Great Lakes Cities

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

Chicago is really an exception

Maybe.

But it seems a little weird to me to make these blanket assertions about the nature of "great lakes cities" while conveniently leaving out the two biggest, brightest, and most urban cities of the bunch: Chicago and Toronto.

It'd be like making some kind of definitive statement about "northeast cities", but ignoring Boston and NYC, and then saying "oh, but those are just exceptions", you know what I mean?

[edale]

Originally Posted by someone123

Canadian cities have arguably been diverging from American cities for some time now. Chicago looks to have a healthy amount of modern infill construction but it still doesn't look much like what is being built in Toronto.

That's not really a fair or useful comparison. Toronto is not directly analogous to Chicago. Toronto is the alpha of its country, and there are only like 5 major cities in the whole country. It has been receiving much more immigration than Chicago for many years now, which is a direct function of national policy. And Chicago still has a bigger core than Toronto, even after years of insane growth in the latter.

[shappy]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

In terms of the intersection of infill and a similar street feel, 14th street in DC is probably the closest thing in the US. the two cities have similar trajectories of a relatively small 19th century core thats been augmented over time with infill and new development from all eras

take this and move south all the way to downtown. even the 19th century residential neighborhoods on each side are similar in scale and style

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9349...7i16384!8i8192

I toured that stretch of 14th but it strikes me as an odd choice to compare to Queen as its at a larger scale with different massing for the most part. It does kind of remind me of Yonge south of St. Clair if followed down or parts of Avenue Rd perhaps.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by edale

That's not really a fair or useful comparison. Toronto is not directly analogous to Chicago. Toronto is the alpha of its country, and there are only like 5 major cities in the whole country. It has been receiving much more immigration than Chicago for many years now, which is a direct function of national policy. And Chicago still has a bigger core than Toronto, even after years of insane growth in the latter.

If Canada accepts more immigrants and its cities grow from that isn't that part of the divergence and a real difference between the two countries? Potentially it would lead to a big cultural difference over time, and I think that has already happened somewhat.

There was a time when nobody would have said that being the "alpha city" of Canada was more important than being #2 or #3 in the US, and there's no particular reason why this must be so.

All that being said I was not trying to say that Toronto is better or that Toronto itself is doing better with the hand it has been dealt, only that the style of development is markedly different between Canadian and American cities, even when the overall amount of development seems similar. I find that the US has proportionally more high end (in terms of actual quality and size, not cost) and low end development (very cheap outer suburbia) while Canada has more mid-range and small condos. And the US tends to have more historic looking infill with masonry these days. American buildings also tend to feel more "generously" scaled, with a whole bunch of things being somewhat larger. In this area, US -> Canada feels a bit like Canada -> UK.

Canadian cities also seem more laissez-faire about heritage concerns, whereas nicer neighbourhoods in the US are more controlled.

(I actually think urban Canada has too many new bland grey or glass box type buildings, and a big housing affordability problem whereas the US Midwest remains comparatively affordable.)

Are Midwest American cities building any 4+ storey buildings with 0 parking spaces?

[edale]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

As I said:



It's basically the same distinction that some Torontonian commenters were alluding to, and I kinda see what they mean in hindsight. Detroit's radial avenues were inspired by the French, while Toronto's grid is more British. Detroit has a category of street that Columbus doesn't appear to have (never been to Columbus, but I take as face value what you present at their most prominent street). Cass, Second, and John R, aren't side streets. They are known as secondary arterials in Detroit, but they seem to be the same scale as High Street in Columbus.

But High isn't a secondary arterial. Just because it isn't as wide as a freeway doesn't mean it serves a completely different purpose than Woodward. I don't care who the radial avenues were inspired by-- they're meant to be the primary orienting streets of the city, just as High is for Columbus.

[edale]

Originally Posted by someone123

Are Midwest American cities building any 4+ storey buildings with 0 parking spaces?

Cincinnati just built a 13 story, 125 unit apartment building with 4 parking spots.

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinna...akes-step.html

streetview:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/E+...!4d-84.5105591


If Cincinnati's doing this, I'd bet there are plenty of other examples from around the midwest.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by edale

But High isn't a secondary arterial. Just because it isn't as wide as a freeway doesn't mean it serves a completely different purpose than Woodward. I don't care who the radial avenues were inspired by-- they're meant to be the primary orienting streets of the city, just as High is for Columbus.

Okay, cool story.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by edale

Cincinnati just built a 13 story, 125 unit apartment building with 4 parking spots.

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinna...akes-step.html

Not a valid example. It says the developer is leasing 65 parking spots. And 4 built on-site for a 125 unit building is odd. It's got to be a new development that is at least 4 floors and has 0 parking associated with it.

(I don't know if such an example exists or not.)

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by benp

That is a generalization not true for all Great Lakes cities. Chicago is only 25% single-family detached, Buffalo 32%, Milwaukee 44%, Cleveland 54%.

I didn't mean to leave out Chicago. It's an outlier within the Great Lakes for a number of reasons (bigger, denser, brick construction, etc..)

But much of the multi-family housing in places like Buffalo, Milwaukee, and Cleveland is in 2-3 unit frame buildings which are functionally indistinguishable from single-family homes of the same vintage. I mean, a lot of the homes here are technically multifamily, but it still doesn't really have an urban vibe to it.

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Maybe.

But it seems a little weird to me to make these blanket assertions about the nature of "great lakes cities" while conveniently leaving out the two biggest, brightest, and most urban cities of the bunch: Chicago and Toronto.

It'd be like making some kind of definitive statement about "northeast cities", but ignoring Boston and NYC, and then saying "oh, but those are just exceptions", you know what I mean?

If you're talking about Canada, it's actually not just Toronto. Hamilton has some great urban bones as well. It's a brick city, similar to Toronto and Chicago, with a fair number of 19th century rowhouses.

[Crawford]

I don't think High Street is that great. Yes, it's intact, contiguous and packed with amenities, but it's a bit of a Potemkin Village, with much lower density just off the corridor. Also, a lot of its vibrancy is due to Ohio State, and collegetown strips are kind of a separate categorical, IMO. It also has a very suburban, chain-dominant vibe.

[Crawford]

And Chicago, while somewhat of an outlier, displays these Great Lakes "missing middle" characteristics, IMO. Chicago has an epic, monumental core, one that feels like one of the globe's most important poles. In the U.S., besides Chicago, really only NY and DC have monumental cores.

But there's a stark dropoff from the core to the neighborhoods. Massive rail yards, highways and distribution facilities separate the core in most directionals, and the scale of the in-town neighborhoods is quite modest relative to the core. Activity really drops off.

Lincoln Park, Old Town, West Lakeview, Wicker Park are really rather sparse and streetcar suburban for such close-in, cosmopolitan enclaves. You have the monumental lakefront and then a few blocks inland, many blocks could pass for standard early 20th century Americana. Of course there will be some vibrant arterials, but the neighborhood scale really plummets.

You really get this sense heading into Chicago on the Stevenson Expressway (I-55). A very modest, underwhelming streetscape, then the Loop appears like Oz.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by someone123

Not a valid example. It says the developer is leasing 65 parking spots. And 4 built on-site for a 125 unit building is odd. It's got to be a new development that is at least 4 floors and has 0 parking associated with it.

(I don't know if such an example exists or not.)

You'll be hard pressed to find an example of a 4-story development having no parking in the U.S. because most cities will require parking for a development of that size.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I think boycotting isn't quite the right terminology. Areas like this in Detroit were never really filled with chain stores. Storefronts like this were occupied by small individual mom and pop businesses. When the tenants decided to move on, for whatever reason (retirement, insolvency, etc.), there wasn't demand to keep the spaces occupied. This was more due to the changes in how Metro Detroiters lived, plus a glut of commercial space in the suburbs, than it was due to a deliberate attempt to boycott.

Metro Detroiters lifestyles became much more car oriented in the post-war era, and the city became inconvenient. It's easier to live a car-oriented lifestyle when you have a guaranteed space at a suburban strip mall, than when you have to circle the block five times waiting on a street parking spot to open up.

You're right. I think "abandonment" is probably a better term.

[edale]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Okay, cool story.

Lol great response! Adds a ton to the conversation!

Almost as good as your suggestion that this:

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3565...7i16384!8i8192


Is even remotely comparable to this:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9769...7i16384!8i8192


There appears to be some serious delusion with a couple of the Detroit forumers.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by edale

Lol great response! Adds a ton to the conversation!

It's not like you would read it. Every interaction with you is just you talking past the point someone is making. Or you demonstrating your terrible understanding of geography.

[edale]

Originally Posted by someone123

Not a valid example. It says the developer is leasing 65 parking spots. And 4 built on-site for a 125 unit building is odd. It's got to be a new development that is at least 4 floors and has 0 parking associated with it.

(I don't know if such an example exists or not.)

Uh, most developments that are built without parking will have people leasing spots from nearby garages. Whether that is facilitated by the developer/management company or done independently doesn't really change anything. Yes, there were 4 ground floor parking spots built into the project. That's basically nothing. Cincinnati eliminated parking requirements for its core (CBD+OTR+Pendleton).

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/09/...more-walkable/

If you don't want to accept that example, there have been several 4-5 story buildings erected in Over the Rhine with 0 parking spots in recent years. Here's one that's 5 stories, 32 units, 0 parking:

https://www.3cdc.org/project/perseverance/

[kool maudit]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

It'd be like making some kind of definitive statement about "northeast cities", but ignoring Boston and NYC, and then saying "oh, but those are just exceptions", you know what I mean?

Yeah I see your point. I'm just kicking it around a bit, I've always had a few questions about that Cleveland way of doing things.

[Wigs]

I think Detroit gets a bad rap because it might be the only city in the world to have lost over 1 million people. It boomed so quickly with the automobile and associated industries that made it wealthy, and then declined rather quickly, even by rust belt standards. Those wide depopulated avenues just makes the city seem even more empty than the population would suggest.

Detroit literally lost the equivalent of the entire Buffalo Metro in population!

We've all been in shock and awe of the "ruin porn" we've seen on this site the past roughly 20 years. A once prominent city turned into looking like a left for dead zombie apocalypse vibe.

But, I'm super impressed with how in the last 10 years Detroit has been rehabilitating, rejuvenating, infilling, adding more employment in the core. There's actually people walking around the downtown core again.
By the 2030s I think some will be really impressed with the turnaround, especially compared to the sad state of the 2000s.

[Crawford]

Detroit's non-core, non-gentrified neighborhoods have never been more sparse than right now. You can see on Streetview, where even 2009 was significantly more intact that the latest pics. I can post endless corridors where significant fabric has since disappeared.

But, I think outsiders overstate the extent of decay. Most of Northwest Detroit is intact. The NW residential neighborhoods are almost fully intact, and often rather nice. The other fringe neighborhoods are mostly intact, though usually not so nice.

And, until maybe 20 years ago, there was a pretty dense, sizable apartment corridor headed from downtown to northwest Detroit. Unfortunately, this corridor is largely eviscerated. It wasn't very nice 20-30 years ago. In fact it was probably worse, crime- and pathology-wise. But it was intact.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

The first image below is Detroit's density map from 1990. There were about two dozen census tracts with a population density above 12,000 people per square mile at that time. On the map, you'll see there's a cluster of dark red tracts somewhat southwest of Highland Park. Those areas were almost all filled with 2-family flats, a few 4-family flats, and some low rise apartment buildings (there wasn't a ton of sfh, and what little did exist was built very densely). The flat style housing was one of the most common styles of housing in Detroit. It style looks like this:

2-family: https://goo.gl/maps/XqfwG3LCUqe6uQs76
4-family: https://goo.gl/maps/1tyRxuKrQ5vA1ReXA
Typical apartment building: https://goo.gl/maps/t78Gtn285wkusbPD9
A typical sfh in that area: https://goo.gl/maps/tKvNvt3Ai4xHWkZM9


This was a mostly black working class area into the early 90s, but there was hardly any abandonment in this area. Somewhere in the mid to late 90s, the bottom fell out.


source: https://detroitography.com/2020/06/1...-density-1990/

Yes, this is the area I was referring to. This is the old Jewish corridor, African American since the 1960's. Very solid brick housing built for the upper middle class, and almost no SFH. It was mostly art-deco apartment buildings and brick 2-3-4 flats. There are some intact blocks but it's mostly gone. The retail corridors were intact and semi-vibrant until relatively recently.

Dexter, Linwood, Davison were really thriving when I was growing up in the 1990's. It was a troubled area, with lots of drug activity, but it was still dense and had urban heft. The often-grand homes and apartment buildings made our suburban homes look like crap.