Great Lakes Cities

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by ATXboom

Fwiw I grew up in Toledo with Windsor / Detroit 45 min down the road. Cleveland is only 90 min away. I can tell you by far that Detroit was considered the big city. It was 3x bigger than Cleveland and has all big retail outlets you’d find in LA. Just like there, they’re not all downtown. In the 80s Detroit metro was right there population wise with peer metros falling right behind NYC/LA/CHI. The big big city was Chicago at a 3.5 hr drive away. NYC was irrelevant till you get east of Cleveland.

This whole "what's the 'big city' in your region?" discussion in this thread goes back to what I was bringing up in a thread Steely posted a couple months or so ago.

Interesting how the Cleveland area seems to be the transition zone as far as the NYC-Chicago regional pull goes. How you say that NYC doesn't really become the relevant alpha city in a regional mindset sense until the Cleveland area, with Chicago being the alpha city from west of Cleveland on.

[edale]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Detroit has pretty solid high culture options. U.S. rust belt cities, as a general rule, tend to punch above their weight on the high culture front. Cleveland has an outstanding symphony and art museum, Buffalo is pretty strong, even Toledo is solid.

If someone is in, say, London, ON and they want a weekend centering around the symphony and a major art museum, they'd do better in Detroit than in Toronto. The DSO and DIA are high ranking legacy institutions, moreso than any institutions in Canada. DIA has the most famous Diego Rivera murals, the Hearst armor collections, and a bunch of high profile Rembrandt, Picasso, Van Gough, Cezanne, etc. DSO is considered a first-tier global symphony with really prominent list of conductors.

Detroit obviously falls short in terms of cohesive, traditional urban form, and any strong semblance of centralized vitality. But its legacy institutions are quite strong. The auto barons built a cultural legacy.

No arguments from me on this. I know Detroit has a great art museum. Haven't heard much about their symphony, but I believe you that they're highly regarded.

But just as you said, a lot of Rust Belt cities have fantastic cultural assets. Byproducts of their industrial heft, and the barons of industry who lives in these towns. Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Buffalo... and even smaller cities like Toledo all have great cultural attractions. But I don't think of these cities deliver on the 'big city' atmosphere-- at least not how I think of it. Detroit of yesteryear was probably more akin to Chicago than Cleveland, but now I don't think anyone would make that claim. If Detroit counts as 'the big city' because of its art museum and symphony, does that mean Cleveland is too? I mean their art museum and symphony are held in even higher regard than Detroits, and they have heavy and light rail systems! I guess it boils down to perspective. I only consider a handful of cities in North America capable of delivering the big city experience- NYC, Chicago, DC, Philly, Boston, SF, LA, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver...the usual suspects.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by pj3000

This whole "what's the 'big city' in your region?" discussion in this thread goes back to what I was bringing up in a thread Steely posted a couple months or so ago.

Interesting how the Cleveland area seems to be the transition zone as far as the NYC-Chicago regional pull goes. How you say that NYC doesn't really become the relevant alpha city in a regional mindset sense until the Cleveland area, with Chicago being the alpha city from west of Cleveland on.

Warren, OH (~50 miles ESE of cleveland) is almost exactly half-way in between NYC and Chicago.

given NYC's much greater gravity, it's no surprise that cleveland, being smack dab in the in-between zone, is pulled more eastward than westward in this regard.

where does Toledo fall?

my guess is that most people there would simply answer the big city question with "detroit", ignoring both NYC and chicago.


it's certainly an interesting and inexact science of geography, culture, and pecking orders.

[Klippenstein]

Originally Posted by pj3000

This whole "what's the 'big city' in your region?" discussion in this thread goes back to what I was bringing up in a thread Steely posted a couple months or so ago.

Interesting how the Cleveland area seems to be the transition zone as far as the NYC-Chicago regional pull goes. How you say that NYC doesn't really become the relevant alpha city in a regional mindset sense until the Cleveland area, with Chicago being the alpha city from west of Cleveland on.

I grew up outside of Buffalo NY and it could just be because of my family’s annual trips to Chicago because of a conference my dad attended, but in some ways I felt like Chicago was the “big city” of the region. And NYC was the “big city” more on the country/world scale. NYC is so big that I think it felt more alien to me than Chicago. Not that I wasn’t equally intrigued by both. Oddly enough, even though Toronto was the closest big city it didn’t really register because it wasn’t really a place we visited. Not sure how closely that tracks with other Buffalonians especially 20 years later. Toronto probably has a much bigger draw for obvious reasons, but I think the rust belt has a strong identity that ties many Great Lake cities together that NYC can’t really compare to.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Warren, OH (~50 miles ESE of cleveland) is almost exactly half-way in between NYC and Chicago.

given NYC's much greater gravity, it's no surprise that cleveland, being smack dab in the in-between zone, is pulled more eastward than westward in this regard.

where does Toledo fall?

my guess is that most people there would simply answer the big city question with "detroit", ignoring both NYC and chicago.


it's certainly an interesting and inexact science of geography, culture, and pecking orders.

Eastern Ohio seems more affiliated with and more like western PA, than it is with and like the rest of OH... which is natural. Ohio really feels like THE transition zone, where as you head west away from that halfway mileage point and start to get a bit closer to Chicago, the huge pull of NYC begins to lessen and Chicago's starts to kick in very strongly.

Yes, inexact science is a good term for it. Getting the perspectives of people from different areas of the country is always very informative. I find it interesting how people view and classify regional hubs, with particular focus on what "alpha" cities have greatest pull on mega-regions.

Originally Posted by Klippenstein

I grew up outside of Buffalo NY and it could just be because of my family’s annual trips to Chicago because of a conference my dad attended, but in some ways I felt like Chicago was the “big city” of the region. And NYC was the “big city” more on the country/world scale. NYC is so big that I think it felt more alien to me than Chicago. Not that I wasn’t equally intrigued by both. Oddly enough, even though Toronto was the closest big city it didn’t really register because it wasn’t really a place we visited. Not sure how closely that tracks with other Buffalonians especially 20 years later. Toronto probably has a much bigger draw for obvious reasons, but I think the rust belt has a strong identity that ties many Great Lake cities together that NYC can’t really compare to.

See this sounds very odd to me... and I grew up in Erie, which is just down the road from Buffalo. I'm going to have to guess that your annual family trips to Chicago have more to do with your regional identification of it as the "big city" than anything else. I highly, highly doubt that very many Buffalonians feel a stronger pull from Chicago than they do from NYC. I mean, it just stands to reason that New York, NY has a stronger pull on Buffalo, NY than Chicago, IL has on Buffalo, NY... beyond just being in the same state. Just going on the sports stuff... I've never heard of many Cubs, White Sox, or Bears fans in Buffalo... but there are tons of Yankees and Giants fans there.

Chicago, regrettably, was barely even on my radar, as far as what my "sphere of influence" was. And to this day (again, regrettably... and stupidly), I've barely been to Chicago... just for a very quick work trip once. I was 32 when I first traveled further west (in the midwest) than Cedar Point. I don't have single good friend who I grew up with that ever lived in Chicago (closest was a guy who went to Notre Dame and then moved to NYC). No one in my family or neighborhood ever really went to Chicago... or at least I never heard about it. Pro sports allegiances, college sports leagues, minor league baseball league makeup... all eastward focused... never towards Chicago. Anything west of Cleveland was just outside of that sphere of influence.

It's weird thinking about it now as a guy in his 40s. I think NYC (and the US east coast incl, Philadelphia and DC, primarily) have such a pull into the eastern hinterlands, that Chicago's pull is pretty much negated until the distance to Chicago lessens and the east coast pull is lessened to the point where people's heads turn fully toward Chicago.

In comparison, we traveled to New York from the time I was a little kid for various reasons. Multiple good friends, acquaintances, and family members have lived in NYC (myself included)... and when I think about it, it's rather indicative of the pull that me, three of my best friends who I grew up with, multiple other friends/hometown acquaintances to count, and five cousins all were living in NYC at the same time. Anyway, this stuff is weirdly interesting to me... likely because as Steely said, it's an inexact combination of features of place and what that means.

[Steely Dan]

^ one of the main problems with your outline is that it's not just a NYC or chicago construct.

there are so many different levels to the equation that radically complicate the calulus.

do you honestly think that people in say lansing, michigan would say anything other than "detroit" if you asked them "what is the big city in your region?"

they sure as hell aren't likely to say "new york" or "chicago".


"the big city" to the average joe is generally the nearest place with skyscrapers and major league sports.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ one of the main problems with your outline is that it's not just a NYC or chicago construct.

there are so many different levels to the equation that radically complicate the calulus.

do you honestly think that people in say lansing, michigan would say anything other than "detroit" if you asked them "what is the big city in your region?"

they sure as hell aren't likely to say "new york" or "chicago".

Yeah... I'd guess that Detroit is the big city for the eastern half of Michigan, Ontario west of London, and northwest Ohio (the line between "Detroit" and "Cleveland" is probably somewhere around Sandusky). Grand Rapids seems to be a little more in Chicago's orbit than Detroit's, although Detroit and Chicago probably split the sports fans.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

)Grand Rapids seems to be a little more in Chicago's orbit than Detroit's, although Detroit and Chicago probably split the sports fans.

I'm no GR expert, but I'm pretty sure it's more oriented to Detroit than it is to Chicago. And I don't think things are anywhere close to 50/50 on sports fandom. That's all definitively tigers/lions/wings/pistons country over there.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

I'm no GR expert, but I'm pretty sure it's more oriented to Detroit than it is to Chicago. And I don't think things are anywhere close to 50/50 on sports fandom. That's all definitively tigers/lions/wings/pistons country over there.

When I was in college it seemed like the Grand Rapidians would align with the Bulls fans, much to the annoyance of us Metro Detroiters. They are probably more likely to be Tigers fans, though.

[edale]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

"the big city" to the average joe is generally the nearest place with skyscrapers and major league sports.

If by "average joe" you mean rural person, then I agree with this. But if you're from a mid or large sized city, I think the definition changes.

I grew up in Cincinnati. If someone asked me what the nearest big city was, I'd have said Chicago. Cincinnati has skyscrapers and major league sports. Growing up it had flights to like 10 cities in Europe. I never thought of it as the big city, though. My family would take weekend trips to Chicago for big city weekends. Stay downtown, take the el to Wrigley to see a Cubs game, shop on Michigan Ave, go to restaurants and museums, take the boat cruise, etc.

We took weekend trips to Indy, Columbus, Cleveland, Pittsburgh (a million times since my dad's family is all there), Detroit (same thing with mom's family)...but those were different types of trips. We might have stayed downtown and had more or less urban experiences in those places, but it wasn't the same type of 'big city' feel as trips to Chicago.

By that same token, if someone grew up in Manhattan, they might not even think of Chicago as offering 'the big city' experience. Again, it's all about perspective here. I certainly wasn't trolling Detroit in my initial post that set this all off.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by edale

If by "average joe" you mean rural person, then I agree with this. But if you're from a mid or large sized city, I think the definition changes.

Honestly, I think it's weird that people from big cities would designate another city as "the big city". Maybe there's a certain size of city where people stop doing this or something. I struggle to imagine many Detroiters who would consider Chicago as THE big city, although anyone would concede that Chicago is A bigger city than Detroit. I don't want to speak for them, but from what I know of Philadelphians I would say the same about their city's relationship with New York.

Originally Posted by edale

By that same token, if someone grew up in Manhattan, they might not even think of Chicago as offering 'the big city' experience.

Funny enough, I have a few native NYer friends who love visiting Detroit, especially for the music scene. Detroit is probably the closest thing America has to a Berlin.

[softee]

^Lot sizes in Toronto are definitely small compared to most other Great Lakes cities, Toronto is also the only Great Lakes city where many of the inner city neighbourhoods are largely made up of rowhouses.

[Innsertnamehere]

I mean comparing Detroit and toronto is no contest. Toronto has almost hilariously narrow streets with 60 foot right of ways while Detroit is full of Michigan avenues and Woodward avenues with, what, 200+ foot right of ways? Just everything is bigger and more spaced out. And historically wealthier. Bigger houses, less apartments, etc. Today the wealth levels are probably swapped, but you can tell that Detroit was obviously far wealthier when the inner areas were getting built. Most of inner Toronto’s housing stock is small 1,300sf townhouses while Detroit is filled with larger detached dwellings.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

When I was in college it seemed like the Grand Rapidians would align with the Bulls fans.

Perhaps just a holder over from the Jordan era?

He was kinda WILDLY popular.

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Honestly, I think it's weird that people from big cities would designate another city as "the big city". Maybe there's a certain size of city where people stop doing this or something.

You maybe there is a size threshold. Maybe it's when a city has a team in each of the 4 major leagues?

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ one of the main problems with your outline is that it's not just a NYC or chicago construct.

there are so many different levels to the equation that radically complicate the calulus.

do you honestly think that people in say lansing, michigan would say anything other than "detroit" if you asked them "what is the big city in your region?"

they sure as hell aren't likely to say "new york" or "chicago".


"the big city" to the average joe is generally the nearest place with skyscrapers and major league sports.

Yeah, totally true... what I outlined is by no means any sort of conclusive take on the topic. I'm not sure I even know what the topic really is. It's more me rambling about something I'm not sure can be defined.

Though I do think people in Lansing most definitely look to Chicago as the alpha of the region... to them it's "the city". It's not just about nearest big city/regional big city to me... I'm more talking about the alpha of a the greater region. I would bet that people from Lansing are much more apt to look to Chicago for the "big city experience" than they would to Detroit.

For instance, for a good chunk of Pennsylvania, the regional alpha city people identify as such is New York, not Philadelphia. Not only does Philly get overshadowed by NYC because of NYC's size and their close proximty to each other, but NYC is pretty much the same distance away as Philly is, and in some cases closer.

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I don't want to speak for them, but from what I know of Philadelphians I would say the same about their city's relationship with New York.

Though very often, when people in Philly talk about going to "the city", they are referring to NYC.

[ue]

Originally Posted by pj3000

This whole "what's the 'big city' in your region?" discussion in this thread goes back to what I was bringing up in a thread Steely posted a couple months or so ago.

Interesting how the Cleveland area seems to be the transition zone as far as the NYC-Chicago regional pull goes. How you say that NYC doesn't really become the relevant alpha city in a regional mindset sense until the Cleveland area, with Chicago being the alpha city from west of Cleveland on.

I know this is slightly off-topic, but this is really interesting in Canada. Not only are the 'big cities' not at the New York/Los Angeles/Chicago population threshold, but they don't always simply work by geographic proximity.

I'd say that from Brandon, MB westward, the 'big city' is Vancouver. From Brandon to Ottawa/Kingston, it's Toronto. Then from Ottawa/Kingston to Moncton, it's Montreal. But east of there, it's Toronto again. Nova Scotians are more likely to spend time in and look to Toronto than Montreal. I think it is similar for Newfoundland and PEI. Less so Labrador, though, especially communities close to Quebec.

[deja vu]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

What about the Friendly Giant?
Rocket Robin Hood?

The Friendly Giant was slightly before my time, although I remember the reference (maybe there were reruns). Rocket Robin Hood I had to look up on Google b/c I never heard of it - looks like it aired in the 60's & 70's.

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

I'm no GR expert, but I'm pretty sure it's more oriented to Detroit than it is to Chicago. And I don't think things are anywhere close to 50/50 on sports fandom. That's all definitively tigers/lions/wings/pistons country over there.

Not an expert either, but I'd say Grand Rapids is maybe 65/35, leaning toward Chicago for closest "Big City" in general. Home sports teams are definitely the Michigan ones though. Grand Rapids has a strong connection to lakeside communities like Grand Haven, Holland, even Muskegon (which in turn are linked to places in Illinois, Indiana, & Wisconsin by way of transportation, tourism, industry, summer homes, etc.). Grand Rapidians also have a pretty strong sense of pride & identity, especially because while Detroit decayed, Grand Rapids remained relatively stable by comparison. Honestly, you might find that many Grand Rapids residents consider themselves as THE big city, versus somewhere like Detroit. They don't play second fiddle to anyone, especially not Detroit, even if they are statistically the second largest city, metro, etc. in MI.

It's all relative, right? To someone in Grand Rapids, Chicago (or Detroit) is the big city. To someone in Kalamazoo (like me), Grand Rapids is the big city. And to someone in Mattawan or Schoolcraft or Galesburg, Kalamazoo is the big city, with our single 23 story skyscraper

[Northern Light]

Originally Posted by ue

I know this is slightly off-topic, but this is really interesting in Canada. Not only are the 'big cities' not at the New York/Los Angeles/Chicago population threshold,

Toronto is larger in population than Chicago both at the City proper level, and the regional level, although in the latter case, only in the last 2-3 years.

L.A. and NYC do remain significantly larger.

[Razor]

re: Big city.
Do people in Milwaukee really refer to a day trip to saay Chicago as "I'm going to the city"?
You would think that their mindset would be more like "I'm going to a bigger city".
Ditto for the eastern seaboard cities referencing NYC..I can see rural or small town people referencing Chicago in that manner, but certainly not someone from Milwaukee or any other mid sized city that's in close proximity to a much larger one.
re: metro Detroit/Toronto Sure enough, back in 1990 they were indeed close in size to each other..At least according to the chart below:

https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/2...nto/population

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

I mean comparing Detroit and toronto is no contest. Toronto has almost hilariously narrow streets with 60 foot right of ways while Detroit is full of Michigan avenues and Woodward avenues with, what, 200+ foot right of ways? Just everything is bigger and more spaced out. And historically wealthier. Bigger houses, less apartments, etc. Today the wealth levels are probably swapped, but you can tell that Detroit was obviously far wealthier when the inner areas were getting built. Most of inner Toronto’s housing stock is small 1,300sf townhouses while Detroit is filled with larger detached dwellings.

There are only five of those avenues, and the reason why they're so wide is because they tore down a bunch of buildings to widen them. But that has nothing to do with lot sizes.

Also, Toronto has never been abnormally dense for a Great Lakes city. I don't think Toronto's peak density has ever surpassed Detroit's or Chicago's peak density.