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

[Antares41]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

So, "urban" to me implies a lot about the built form. I used to travel to Minneapolis for work almost weekly around 2016 - 2018, and it didn't really seem more urban than Detroit to me (although there are quite a lot of similarities between the two cities). Minneapolis IS urban, and it's definitely more intact and stable. But Detroit seems like it has (or had) a more comprehensive urban form that just happens to be extremely deteriorated.

I agree strongly with your last two sentences. Detroit and for that matter Cleveland and St. Louis all seem to had grand plans to be bigger vibrant urban centers, but, for numerous reasons that deserve a thread of its own never came to fruition; not saying they couldn't rebound but the dilapidation is tangible.
Minneapolis, on the other hand is urban, and growing more intact. The whole area is becoming cohesive, Minneapolis and St. Paul might as well be one city. And, more importantly, seems to be embracing and moving toward many things that encompasses urban living. So it gets my east coast-centric vote.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by aderwent

I wonder how much of an effect the 100% remote school had?

Yeah, good question. Schools would've started to send students home before the April 1 census deadline. But the Census Bureau must have a special provision for counting college campuses, since I doubt they send notices directly to dorm residents.

[ChiSoxRox]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

major midwest cities by total # of people in census tracts >10,000 ppsm (2010):
Chicago - 2,584,931
Milwaukee - 252,711
Minneapolis -183,441
Cleveland - 98,090
Detroit - 70,371
St. Louis - 64,143
Columbus - 38,613
Cincinnati - 34,703
Kansas City -2,998
Indianapolis - 0
.

Using the Census Bureau's map, I've updated this list.

Here is the spreadsheet with my work. Sheet 2 lists each census tract. Let me know if you catch an omission.

Twin Cities - 240,371
Milwaukee - 234,104
Detroit - 112,955*
Columbus - 86,536
Cleveland - 78,607
Madison - 63,212 (by far the best for a <1M metro)
St. Louis - 53,286
Cincinnati - 40,620
Grand Rapids - 13,399
Kansas City - 7728
Indianapolis - 4538
Omaha - 2378

*Ann Arbor is an additional 26,580.

Chicago is left as an exercise for the reader.

A few take-aways:

1) The Twin Cities have surpassed Milwaukee as the largest non-Chicago density cluster in the Midwest.

2) Most metros gained high density population. Exceptions: Milwaukee, Cleveland, and St. Louis.

3) Columbus more than doubled its high density population!

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Yeah, good question. Schools would've started to send students home before the April 1 census deadline. But the Census Bureau must have a special provision for counting college campuses, since I doubt they send notices directly to dorm residents.

The colleges submitted the home addresses of their students to the census bureau.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

2) Most metros gained high density population. Exceptions: Milwaukee, Cleveland, and St. Louis.

First, thanks for compiling all of the data!

Your second point makes sense given that all three of those central cities lost population.

On the other hand, it makes Detroit's ~50% gain in people in 10,000 ppsm tracts all the more curious given that Detroit's population drop was the largest in the Midwest.

Any clues as to what gives there? Is it a sign of a truly resurgent downtown core, but even more depopulated surrounding neighborhoods?

[ChiSoxRox]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

First, thanks for compiling all of the data!

Your second point makes sense given that all three of those central cities lost population.

On the other hand, it makes Detroit's ~50% gain in people in 10,000 ppsm tracts all the more curious given that Detroit's population drop was the largest in the Midwest.

Any clues as to what gives there? Is it a sign of a truly resurgent downtown core, but even more depopulated surrounding neighborhoods?

You're welcome.

For Detroit, it could be. The 10k/mi^2 population is in three main areas: downtown/Midtown, Dearborn, and Hamtramck. Several of the census tracts in both the downtown and Dearborn clusters are in the 10k-11k bin, so they likely weren't counted in 2010.

Hamtramck is especially impressive, posting a 26% growth rate thanks to immigration. Of the 10 CTs in Michigan over the 15k threshold, three are suburban apartment complexes, two are Midtown -- and the other five are Hamtramck!

[Steely Dan]

^ oh right, your figures are metro, and because of municipal boundary quirks, hamtramck isn't technically a part of the city of Detroit, even though it functionally is.

I'll look into it further when I have the time, but I'd love to compare Detroit downtown/midtown census tracts 2010 vs. 2020.

While the 2020 census wasn't great for the city of Detroit overall, if we really are seeing significant core density increases over 2010, then that bodes well for the future. Detroit can't "fix" all 130 sq. miles at once; it has to start somewhere.

And if the data shows that start really is happening in downtown/midtown, then we'll at least get a silver lining.

[MPLS_Const_Watch]

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

Using the Census Bureau's map, I've updated this list.

Here is the spreadsheet with my work. Sheet 2 lists each census tract. Let me know if you catch an omission.

Twin Cities - 240,371
Milwaukee - 234,104
Detroit - 112,955*
Columbus - 86,536
Cleveland - 78,607
Madison - 63,212 (by far the best for a <1M metro)
St. Louis - 53,286
Cincinnati - 40,620
Grand Rapids - 13,399
Kansas City - 7728
Indianapolis - 4538
Omaha - 2378

*Ann Arbor is an additional 26,580.

Chicago is left as an exercise for the reader.

A few take-aways:

1) The Twin Cities have surpassed Milwaukee as the largest non-Chicago density cluster in the Midwest.

2) Most metros gained high density population. Exceptions: Milwaukee, Cleveland, and St. Louis.

3) Columbus more than doubled its high density population!

Thanks for doing this! I must have misclicked somewhere when I was doing my numbers, maybe counted a tract twice accidentally.

Despite its declining population, Milwaukee continues to punch above its weight relative to the size of its metro.

[ChiSoxRox]

Originally Posted by MPLS_Const_Watch

Thanks for doing this! I must have misclicked somewhere when I was doing my numbers, maybe counted a tract twice accidentally.

Despite its declining population, Milwaukee continues to punch above its weight relative to the size of its metro.

You're welcome. Milwaukee is impressively dense, especially since most of the density isn't along the lakefront but instead on the near north side and Walker's Point to the south.

Unfortunately, Milwaukee's drops tended to be the densest sections, aside from the East Side and the typical downtown boom. Here's the Milwaukee CT change map:

[ChiSoxRox]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ oh right, your figures are metro, and because of municipal boundary quirks, hamtramck isn't technically a part of the city of Detroit, even though it functionally is.

I'll look into it further when I have the time, but I'd love to compare Detroit downtown/midtown census tracts 2010 vs. 2020.

While the 2020 census wasn't great for the city of Detroit overall, if we really are seeing significant core density increases over 2010, then that bodes well for the future. Detroit can't "fix" all 130 sq. miles at once; it has to start somewhere.

And if the data shows that start really is happening in downtown/midtown, then we'll at least get a silver lining.

You can explore the population changes on this map. There's a few quirks to the map: the change is annualized, so x10 for the decadal change. Clicking on a tract brings up detailed info, and the map tab will take you back. Also, no legend that I can see.

Indeed, downtown, Midtown, and New Center are moving in the right direction. A bit surprisingly, the far northwest of the city is holding steady too. Meanwhile, can you spot Hamtramck?

[Crawford]

10k is a REALLY low proxy for high density urbanity. That's typical Orange County, CA sprawl. I think 20k would be bare minimum for some guaranteed sense of traditional pre-auto urbanity.

Re. Detroit, the relative growth makes sense to me. The urban core is improving, and barely had any residents in previous decades, so obviously shows growth. Northwest Detroit is the most prosperous, stable, non-core area. Hamtramck and Dearborn are immigrant "suburbs".

Northwest Detroit also contradicts much of the postwar white flight narrative. It was majority black by 1970 or so, and almost entirely black a few years later, but is far more stable and prosperous than the Detroit directionals that experienced later white flight, and/or which retained some degree of non-black population.

Far Northeast Detroit was majority white until a few years ago, and is a disaster zone. Southwest Detroit has never had a large black population and is significantly more troubled than Northwest Detroit. Northwest Detroit hasn't had many whites in 50 years and is doing OK.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

10k is a REALLY low proxy for high density urbanity. That's typical Orange County, CA sprawl. I think 20k would be bare minimum for some guaranteed sense of traditional pre-auto urbanity.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but as I told you the last time you registered this complaint, the fact is (or perhaps now was) that, outside of Chicago, there really weren't very many census tracts in the Midwest over 20,000 ppsm in the recent past.

That said, with their recent strong population growth, the twin cities now have 13 such tracts with ~53,000 total people living in them, so that's a pretty damn significant change on that front (up from 5 tracts with ~17,000 people in 2010), and another piece of evidence in the twin cities' favor for being the #2 most urban in the Midwest.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Crawford

10k is a REALLY low proxy for high density urbanity. That's typical Orange County, CA sprawl. I think 20k would be bare minimum for some guaranteed sense of traditional pre-auto urbanity.

My own experience looking at cities is 20k PPSM tends to be the threshold where density is high enough that even low-income areas without a whiff of gentrification tend to have intact and thriving commercial strips. This suggests it's basically the point where neighborhood traffic alone is high enough to support walkable commerce without anyone driving and parking as if it were some sort of shopping destination.

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

2) Most metros gained high density population. Exceptions: Milwaukee, Cleveland, and St. Louis.

No, St. Louis gained population in several high density (>10K ppsm) census tracts: 1124, 1191.02, 1193, and 1172 for example.

The Central Corridor gained population and density overall, and South City losses were mild and probably due in large part to extensive rehab/conversion of multi-family to single-family. North City, on the other hand, continues to bleed out.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

10k is a REALLY low proxy for high density urbanity. That's typical Orange County, CA sprawl. I think 20k would be bare minimum for some guaranteed sense of traditional pre-auto urbanity.

Re. Detroit, the relative growth makes sense to me. The urban core is improving, and barely had any residents in previous decades, so obviously shows growth. Northwest Detroit is the most prosperous, stable, non-core area. Hamtramck and Dearborn are immigrant "suburbs".

Northwest Detroit also contradicts much of the postwar white flight narrative. It was majority black by 1970 or so, and almost entirely black a few years later, but is far more stable and prosperous than the Detroit directionals that experienced later white flight, and/or which retained some degree of non-black population.

Far Northeast Detroit was majority white until a few years ago, and is a disaster zone. Southwest Detroit has never had a large black population and is significantly more troubled than Northwest Detroit. Northwest Detroit hasn't had many whites in 50 years and is doing OK.

I don't quite agree with this. The upper end neighborhoods in northwest Detroit are doing well (probably better now than at any point in the past 20+ years), but the working class areas in northwest Detroit were hit just as hard as they were in other parts of the city. Those areas were probably victims of involuntary flight, though. Many of them were devastated by the foreclosure crisis from a decade ago, and haven't ever recovered.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

Indeed, downtown, Midtown, and New Center are moving in the right direction. A bit surprisingly, the far northwest of the city is holding steady too. Meanwhile, can you spot Hamtramck?

I would've expected some of those neighborhoods between downtown and New Center along the Woodward corridor to increase more than they did. That area must have seen the most new residential construction of just about anywhere in southeast Michigan since 2010.

[ChiSoxRox]

Originally Posted by IWant2BeInSTL

No, St. Louis gained population in several high density (>10K ppsm) census tracts: 1124, 1191.02, 1193, and 1172 for example.

The Central Corridor gained population and density overall, and South City losses were mild and probably due in large part to extensive rehab/conversion of multi-family to single-family. North City, on the other hand, continues to bleed out.

I might not have been quite clear. The total population in St. Louis living in census tracts over 10k per square mile decreased from 2010 to 2020. That calculation in 2010 used the then-current densities, so what likely happened was that a swath of South City went from 11k/12k down to 8k/9k, and thus were no longer counted. This density calculation is over the qualifying tracts in each Census, not taking the 2020 tracts and running back ten years.

The Central Corridor is growing nicely. I plan on returning to the urban Midwest in a few years, and the CC would be high on my list if not for how intense the summers are.

[Emprise du Lion]

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

I might not have been quite clear. The total population in St. Louis living in census tracts over 10k per square mile decreased from 2010 to 2020. That calculation in 2010 used the then-current densities, so what likely happened was that a swath of South City went from 11k/12k down to 8k/9k, and thus were no longer counted. This density calculation is over the qualifying tracts in each Census, not taking the 2020 tracts and running back ten years.

The Central Corridor is growing nicely. I plan on returning to the urban Midwest in a few years, and the CC would be high on my list if not for how intense the summers are.

It wouldn't surprise if certain south city tracts fell out due to the ongoing conversions of two flats to SFHs.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Emprise du Lion

It wouldn't surprise if certain south city tracts fell out due to the ongoing conversions of two flats to SFHs.

We saw the same exact phenomenon in gentrifying north central neighborhoods in Chicago. Areas like Logan square, Avondale, Irving park, Albany park, and Portage park all saw population declines, not because of the black flight afflicting other areas of the city, but because of 2-flat deconversions, and the generally smaller household sizes of the wealthier people moving in.

It's not at all uncommon for first-wave gentrification to lead to a population loss, at least not in chicago's case, unless it's more of a "clean slate" area like Chicago's South loop where there weren't very many people at all living there to begin with and then developers went gangbusters throwing up dozens of residential towers over the past two decades.

[ChiSoxRox]

Originally Posted by Emprise du Lion

It wouldn't surprise if certain south city tracts fell out due to the ongoing conversions of two flats to SFHs.

Indeed, I'm seeing quite a few 8k/9k South City tracts.

Put another way, this density change isn't whether the densest parts are getting denser. Weighed population density will tell us that but that is a much more involved calculation, and the current Census files are a pain in the rear to work with. CSVs are next month, and then I'll get the weighted densities for cities, counties, and states.

Rather, this calculation tells us if the dense areas are spreading or contracting for a certain city. Detroit increased largely due to immigrant clusters in Hamtramck and Dearborn pushing over the threshold. Milwaukee dropped from the near northwest side hollowing out, and so on.