What midwestern city seems most “urban” to you (except Chicago)? - Page 21

Steely Dan · #**401** Posted **Dec 12, 2021, 6:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Centropolis

y’all now

No kidding, some pretty silly shit.

Btw, I really like this quote of yours from two years ago on the very first page of this thread. Different "modes" of midwestern makes a lot of sense to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Centropolis

cincinnati is 100% midwestern in the same way as st. louis...it's just a different mode of midwestern than say milwaukee.

That's precisely how I see it too.

dktshb · #**402** Posted **Dec 12, 2021, 6:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed

That's like asking if Hoboken is more New York or New Jersey.

Even though it is in NJ it feels much more like another borough of NYC IMO. I could live there and take PATH to Manhattan.

Steely Dan · #**403** Posted **Dec 12, 2021, 6:31 PM**

^ Hudson County is the real 5th borrough.

NY should trade Staten Island for Hudson County with NJ.

iheartthed · #**404** Posted **Dec 12, 2021, 9:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ Hudson County is the real 5th borrough.

NY should trade Staten Island for Hudson County with NJ.

Hudson County instead of Staten Island would push NYC over 9 million, and NYC's overall density would bump up to 31,236/sq mi. from 29,298/sq mi. But despite being twice as dense as Staten Island, Hudson would still be, by quite a distance, NY's least dense borough.

jmecklenborg · #**405** Posted **Dec 14, 2021, 3:22 AM**

Cincinnati had the most densely-populated neighborhoods in the United States outside New York City in the 1800s. More than half of everything in this picture from 1935~ has been torn down:

Most of what is in this image is still exists:

Steely Dan · #**406** Posted **Dec 14, 2021, 3:47 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Cincinnati had the most densely-populated neighborhoods in the United States outside New York City in the 1800s.

Got any back-up for that?

I'm not saying it's not true, but it kinda sounds like one of those "local lore" factoids that gets repeated often enough that locals just accept it at face value as being true even if it might not be.

But yeah, the near total loss of the western half of cincy's basin is one of the most tragic losses of old school 19th century urbanism in the country.

jmecklenborg · #**407** Posted **Dec 14, 2021, 4:08 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Got any back-up for that?

I'm not saying it's not true, but it kinda sounds like one of those "local lore" factoids that gets repeated often enough that locals just accept it at face value as being true even if it might not be.

It's agreed upon that Cincinnati's basin achieved a consistent density of 30-40,000 persons per sq mile in the 1850s and 1860s, before the cable car lines and incline railways enabled some relaxing of conditions in the 1870s and 1880s. Pretty much every home and apartment building in Cincinnati built before 1850 was torn down and replaced by something 3-5 stories tall and built all the way to the rear lot line by 1880. What survives of Cincinnati's basin, and especially Over-the-Rhine, is pretty much is a New York City neighborhood.

Chicago didn't surpass Cincinnati in size (including the densely-built cities directly across the river) until about 1880, and it always had limitless flat land to spread to. Cincinnati's physical layout is very complicated, pound-for-pound, by comparison.

Steely Dan · #**408** Posted **Dec 14, 2021, 4:34 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

It's agreed upon that Cincinnati's basin achieved a consistent density of 30-40,000 persons per sq mile in the 1850s and 1860s,

agreed upon by whom?

Again, I'm not saying it's not true, but it is a somewhat hefty claim, and without actual data demonstrating that Cincy did in fact have the most densely populated neighborhoods in the nation outside of NYC in the mid 19th century, I'm afraid that I'm probably not just gonna take your word for it.

My spidey senses tell me that there very well might have been neighborhoods just as dense, or possibly even denser, at the time in the other major east coast cities (Boston, Philly, Baltimore).

But again, without data.......

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Chicago didn't surpass Cincinnati in size (including the densely-built cities directly across the river) until about 1880.

Chicago officially surpassed Cincy + the KY river towns by the 1870 census.

Chicago 1870: 298,977

Cincy 1870: 216,239
Covington 1870: 24,505
Newport 1870: 15,087
Dayton 1870: 1,749
Bellevue 1870: 381
Total 1870: 257,961

MAC123 · #**409** Posted **Dec 14, 2021, 5:17 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

agreed upon by whom?

Again, I'm not saying it's not true, but it is a somewhat hefty claim, and without actual data proving that Cincy did in fact have the most densely populated neighborhoods in the nation outside of NYC in the mid 19th century, I'm afraid that I'm probably not just gonna take your word for it.

My spidey senses tell me that there very well might have been neighborhoods just as dense, or possibly even denser, at the time in the other east coast cities (Boston, Philly, Baltimore).

But again, without data.......

Chicago officially surpassed Cincy + the KY river towns by the 1870 census.

Chicago 1870: 298,977

Cincy 1870: 216,239
Covington 1870: 24,505
Newport 1870: 15,087
Dayton 1870: 1,749
Bellevue 1870: 381
Total 1870: 257,961

Dang Chicago was that low still in 1870? NYC had 942,292 at the same time.

Steely Dan · #**410** Posted **Dec 14, 2021, 9:08 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAC123

Dang Chicago was that low still in 1870? NYC had 942,292 at the same time.

Wait, Chicago being considerably younger and smaller than NYC is news to you?

In that case, check this out, in 1840 NYC had 391,114 people while Chicago only had 4,470 people!

MAC123 · #**411** Posted **Dec 14, 2021, 2:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Wait, Chicago being considerably younger and smaller than NYC is news to you?

In that case, check this out, in 1840 NYC had 391,114 people while Chicago only had 4,470 people!

More like I was overestimating the whole country's population at the time.

mrnyc · #**412** Posted **Dec 14, 2021, 3:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

It's agreed upon that Cincinnati's basin achieved a consistent density of 30-40,000 persons per sq mile in the 1850s and 1860s, before the cable car lines and incline railways enabled some relaxing of conditions in the 1870s and 1880s. Pretty much every home and apartment building in Cincinnati built before 1850 was torn down and replaced by something 3-5 stories tall and built all the way to the rear lot line by 1880. What survives of Cincinnati's basin, and especially Over-the-Rhine, is pretty much is a New York City neighborhood.

Chicago didn't surpass Cincinnati in size (including the densely-built cities directly across the river) until about 1880, and it always had limitless flat land to spread to. Cincinnati's physical layout is very complicated, pound-for-pound, by comparison.

that's a big area -- for comparison cleveland's hough neighborhood, which is around 2 sq miles, had like 30k density through the 1960s.

however, as for peaks its also understood cleveland's around one sq mile little hollywood neighborhood was likely the densest in ohio history having like 50k from prohibition until it was all torn down at the end of the 1960s after riots.

maybe there were some cinci basin pockets like that in the mid-1800s though, i dk?

there is a part of little hollywood

by the end of 1968 you can see what is happening ...

Steely Dan · #**413** Posted **Dec 14, 2021, 3:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAC123

More like I was overestimating the whole country's population at the time.

gotcha.

yeah, the entire nation was only 38M in 1870, and almost half of that was still in the original 13 colonies.

chicago's 1870 population of only 300K might seem small compared to NYC, but it was still big enough for 5th place* in the nation at the time, and it was growing so damn fast that only 30 years later in 1900 chicago would more than quintuple in size to 1.7M people!

from a very small and inconsequential frontier town on the marshy banks of a lazy little great lakes river in 1840, to a mighty metropolis fast approaching 2M people and the 2nd largest city in the nation 6 decades later at the close of the 19th century. chicago was one of the industrial revolution's prime examples of an "instant city".

(*) some historians have speculated that chicago might have even been the 4th largest city in 1870 because st. louis might have intentionally fudged its own census result that year in a vain attempt to stay ahead of the its upstart rival to the north. we'll likely never have a definitive answer on that one, but the suspicious 1870 kink in st. louis' otherwise smooth growth curve does lend some credence to that speculation.

Segun · #**414** Posted **Dec 14, 2021, 3:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrnyc

that's a big area -- for comparison cleveland's hough neighborhood, which is around 2 sq miles, had like 30k density through the 1960s.

there is a part of little hollywood

^ When I see pictures like that, it dawns on me that the Midwest was ahead of the curve when it comes to modern American city design. Go to any up and coming city and you'll see that paradigm of single family homes with scattered "luxury" apartment buildings. Replace the old brick masonry with glass and steel.

mrnyc · #**415** Posted **Dec 14, 2021, 3:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Segun

^ When I see pictures like that, it dawns on me that the Midwest was ahead of the curve when it comes to modern American city design. Go to any up and coming city and you'll see that paradigm of single family homes with scattered "luxury" apartment buildings. Replace the old brick masonry with glass and steel.

people say old great lakes cities like cle dont have brick, bu they had a ton of brick. its just all gone now and nobody knows.

cleveland had tons of these type of apts scatter around, although not in such density as above. they were mostly torn down. much of it too soon, but also to be fair frankly many were cheap worker apts and outlived their usefulness.

just look at adjoining lakewood to the west (ohio's densest city) and cle hts to the east where this kind of thing is more preserved to see how cle and some of east cle once were.

same for places like over the rhine in cinci too -- you can get a picture of what was torn down from that for sure. the difference is otr is older and in cinci city limits.

c'est la vie.

jmecklenborg · #**416** Posted **Dec 14, 2021, 3:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

agreed upon by whom?

Again, I'm not saying it's not true, but it is a somewhat hefty claim, and without actual data demonstrating that Cincy did in fact have the most densely populated neighborhoods in the nation outside of NYC in the mid 19th century, I'm afraid that I'm probably not just gonna take your word for it.

There are about 10 good books on Cincinnati history, written by academics rather than foo-foo people. https://www.amazon.com/Changing-Plans-Americas-cities-Rhine/dp/0814207626

Cincinnati was big-time by the 1850s when St. Louis and Chicago were small towns. In the 1850s it had the longest suspension bridge in the world u/c and a 2-mile double-track railroad tunnel u/c, which was the longest urban railroad tunnel in the world at that point, but the project was abandoned.

iheartthed · #**417** Posted **Dec 14, 2021, 3:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrnyc

that's a big area -- for comparison cleveland's hough neighborhood, which is around 2 sq miles, had like 30k density through the 1960s.

however, as for peaks its also understood cleveland's around one sq mile little hollywood neighborhood was likely the densest in ohio history having like 50k from prohibition until it was all torn down at the end of the 1960s after riots.

maybe there were some cinci basin pockets like that in the mid-1800s though, i dk?

According to the graphic below, Detroit had about 45 census tracts with a population density of +30k ppsm. Using the average population of 4k per census tract and 30k ppsm density as a floor, that would've been roughly a minimum of 180k people, or 10% of the city's population. To put into context, 1950s Brooklyn had a population density of about 38k ppsm, which is roughly the same as it is today.

source: https://drawingdetroit.wordpress.com/2012/07/02/detroits-population-density/

Steely Dan · #**418** Posted **Dec 14, 2021, 3:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Cincinnati was big-time by the 1850s when St. Louis and Chicago were small towns.

yes, but why are you talking about chicago and st. louis? they are younger cities than cincy and were very likely not as dense in 1850/60.

you still haven't offered any evidence that cincy's basin neighborhoods were denser than any of those in philly, boston, or baltimore back in 1850.

once again, it very well might be true, but without data......

Crawford · #**419** Posted **Dec 14, 2021, 5:21 PM**

Right, I feel for Cincy, it could be true, but the data back then probably wasn't very good. Boston's North End, or some South Side Chicago black belt neighborhood, or parts of SF, Philly and a few others would also be plausible candidates.

jmecklenborg · #**420** Posted **Dec 14, 2021, 5:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

yes, but why are you talking about chicago and st. louis? they are younger cities than cincy and were very likely not as dense in 1850/60.

you still haven't offered any evidence that cincy's basin neighborhoods were denser than any of those in philly, boston, or baltimore back in 1850.

once again, it very well might be true, but without data......

It's discussed in various books that predate the internet, stuff like this: https://www.amazon.com/CINCINNATI-Then-Iola-Hessler/dp/B000SQZOFC

Frankly I'm surprised that this isn't better-known on urbanist boards, although much Ohio-related stuff doesn't appear here because of the popularity of UrbanOhio.com.