What midwestern city seems most “urban” to you (except Chicago)?

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

Just got caught up on some of the discussion here for the last few days and wanted to comment on some Chicago observations and Dearborn Park specifically. . .

By the mid-1960s Chicago was on it's way down. . . everything surrounding downtown, including parts of downtown, were basically heavy industry or rail yards - no residential to speak of. . . there was a serious concern that Chicago's population would empty out like similar cities in the midwest. . . in the spirit of urban salvation there were projects such as Marina City, Sandburg Village, Outer Drive East, Presidential Towers and yes. . . Dearborn Park. . . by the late 1970s Chicago was a rough town and not just out in the 'hood parts either, it was rough all over. . . Dearborn Park was - in part - a reaction to that, a development that would keep families in the city center (on a former rail terminus I might add). . . and for the most part it worked. . . all through the 1980s and 1990s there was very little activity in the South Loop and DP served as an anchor for future development. . .

That it turns inward on itself is a product of the times and would not have been developed any other way. . . it's essentially a low rise version of London's Barbican. . .

Back to the regular discussion. . .

. . .

I'm fully informed that this is the story behind DP and I get it.

But times have changed, and the citizens living in DP have put up quite a resistance to recognizing that. Obviously the city around DP is a much more desirable place than when it was first built. I think we can find a reasonable compromise between keeping it family friendly while still "opening the doors" a bit to the reality that there is a huge, bustling city around you.

[edale]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Also, what are these "architectural influences from the Northeast" that Cincinnati has? And that additionally brings up the question of where does Cleveland get its architectural influences from? I'll answer the second one... from the Northeast.

OTR's tenement style walk-up buildings are primarily what I was referring to when I said Cincinnati has architectural influences from the Northeast. The only other place you can find similar styles of development are in New York, Boston, Philly...no where else in the Midwest, South, or West. The brick rowhouses, while not as extensive a typology as Philly or Baltimore, is also pretty unique for the midwest.

Cleveland's detached housing is more standard midwest, and can be found in cities from Buffalo to Milwaukee to Detroit, hell, even to outer Cincinnati neighborhoods. So while Boston might have plenty of 'Cleveland style' housing around its metro, its most famous, and most urban areas, are heavily brick, and either townhouses or multi-family buildings ala:

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3599...7i16384!8i8192

Cleveland doesn't have anything that looks remotely similar to that. Few cities do. Cincinnati has some areas that look slightly similar if you squint and ignore the blight. It's an older city than most of the other midwestern cities, so its core neighborhoods share more similarities with cities on the east coast than the newer midwest cities.

[Tom In Chicago]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I'm fully informed that this is the story behind DP and I get it.

But times have changed, and the citizens living in DP have put up quite a resistance to recognizing that. Obviously the city around DP is a much more desirable place than when it was first built. I think we can find a reasonable compromise between keeping it family friendly while still "opening the doors" a bit to the reality that there is a huge, bustling city around you.

Well what's your proposal to dealing with DP aside from "bulldozing" the place? Even in these more enlightened times we're living in I would think you'd find it pretty hard to convince people to move out of their homes just because the built form doesn't blend well with the surrounding street grid. . .

. . .

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by edale

OTR's tenement style walk-up buildings are primarily what I was referring to when I said Cincinnati has architectural influences from the Northeast. The only other place you can find similar styles of development are in New York, Boston, Philly...no where else in the Midwest, South, or West. The brick rowhouses, while not as extensive a typology as Philly or Baltimore, is also pretty unique for the midwest.

Cleveland's detached housing is more standard midwest, and can be found in cities from Buffalo to Milwaukee to Detroit, hell, even to outer Cincinnati neighborhoods. So while Boston might have plenty of 'Cleveland style' housing around its metro, its most famous, and most urban areas, are heavily brick, and either townhouses or multi-family buildings ala:

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3599...7i16384!8i8192

Cleveland doesn't have anything that looks remotely similar to that. Few cities do. Cincinnati has some areas that look slightly similar if you squint and ignore the blight. It's an older city than most of the other midwestern cities, so its core neighborhoods share more similarities with cities on the east coast than the newer midwest cities.

I would be hesitant to say Cleveland never had anything that looked like that. Detroit did, but most of it was demolished in the pre-war industrial boom. For instance: https://goo.gl/maps/vb5cqQAzgCARVtrg6

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

Well what's your proposal to dealing with DP aside from "bulldozing" the place? Even in these more enlightened times we're living in I would think you'd find it pretty hard to convince people to move out of their homes just because the built form doesn't blend well with the surrounding street grid. . .

. . .

This is off topic, but my suggestion would be just to open up public pedestrian through at 9th and 11th street and then maybe have a spot for semi-permanent food trucks on State.

[edale]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I would be hesitant to say Cleveland never had anything that looked like that. Detroit did, but most of it was demolished in the pre-war industrial boom. For instance: https://goo.gl/maps/vb5cqQAzgCARVtrg6

Perhaps, but there are very few traces of anything remotely similar in Cleveland. Here are some typical scenes from Cleveland's inner most, and oldest neighborhooods (Ohio City and Tremont):

Ohio City typical residential:
1) https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4852...7i13312!8i6656

2) Ohio City commercial district:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4850...7i13312!8i6656

Tremont:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4821...7i13312!8i6656

Cleveland has demolished SO much of its historical building stock, that it really is hard to imagine what once was there. But based on my knowledge of the city, it never really had much in the way of row houses or dense, 'east coast' style development. Its oldest residential neighborhoods are mostly wooden Victorian Era homes. Ohio City has some very cute, pleasant, and historic areas, but it's just a different typology than what you'd find in east coast cities. They did have a very impressive 'Millionaire's Row' on Euclid, but those were huge detached mansions, and basically all of them have been torn down.

Contrast this to Cincinnati, which has a much different development pattern in its core neighborhoods:
1) https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1108...7i16384!8i8192

2) https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1134...7i16384!8i8192

3) https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1089...7i16384!8i8192

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by edale

OTR's tenement style walk-up buildings are primarily what I was referring to when I said Cincinnati has architectural influences from the Northeast. The only other place you can find similar styles of development are in New York, Boston, Philly...no where else in the Midwest, South, or West. The brick rowhouses, while not as extensive a typology as Philly or Baltimore, is also pretty unique for the midwest.

Cleveland's detached housing is more standard midwest, and can be found in cities from Buffalo to Milwaukee to Detroit, hell, even to outer Cincinnati neighborhoods. So while Boston might have plenty of 'Cleveland style' housing around its metro, its most famous, and most urban areas, are heavily brick, and either townhouses or multi-family buildings ala:

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3599...7i16384!8i8192

Cleveland doesn't have anything that looks remotely similar to that. Few cities do. Cincinnati has some areas that look slightly similar if you squint and ignore the blight. It's an older city than most of the other midwestern cities, so its core neighborhoods share more similarities with cities on the east coast than the newer midwest cities.

every time i'm in OTR i'm like wtf is this place? it almost feels as if there should be a weird rift valley from the atlantic basin coming all the way up to OTR like a huge baltimore inner harbor. speaking of baltimore, soulard has a fells point-y feel, without a waterfront of course. st. louis of course demolished its version of OTR immediate adjacent to downtown, it appeared to be a bit less dense than OTR, but with a bit of the same flavor:


blogspot.com

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by edale

OTR's tenement style walk-up buildings are primarily what I was referring to when I said Cincinnati has architectural influences from the Northeast. The only other place you can find similar styles of development are in New York, Boston, Philly...no where else in the Midwest, South, or West. The brick rowhouses, while not as extensive a typology as Philly or Baltimore, is also pretty unique for the midwest.

Cleveland's detached housing is more standard midwest, and can be found in cities from Buffalo to Milwaukee to Detroit, hell, even to outer Cincinnati neighborhoods. So while Boston might have plenty of 'Cleveland style' housing around its metro, its most famous, and most urban areas, are heavily brick, and either townhouses or multi-family buildings ala:

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3599...7i16384!8i8192

Cleveland doesn't have anything that looks remotely similar to that. Few cities do. Cincinnati has some areas that look slightly similar if you squint and ignore the blight. It's an older city than most of the other midwestern cities, so its core neighborhoods share more similarities with cities on the east coast than the newer midwest cities.

Yeah, we've been through all of this countless times in various threads over the years. Everyone knows there's a difference. But we gotta stop with the broad-brush characterizations.

It's real simple... "brick rowhouse" does not equal "Northeast".

Most of New England (even in old, core neighborhoods, other than Boston) is not "brick rowhouse", not by a long shot. Its architectural housing vernacular is detached wood-frame.

So while, as you state, that "Cleveland's detached housing is more standard midwest, and can be found in cities from Buffalo to Milwaukee to Detroit"... one can also say "and can be found in cities from Buffalo to Syracuse to Springfield to Hartford to Providence.

Because the overall same style characterizes all of those cities, as well as pretty much everywhere else in the more northern parts of the Northeast.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by edale

But based on my knowledge of the city, it never really had much in the way of row houses or dense, 'east coast' style development. Its oldest residential neighborhoods are mostly wooden Victorian Era homes. Ohio City has some very cute, pleasant, and historic areas, but it's just a different typology than what you'd find in east coast cities. They did have a very impressive 'Millionaire's Row' on Euclid, but those were huge detached mansions, and basically all of them have been torn down.

Contrast this to Cincinnati, which has a much different development pattern in its core neighborhoods:

But rowhouses are not specifically the "east coast" style.

The oldest residential core neighborhoods in cities like the below are mainly wooden Colonial and Victorian era detached. Are these places not east coast? Is Federal Hill in Providence not an east coast residential neighborhood? How about the east end of Portland? It's practically in the Atlantic Ocean... it's not "east coast"?

Providence, RI
Portland, ME
Manchester, NH
Hartford, CT
Poughkeepsie, NY
Scranton, PA...

Here's the general dividing line if you're not of the area and/or don't know...

North of I-80... older city neighborhoods are not generally characterized by brick rowhouses; south of I-80, they are.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Because the overall same style characterizes all of those cities, as well as pretty much everywhere else in the more northern parts of the Northeast.

Years back I read this book Albion's Seed, which argued that a lot of the regional differences in the United States date back to the original founding stock of the areas in question.

In terms of architecture, the author notes that New England was settled by people from the East Anglia region of England. This can easily be seen if you look at East Anglia, and see the large number of places which lent their names to cities and towns in New England (Ipswich, Norwich, Boston, Cambridge, Haverhill, Colchester, Braintree, Chelmsford, etc). One of the things which set East Anglia apart from the rest of England at the time is they built homes more frequently out of wood. New England Yankees ran with this, and took the wood-framed vernacular with them everywhere they ultimately settled through Upstate NY and the Great Lakes (it was only defeated in Chicago due to the Great Fire).

In contrast, the "Midland" culture came from a different crucible - Quakers from Lancashire, Germans, and others. They kept to more of a brick vernacular. As people migrated westward from Philly and down the Ohio Valley, they brought this vernacular with them, and it went as far west as St. Louis.

The fault line in Pennsylvania even makes logical sense. Rowhouses are common in Allentown, but absent in Scranton. Scranton and the whole Wyoming Valley was actually first settled not by Pennsylvanians, but by settlers from Connecticut, who fought a set of low level wars with Pennsylvania over the land in question.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Years back I read this book Albion's Seed, which argued that a lot of the regional differences in the United States date back to the original founding stock of the areas in question.

In terms of architecture, the author notes that New England was settled by people from the East Anglia region of England. This can easily be seen if you look at East Anglia, and see the large number of places which lent their names to cities and towns in New England (Ipswich, Norwich, Boston, Cambridge, Haverhill, Colchester, Braintree, Chelmsford, etc). One of the things which set East Anglia apart from the rest of England at the time is they built homes more frequently out of wood. New England Yankees ran with this, and took the wood-framed vernacular with them everywhere they ultimately settled through Upstate NY and the Great Lakes (it was only defeated in Chicago due to the Great Fire).

In contrast, the "Midland" culture came from a different crucible - Quakers from Lancashire, Germans, and others. They kept to more of a brick vernacular. As people migrated westward from Philly and down the Ohio Valley, they brought this vernacular with them, and it went as far west as St. Louis.

The fault line in Pennsylvania even makes logical sense. Rowhouses are common in Allentown, but absent in Scranton. Scranton and the whole Wyoming Valley was actually first settled not by Pennsylvanians, but by settlers from Connecticut, who fought a set of low level wars with Pennsylvania over the land in question.

funnily enough lancashire comes up in my family history, as do first wave (?) 18th century germans who came in through philadelphia. fascinating.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Years back I read this book Albion's Seed, which argued that a lot of the regional differences in the United States date back to the original founding stock of the areas in question.

In terms of architecture, the author notes that New England was settled by people from the East Anglia region of England. This can easily be seen if you look at East Anglia, and see the large number of places which lent their names to cities and towns in New England (Ipswich, Norwich, Boston, Cambridge, Haverhill, Colchester, Braintree, Chelmsford, etc). One of the things which set East Anglia apart from the rest of England at the time is they built homes more frequently out of wood. New England Yankees ran with this, and took the wood-framed vernacular with them everywhere they ultimately settled through Upstate NY and the Great Lakes (it was only defeated in Chicago due to the Great Fire).

In contrast, the "Midland" culture came from a different crucible - Quakers from Lancashire, Germans, and others. They kept to more of a brick vernacular. As people migrated westward from Philly and down the Ohio Valley, they brought this vernacular with them, and it went as far west as St. Louis.

The fault line in Pennsylvania even makes logical sense. Rowhouses are common in Allentown, but absent in Scranton. Scranton and the whole Wyoming Valley was actually first settled not by Pennsylvanians, but by settlers from Connecticut, who fought a set of low level wars with Pennsylvania over the land in question.

Very cool info, thanks. I'll check that book out.

Right, it seems much more a case of Yankee style vs. Midland style, both emanating from the east coast. With the Midland style going all the way west down the Ohio Valley to St. Louis and south down to where?... Richmond, maybe?

Not a case of this really misinformed notion of a Northeast style vs. Midwest style.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

I don't know why, but my impression of St. Louis has always been that its urban areas are quite sleepy and spread out.

most midwest cities, for all of their history, and in some cases fantastic residential vernacular, have simply lost shockingly large amounts of their former population density as they have emptied out over the past 70 years.

this definitely has had an impact on that "sleepiness" feel.



midwest cities by number of census tracts >15,000 ppsm:

chicago: ~500
milwaukee: 33
minneapolis: 18
madison: 7
columbus: 5
aurora, IL: 4
detroit: 3
ann arbor: 3
cleveland: 2
cincinnati: 1
indy: 0
KC: 0
st. louis: 0

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Very cool info, thanks. I'll check that book out.

Right, it seems much more a case of Yankee style vs. Midland style, both emanating from the east coast. With the Midland style going all the way west down the Ohio Valley to St. Louis and south down to where?... Richmond, maybe?

Not a case of this really misinformed notion of a Northeast style vs. Midwest style.

i can speak for west of the appalachians...the brick vernacular sort of bobs along a line near present day I-64 through kentucky, through bourbon country, lexington over to louisville. lexington has zero-lot line and close brick houses with sidewalk edge (or close) stoops so i don't just mean brick for brick sake. you go further south and you end up with shotguns of course. shotguns are also present in louisville and st. louis.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

most midwest cities, for all of their history, and in some cases fantastic residential vernacular, have simply lost shockingly large amounts of their former population density as they have emptied out over the past 70 years.

this definitely has had an impact on that "sleepiness" feel.

also, some cities, especially st. louis but others are rife with a bunch of industrial corridors of all sizes along water and rail. st. louis' premier neighborhood includes a massive swath of one of these manufacturing corridors (which is turning into new construction for lab space, biotech, ikea, other large uses) which are everywhere, destroying residential density. my old neighborhood was a steel mill neighborhood on the extreme west edge of the st. louis city limits, so almost nowhere was immune from hyper-industrialization.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

midwest cities by number of census tracts >15,000 ppsm:

chicago: ~500
milwaukee: 33
minneapolis: 18
madison: 7
columbus: 5
aurora, IL: 4
detroit: 3
ann arbor: 3
cleveland: 2
cincinnati: 1
indy: 0
KC: 0
st. louis: 0

That's surprising. I knew most midwestern cities consisted of low-density tracts, but I've assumed that St. Louis had some dense nodes.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

That's surprising. I knew most midwestern cities consisted of low-density tracts, but I've assumed that St. Louis had some dense nodes.

per my above post, there are definitely neighborhoods that if you tweaked the borders would be 15k ppsm (or well above), i know even with forest park, the massive industrial swath, railyards, ikea, massive hospital complex, etc taking up like half of the central west end its officially high 14s even accounting for that. looking at the comparable neighborhoods in milwaukee and the city looks like a pristine princess that never got her hands dirty. st. louis is riddled with collapsed mines, buried tar pits, football field long foundations...

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Right, it seems much more a case of Yankee style vs. Midland style, both emanating from the east coast. With the Midland style going all the way west down the Ohio Valley to St. Louis and south down to where?... Richmond, maybe?

Richmond is close enough. There are some old portions of Hampton Roads which suggest rowhouses used to be more common there as well (also in Norfolk). And of course there's Savannah, and to a lesser degree Charleston or even New Orleans French Quarter. But I interpret this kinda like the oldest brick part of Boston - it just took awhile for the residential vernaculars to gel in some of the colonial-era cities.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

midwest cities by number of census tracts >15,000 ppsm:

chicago: ~500
milwaukee: 33
minneapolis: 18
madison: 7
columbus: 5
aurora, IL: 4
detroit: 3
ann arbor: 3
cleveland: 2
cincinnati: 1
indy: 0
KC: 0
st. louis: 0

Look at Milwaukee!

And what is up with Aurora, IL, Ann Arbor, and Madison, WI (I'm especially surprised by Aurora) having more high density tracts than whole cities like Cleveland, Indy, and St Louis?

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Richmond is close enough. There are some old portions of Hampton Roads which suggest rowhouses used to be more common there as well (also in Norfolk). And of course there's Savannah, and to a lesser degree Charleston or even New Orleans French Quarter. But I interpret this kinda like the oldest brick part of Boston - it just took awhile for the residential vernaculars to gel in some of the colonial-era cities.

Yeah, I wasn’t sure about Hampton Roads area, nor if the older southern cities had similar Midlands influence, or if their influence arose from elsewhere in British lands (in the case of Charleston and Savannah) and vía Spanish and French influence in New Orleans’ case.