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

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Look at Milwaukee!

And what is up with Aurora, IL, Ann Arbor, and Madison, WI (I'm especially surprised by Aurora) having more high density tracts than whole cities like Cleveland, Indy, and St Louis?

Big Universities in Ann Arbor and Madison, I imagine

[Sun Belt]

What's a good source to look up densities broken down to census tract with an interactive map.

And don't say census.gov that site isn't user friendly!

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Look at Milwaukee!

And what is up with Aurora, IL, Ann Arbor, and Madison, WI (I'm especially surprised by Aurora) having more high density tracts than whole cities like Cleveland, Indy, and St Louis?

yeah the highest density blocks are wrapped around by far the largest urban park in the midwest with a massive swath of industry, hospital mega complexes, ikeas, etc on the other side splitting off into multiple directions towards even more industrial tracts which once had steel mills, manufactured gas plants, railyards...spilling out everywhere.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by eschaton

(it was only defeated in Chicago due to the Great Fire).

and even then, chicago still has more than its fair share of great lakes wood frame vernacular:

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9274...7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9345...7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9568...7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8153...7i16384!8i8192


and thousands more streets like these.

overall, chicago's vernacular is more brick than wood frame, but it's probably more like a 60/40 split than an 80/20 split.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Look at Milwaukee!

And what is up with Aurora, IL, Ann Arbor, and Madison, WI (I'm especially surprised by Aurora) having more high density tracts than whole cities like Cleveland, Indy, and St Louis?

As I said upthread, Milwaukee is hugely buoyed in population density by the Latino neighborhoods on its south side. 19 of the 33 high-density tracks are there, despite the area not being appreciably structurally dense.

Aurora has a large Latino population - the high-density tracts are there.

Originally Posted by pj3000

Yeah, I wasn’t sure about Hampton Roads area, nor if the older southern cities had similar Midlands influence, or if their influence arose from elsewhere in British lands (in the case of Charleston and Savannah) and vía Spanish and French influence in New Orleans’ case.

Brick attached homes were basically the default "in town" style of architecture in England during the time period in question. To a large extent they still are - at least if you include semi-attached. Lots of England's suburbia looks like the outer portions of Philadelphia.

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

and even then, chicago still has more than its fair share of great lakes wood frame vernacular:

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9274...7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9345...7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9568...7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8153...7i16384!8i8192


and thousands more streets like these.

overall, chicago's vernacular is more brick than wood frame, but it's probably more like a 60/40 split than an 80/20 split.

Yeah. IIRC the no-frame building codes basically only covered the city limits of Chicago at that time. Plenty of other areas were built out independently of Chicago prior to annexation, which resulted in lots of wood-framed neighborhoods.

[the urban politician]

Milwaukee is one of the oft overlooked midwestern cities, but it performs so well on these "urbanism" lists just because its built environment has so much urbanity and density for a city of its relative stature and size. Here are some examples from its north lakefront. Good urban bones, and it shows when you look at the numbers:

https://goo.gl/maps/Z28YMu8BPos5LBjE7

https://goo.gl/maps/nrUFx4tRACNPdmPn6

https://goo.gl/maps/TcYJekjqVXjVVZwb6

https://goo.gl/maps/qTDDH6WEHoj61c7k9

https://goo.gl/maps/9RyN96o1s1We5RYYA

https://goo.gl/maps/1dsMPj5ueUEp32PeA

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by eschaton

As I said upthread, Milwaukee is hugely buoyed in population density by the Latino neighborhoods on its south side. 19 of the 33 high-density tracks are there, despite the area not being appreciably structurally dense.

That seems to be well supported by touring the areas. Here are some examples of typical "Mexican" areas on the south side of Milwaukee. Not as luxe or "structurally dense" as the north side, but still holds its own

https://goo.gl/maps/Tw5wsb3gCtan6qZX8

https://goo.gl/maps/UqpxWiJuCCYbE1pu6

https://goo.gl/maps/kkLS4HYCtndQ5XU79

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by eschaton

As I said upthread, Milwaukee is hugely buoyed in population density by the Latino neighborhoods on its south side. 19 of the 33 high-density tracks are there, despite the area not being appreciably structurally dense.

the race/ethnicity of the inhabitants is immaterial. while the people may all be housed in detached (but somewhat tight) wood-frame bungalows and two-flats with front yard setbacks, the relatively high population density on milwaukee's SW-side helps keep traditional, more structurally dense retail streets like these intact.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0123...7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0028...7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9911...7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0185...7i13312!8i6656

[edale]

Originally Posted by pj3000

But rowhouses are not specifically the "east coast" style.

The oldest residential core neighborhoods in cities like the below are mainly wooden Colonial and Victorian era detached. Are these places not east coast? Is Federal Hill in Providence not an east coast residential neighborhood? How about the east end of Portland? It's practically in the Atlantic Ocean... it's not "east coast"?

Providence, RI
Portland, ME
Manchester, NH
Hartford, CT
Poughkeepsie, NY
Scranton, PA...

Here's the general dividing line if you're not of the area and/or don't know...

North of I-80... older city neighborhoods are not generally characterized by brick rowhouses; south of I-80, they are.

Where in the US would you say the bulk of brick rowhouses are found? The answer is obviously on the East Coast, and largely north of Virginia, and I suppose south of Connecticut if you want to ignore Boston. Yes, New England has a lot of detached, wood frame housing. I really don't care about the dominant typologies of small cities and towns like Machester and Portland...those places never experienced the same levels of urbanization that larger cities did, so they were able to retain more of their low density fabric. Boston, the preeminent urban center of New England, has lots of brick row houses and tenement-ish buildings, and these areas are some of Boston's most famous neighborhoods.

In the context of the US, brick rowhouses are basically synonymous with the East Coast, because that is where the vast majority of this style of housing is found. That doesn't mean that the entire East Coast has only one style, or even that this style is present in every city on the East Coast/Northeast.

[COtoOC]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Oh no, man, st.ouis has solid urban creds too. Strongest residential vernacular style/form? Oh yeah.

Please don't mistake the omission as a criticism. Ditto for Cleveland.

Of the midwest's 10 major cities, I think only KC and Indy can be eliminated from contention for second most "urban" in the Midwest after Chicago. As for the other seven cities, split them hairs as you will.

I agree on those two. I stayed in downtown Indy about 4 years ago (The JW Mariott was awesome!!) and it seemed almost "small town" at the street level.

As for KC, I grew up there and the urban core, from City Market to the Plaza, is definitely doing better these days, but even so, I'm shocked at how un-walkable most of it is. Pockets here and there a good (Westport, the Plaza, Crossroads, etc.), but overall, it's the least dense urban area I've ever seen.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

yeah the highest density blocks are wrapped around by far the largest urban park in the midwest with a massive swath of industry, hospital mega complexes, ikeas, etc on the other side splitting off into multiple directions towards even more industrial tracts which once had steel mills, manufactured gas plants, railyards...spilling out everywhere.

Yea I think census tract is a terrible, misleading no-good way to measure and compare density. It's like gerrymandering.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Yeah. IIRC the no-frame building codes basically only covered the city limits of Chicago at that time. Plenty of other areas were built out independently of Chicago prior to annexation, which resulted in lots of wood-framed neighborhoods.

yep. that's how it went down.

and it can make for some unexpected arrangements. we often think that brick automatically = older and in a more core area, but in chicago's case, that doesn't always pan out. middle areas like lakeview were once independant municipalities that were significantly built-out prior to annexation by the city and thus have craploads of grandfathered wood frame, whereas neighborhoods further out like edgewater and rogers park were primarily built-out post-annexation, and thus subject to the city's no wood-frame rule, so they are much heavier on the masonry than lakeview, despite being decades younger and miles further out from the core.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by edale

In the context of the US, brick rowhouses are basically synonymous with the East Coast, because that is where the vast majority of this style of housing is found. That doesn't mean that the entire East Coast has only one style, or even that this style is present in every city on the East Coast/Northeast.

But this is a recent attribution. I think people in 1890s Cincinnati or Detroit would have thought it absurd that row houses were considered an East Coast/Northeast thing. The inhabitants of those cities would probably be as equally shocked to see how little of the style survived in their own cities.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by edale

Where in the US would you say the bulk of brick rowhouses are found? The answer is obviously on the East Coast, and largely north of Virginia, and I suppose south of Connecticut if you want to ignore Boston. Yes, New England has a lot of detached, wood frame housing. I really don't care about the dominant typologies of small cities and towns like Machester and Portland...those places never experienced the same levels of urbanization that larger cities did, so they were able to retain more of their low density fabric. Boston, the preeminent urban center of New England, has lots of brick row houses and tenement-ish buildings, and these areas are some of Boston's most famous neighborhoods.

In the context of the US, brick rowhouses are basically synonymous with the East Coast, because that is where the vast majority of this style of housing is found. That doesn't mean that the entire East Coast has only one style, or even that this style is present in every city on the East Coast/Northeast.

We've already talked about the Yankee influence on architecture in the northern northeast and Midlands influence on architecture in the southern northeast. That's the intelligent and valid discussion.

It's not about, as you say, "Yes, New England has a lot of detached, wood frame housing"... it's about ALL of New England (outside of Boston) AND upstate NY AND the entire northern half of PA being mainly characterized by detached housing (a lot of it wood frame). That area is the majority of the Northeast.

You may not care about about the architecture outside of the very largest cities in the region, but that doesn't somehow validate your opinion. The very basic fact is this: Cincinnati has architecture that is common to the Northeast in general and to East Coast cities specifically; and Cleveland has architecture that is common to the Northeast in general and to East Coast cities specifically.

[edale]

Originally Posted by pj3000

it's about ALL of New England (outside of Boston) AND upstate NY AND the entire northern half of PA being mainly characterized by detached housing (a lot of it wood frame). That area is the majority of the Northeast.

Did you stop to think why you needed to include '(outside of Boston)' in your post? Without Boston, what large urban centers are there in New England? Northern Pennsylvania and Upstate NY aren't exactly home to big urban centers, either. Buffalo is the biggest city in that entire geography, and it has much more of a Great Lakes influence than East Coast. What cities of note are north of Allentown in Pennsylvania? Scranton and Erie? Again, small, rather insignificant cities that never experienced the development pressures that a larger city would have experienced.

Ignoring big cities and focusing on the development patterns of smaller cities is puzzling when it comes to this discussion. Using this logic, one could say that skyscrapers really aren't part of the identity of Northeastern cities either, because the Pougkeepsies and Scrantons of the world don't have them.

Of the large cities in the Northeast, how many of them have sizable clusters of brick rowhouses?

Boston ✔
New York ✔
Philadelphia ✔
Baltimore ✔
DC ✔

Originally Posted by pj3000

You may not care about about the architecture outside of the very largest cities in the region, but that doesn't somehow validate your opinion.

Yes it does. Rowhouses, like skyscrapers, are in part functions of urban economics. They're an efficient way to build housing, and historically, rowhouses replaced earlier, less dense housing in the cities where they were built. Cities that didn't have intense development pressures or geographic limitations on where development could occur largely had no need to build in this fashion. So looking at the smaller cities of the Northeast really doesn't add much to the conversation. Of course, there are outliers to this conversation. I know there are small towns in Pennsylvania, New York...hell even West Virginia and Kentucky that have rowhouses and there are probably myriad reasons to explain these places. That doesn't change the fact that this typology is primarily found in the Northeastern US, with some spill over to the older cities of the midwest and interior Northeast/Appalachia (Pittsburgh).

[The North One]

Uhh, attached row homes are hardly efficient. You can build much higher density with other forms of housing. Most row homes were probably built for the rich before things like the streetcar allowed for more space, every row home in Beacon Hill was a single family mansion. Chicago had lots of row homes before the fire and Detroit was never majorly a row home city since it boomed after the streetcar came along.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by edale

Did you stop to think why you needed to include '(outside of Boston)' in your post? Without Boston, what large urban centers are there in New England? Northern Pennsylvania and Upstate NY aren't exactly home to big urban centers, either. Buffalo is the biggest city in that entire geography, and it has much more of a Great Lakes influence than East Coast. What cities of note are north of Allentown in Pennsylvania? Scranton and Erie? Again, small, rather insignificant cities that never experienced the development pressures that a larger city would have experienced.

Ignoring big cities and focusing on the development patterns of smaller cities is puzzling when it comes to this discussion. Using this logic, one could say that skyscrapers really aren't part of the identity of Northeastern cities either, because the Pougkeepsies and Scrantons of the world don't have them.

Of the large cities in the Northeast, how many of them have sizable clusters of brick rowhouses?

Boston ✔
New York ✔
Philadelphia ✔
Baltimore ✔
DC ✔



Yes it does. Rowhouses, like skyscrapers, are in part functions of urban economics. They're an efficient way to build housing, and historically, rowhouses replaced earlier, less dense housing in the cities where they were built. Cities that didn't have intense development pressures or geographic limitations on where development could occur largely had no need to build in this fashion. So looking at the smaller cities of the Northeast really doesn't add much to the conversation. Of course, there are outliers to this conversation. I know there are small towns in Pennsylvania, New York...hell even West Virginia and Kentucky that have rowhouses and there are probably myriad reasons to explain these places. That doesn't change the fact that this typology is primarily found in the Northeastern US, with some spill over to the older cities of the midwest and interior Northeast/Appalachia (Pittsburgh).

Ok, I'll play. So "development pressures" is your thing?

Why then, for example, did Providence and Hartford and Springfield and Rochester and Buffalo, and then Cleveland and Detroit, not develop into "rowhouse cities"? These places were among the larger (and largest) cities in the nation (and rapidly developed) from the mid-1800s to early 1900s (the "rowhouse era", if you will).

And during this same era, why then did significantly smaller places (which didn't have nearly the population nor growth/development pressures) like Reading and Allentown and Bethlehem and Harrisburg and Lancaster and Frederick become "rowhouse cities"?

I'm not ignoring big cities and I'm not focusing on small cities. I'm talking about the bigger cities of the day... go ahead and look up population and growth numbers for places like Providence, Buffalo, Rochester, Cleveland, Detroit, etc. in the era.

And I've never suggested that this typology isn't primarily found in the Northeastern US. I agree with that, but the Northeast is also largely characterized by a detached housing typology.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

the race/ethnicity of the inhabitants is immaterial. while the people may all be housed in detached (but somewhat tight) wood-frame bungalows and two-flats with front yard setbacks, the relatively high population density on milwaukee's SW-side helps keep traditional, more structurally dense retail streets like these intact.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0123...7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0028...7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9911...7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0185...7i13312!8i6656

I didn't mean to imply that Latino areas "don't count" or something. But Latino neighborhoods tend to have higher population densities at a given structural density than white neighborhoods due to a higher average household size. I mean, if you have a unit taken up by a family of four and a grandmother rather than a single couple without kids, it will result in a much higher population density if repeated across an entire census tract.

Originally Posted by edale

Where in the US would you say the bulk of brick rowhouses are found? The answer is obviously on the East Coast, and largely north of Virginia, and I suppose south of Connecticut if you want to ignore Boston. Yes, New England has a lot of detached, wood frame housing. I really don't care about the dominant typologies of small cities and towns like Machester and Portland...those places never experienced the same levels of urbanization that larger cities did, so they were able to retain more of their low density fabric. Boston, the preeminent urban center of New England, has lots of brick row houses and tenement-ish buildings, and these areas are some of Boston's most famous neighborhoods.

Boston made a very early turn away from brick rowhouses though. It was basically done building them by the 1870s, when the common "middle density" vernacular in New England shifted to wood-framed "triple-deckers" It's why Boston suddenly changes from being a predominantly brick to a mostly frame city as soon as you get to neighborhoods like South Boston, Dorchester, Roxbury, etc.

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

and it can make for some unexpected arrangements. we often think that brick automatically = older and in a more core area, but in chicago's case, that doesn't always pan out.

I absolutely don't think Brick=older. Indeed, it seems in a lot of cities there was a shift toward brick in the 1910s and 1920s. I think this was spurred in large part by a change in construction styles. Some of the older brick homes were solid brick all the way though, but around that time they began constructing them as a single layer of brick on top of a frame house, which lowered the construction cost of building a brick house considerably.

Originally Posted by edale

Yes it does. Rowhouses, like skyscrapers, are in part functions of urban economics. They're an efficient way to build housing, and historically, rowhouses replaced earlier, less dense housing in the cities where they were built. Cities that didn't have intense development pressures or geographic limitations on where development could occur largely had no need to build in this fashion. So looking at the smaller cities of the Northeast really doesn't add much to the conversation. Of course, there are outliers to this conversation. I know there are small towns in Pennsylvania, New York...hell even West Virginia and Kentucky that have rowhouses and there are probably myriad reasons to explain these places. That doesn't change the fact that this typology is primarily found in the Northeastern US, with some spill over to the older cities of the midwest and interior Northeast/Appalachia (Pittsburgh).

I'm sorry, but this is a false argument. Whether a 19th century city was relatively large or small, it was still interacted with mostly on foot, meaning there were identical pressures to build relatively densely on small plots of land.

Plus, as you note, lots of small cities in the Mid-Atlantic are packed with rowhouses. I mean, off the top of my head, there's Allentown, Bethlehem, Reading, Norristown, Lancaster, York, Harrisburg, etc in PA. Hagerstown, Frederick, and Annapolis in MD. Wilmington in DE. And this is just the big ones. Within that same region, every single 19th century municipality - all the way down to boroughs with just a few thousand people - has rowhouses.

Also, like I said above, Boston "turned away" from rowhouses in the 1870s or so. Sort of similar to how they also fell out of fashion very early in places like Charleston, New Orleans, and Savannah. By 1900 basically the only part of the country new rowhouses were being built was the "rowhouse belt" - particularly in Philly, Baltimore, and DC.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Ok, I'll play. So "development pressures" is your thing?

Why then, for example, did Providence and Hartford and Springfield and Rochester and Buffalo, and then Cleveland and Detroit, not develop into "rowhouse cities"? These places were among the larger (and largest) cities in the nation (and rapidly developed) from the mid-1800s to early 1900s (the "rowhouse era", if you will).

And during this same era, why then did significantly smaller places (which didn't have nearly the population nor growth/development pressures) like Reading and Allentown and Bethlehem and Harrisburg and Lancaster and Frederick become "rowhouse cities"?

I'm not ignoring big cities and I'm not focusing on small cities. I'm talking about the bigger cities of the day... go ahead and look up population and growth numbers for places like Providence, Buffalo, Rochester, Cleveland, Detroit, etc. in the era.

And I've never suggested that this typology isn't primarily found in the Northeastern US. I agree with that, but the Northeast is also largely characterized by a detached housing typology.

Yeah, I don't see how Cleveland wasn't a row house city. San Francisco is a row house city and it was built 2,500 miles away from the northeast. And most of San Francisco was built during the 20th century because the city was almost completely destroyed in 1906.

Originally Posted by The North One

Uhh, attached row homes are hardly efficient. You can build much higher density with other forms of housing. Most row homes were probably built for the rich before things like the streetcar allowed for more space, every row home in Beacon Hill was a single family mansion. Chicago had lots of row homes before the fire and Detroit was never majorly a row home city since it boomed after the streetcar came along.

Row houses weren't exactly rare in Detroit, either. And they were built there throughout 20th century... Although the stuff built in the 90s and later is pretty fugly.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Pittsburgh's not in the midwest, but the best way to describe it is basically as follows:

First, a well-preserved, dense downtown area with extremely minimal usage of sufcace parking lots for a rust belt city.

Second, a "ring of ruin" basically surrounding downtown on all sides where traditional urban form was either destroyed or all-but destroyed. Lower Hill, Uptown, Strip District, North Shore, Station Square, etc. All of these areas are seeing massive new investment today, but it's very much "urban light" in the modern sense and won't hold a candle to what was lost.

Third, a series of very-well preserved, finely-grained, traditionally urban neighborhoods which are found on the North Side, East End (including Oakland) and South Side. Altogether it makes for a very large swathe of urbanity, but the lack of cohesive traditional urbanity between them and downtown is palpable. Still, the overall scope of this grouping is way larger than Cincinnati, and it's way more intact than anything remaining in St. Louis.

Excellent description of Pittsburgh, and I concur that overall, despite some holes, it has a larger contiguous chunk of traditional urbanity than does Cincinnati or St. Louis. And while it is true Pittsburgh's downtown is separated from the city's other vibrant urban nodes, it is by far the busiest, tallest, densest commercial core of the three, and features a light rail subway to boot, which is a nice urban perk (as is the gold-standard bus rapid transit line to the eastern nodes).

It's possible St. Louis may have, cumulatively, more traditionally urban (as opposed to streetcar urban) areas overall than does Pittsburgh (and it definitely has more than Cincinnati, Detroit, Cleveland, and Minneapolis), but the dead zones between almost all of them attenuate the overall impacts of the fantastic architecture, human scale, historicity and fine materials in St. Louis' best areas.

Columbus is great in many ways, especially the charming red brick areas others have duly noted. But it's a car city, and that sucks much of the life out of areas that otherwise would be more vibrant at those built densities. If Columbus could build (and getting people to use) a multi-modal and comprehensive transit (and bike-walk) system, the downtown-N. High St.-university corridor would just blow up. Imagine if that same corridor were somehow magically recreated in Portland--it would be packed to the gills, because people get out of their cars more. That could absolutely happen in Columbus with the right decisions, investment and planning.

Detroit has good bones and once could have taken this thread in a walkoff, if it had continued to build tall like it did early in the skyscraper era, and of course, if there hadn't been all the wholesale abandonment outside downtown.

Cleveland has a taller tower (and earns points for heavy rail, plus light rail and a gold-standard bus rapid transit line), but Minneapolis has the the best skyline in question, and best downtown overall, despite the skyways.

I have not been to Milwaukee, but I suspect it is a strong contender in terms of density and cohesiveness. Kansas City is nice enough, but it doesn't stand out among its peers. And Indianapolis is notably unremarkable in every category.

So...I guess I'd go with Minneapolis, even though its primary built form is streetcar urban rather than traditionally urban. So while it lacks the fine-grained traditional urbanity of Cincinnati's anomalous Over-the-Rhine, it also lacks the huge dead zones that pockmark St. Louis, Detroit, Cincinnati and Cleveland. It lacks heavy rail, but has good transit overall (and excellent bicycling). It doesn't have the tallest tower of the bunch, but it has the best skyline and the most functional downtown. It seems to boast a lot of middle-class people who want to live in the city, and value the nature and functionality of their cityscape. And it continues to make decisions that will lead the entire city to become denser and more transit- and ped/bike-oriented in coming years and decades.