Quote:
Originally Posted by pj3000
This is what I've now been taught about "urbanism" in this thread...
Milwaukee's densely-populated neighborhoods aren't really as dense as the numbers show because their built form isn't all that "urban" and there's a lot of Latinos living together in wood frame housing. But if the neighborhoods were populated by young, single, affluent non-immigrants, then they would display that "good urbanity" with new bistros and galleries and such. And these densely-populated neighborhoods would now be considered urban enough that their densities would likely not be questioned.
|
You just keep strawmanning here don't you?
There's two separate issues:
1. The built form in the Milwaukee neighborhoods I highlighted is not
particularly urban for the Great Lakes. Note that I'm not saying it's categorically not urban - only that there's plenty of neighborhoods which look exactly like this in terms of built form elsewhere in the Great Lakes region. Of course if you consider the lake-shore towers it's a different matter entirely - besides Milwaukee, that typology really only exists in Chicago and Lakewood, OH (Cleveland suburb).
2. The population density of the region is boosted because it became a Latino area. Unlike black and many working-class white neighborhoods during the mid 20th century, Latino neighborhoods generally didn't experience population declines. They didn't have as rapid of a fall in number of children per family, had more multi-generational households, and due to high residential demand, few homes were abandoned and/or lost to the wrecking ball.