7:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed

But even in a super car centric place like Detroit, walkable urbanity commands a premium over most of suburbia. Condos in downtown or midtown Detroit sell for far above the median home price in Metro Detroit.

And it even extends to suburban sprawl. You pay a major apples-apples premium in Birmingham over Bloomfield, Northville over Novi, Rochester over Rochester Hills, etc. You pay more close to downtown RO than further afield. And no one in these places is taking transit or walking for more than leisure/exercise.

Acajack · #**152** Posted **Apr 5, 2024, 7:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford

I don't think it's particularly close. Detroit was easily twice the size of any Canadian city, and has legacy instructions befitting that era. Detroit was much larger and more important than Toronto or Montreal. The art museum, the symphony, the theaters all reflect this era.

And it almost certainly has the third greatest collection of prewar highrises on earth.

Granted, this is all irrelevant to 99% of people on globe.

You think it's not "close"? Not sure why you continue to underestimate Montreal or how familiar you are with it and its history.

It basically evolved as a place that served as and was destined to be the country's largest city for a couple of centuries. Sure, there was a metropolis interruptus of course that took place and things went off in a different direction 50 years ago, but prior to that Montreal got a whole bunch of stuff that befits a nation's metropolis.

Plus it all tends to be better preserved and used than a lot of the legacy stuff in Detroit is. Overall, Montreal is a Boston- or Philadelphia-level city.

Detroit and Montreal were actually pretty close in population during much of their history and there were also periods where Montreal was larger.

I could also chime in about Toronto which is also a way more fulsome metropolis than Detroit in spite of it definitely having less legacy grandeur due to being a relative late bloomer in the really big city club.

Steely Dan · #**153** Posted **Apr 5, 2024, 7:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed

But even in a super car centric place like Detroit, walkable urbanity commands a premium over most of suburbia. Condos in downtown or midtown Detroit sell for far above the median home price in Metro Detroit.

Yeah, I don't doubt that.

I even mentioned that same phenomenon taking place in suburban Chicagoland in my initial post.

That said, I was responding to Crawford's post about the AVERAGE american family not placing convenient walking access to vibrant traditional urbanism as a top (1, 2 or 3) priority in their housing choices.

I agree with him.

But that doesn't mean that it's zero priority.

Acajack · #**154** Posted **Apr 5, 2024, 8:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford

If you highly value urbanist stuff, I'd also put Cleveland ahead of Detroit. Somewhat more intact prewar fabric, less white/wealth flight, an actual transit system, and generally superior legacy cultural/civic institutions. The art museum is ridiculous. It might be my favorite outside the Met and the Orsay. Also right on a Great Lake and cheaper RE costs.

Detroit's advantages are that it's bigger/more cosmopolitan, far more immigrants and non-locals, much better airport, better job opportunities, more stuff in general and I'd much rather live in MI political climate than OH.

So if we follow your logic, then Cleveland would be ahead of... Montreal? (And Toronto?)

Crawford · #**155** Posted **Apr 5, 2024, 8:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack

You think it's not "close"? Not sure why you continue to underestimate Montreal or how familiar you are with it and its history.

Again, Montreal was a fraction of the size and wealth of Detroit. Not close. Not similar legacy institutions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack

Plus it all tends to be better preserved and used than a lot of the legacy stuff in Detroit is. Overall, Montreal is a Boston- or Philadelphia-level city.

In terms of typology and quality of urban form, yeah. But this doesn't have much to do with the previous point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack

Detroit and Montreal were actually pretty close in population during much of their history and there were also periods where Montreal was larger.

I don't see any pre-1931 metro data for Canada. Montreal had 1 million in 1931 and Detroit had 1.7 million in 1930. That's a pretty sizable gap. Detroit was almost much wealthier, and the U.S. cities generally had beefier apples-apples civic legacy stuff. Montreal didn't have a great art museum, symphony or that kind of thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack

I could also chime in about Toronto which is also a way more fulsome metropolis than Detroit in spite of it definitely having less legacy grandeur due to being a relative late bloomer in the really big city club.

Of course, but again, has nothing to do with previous point. Toronto was even smaller than Montreal.

Crawford · #**156** Posted **Apr 5, 2024, 8:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack

So if we follow your logic, then Cleveland would be ahead of... Montreal? (And Toronto?)

In terms of legacy institutions? Are you kidding me?

I'd put the Cleveland Museum of Art equal or ahead of almost every major art museum on earth. I'd put Terminal Tower equal or ahead of almost every prewar tower outside of NYC.

Cleveland, despite all its major flaws, has some mighty fine legacy assets.

Acajack · #**157** Posted **Apr 5, 2024, 8:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford

In terms of legacy institutions? Are you kidding me?

I'd put the Cleveland Museum of Art equal or ahead of almost every major art museum on earth. I'd put Terminal Tower equal or ahead of almost every prewar tower outside of NYC.

Cleveland, despite all its major flaws, has some mighty fine legacy assets.

Yes, some cities can have prestigious institutions, like Winnipeg has one of the world's greatest ballet companies. And Bilbao has a Guggenheim museum.

Crawford · #**158** Posted **Apr 5, 2024, 8:49 PM**

Bilbao has a famous Gehry building, it doesn't have a great art museum. And I don't believe your claim about Winnipeg is accurate.

It isn't about prestigious institutions, it's about irreplaceable legacy assets from a specific timeframe of civic ascendance.

isaidso · #**159** Posted **Apr 5, 2024, 11:18 PM**

Winnipeg absolutely does have a world renowned ballet company.

Not only is Royal Winnipeg Ballet highly regarded in the ballet world but it's the oldest ballet company in North America. I'm loathe to bolster the relevance of monarchy but they don't hand our royal charter to just anyone. Most of the time assets of this calibre are located in celebrated global cities but not always. The Mayo Clinic, for instance, is in Rochester, Minnesota.

There are a number of surprising things in Winnipeg. The Manitoba Legislature is considered, by some, to be the most perfect building ever constructed by the Freemasons. That aside, it's one of the most impressive buildings on the continent imo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Winnipeg_Ballet
https://canadiangeographic.ca/articl...-the-prairies/

Wigs · #**160** Posted **Apr 6, 2024, 12:07 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford

Detroit arguably has a pretty good QoL. Not my cup of tea but it makes sense. High U.S. incomes and high quality, relatively affordable housing, major intl. airport, strong legacy assets and about as easy to get around as any global metro of 5 million. No growth metros like Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Buffalo allow middle class households to access big homes and good school districts with nearby high culture at relatively low prices...

In contrast to all of the city limits above:

- city of Buffalo grew by 17,000
- Erie County grew by 35,000
~82% of the Buffalo-Niagara MSA live in Erie county and the 2 county Metro overall grew by over 31,000, despite city of Niagara Falls, NY still declining as of 2020.

There's ~2,200 units of residential under construction in the ~40 sq mile city limits right now, according to Buffalonian forumer benp

What's the value proposition of Buffalo?