Cities that belong in other states

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Yuri

I imagine if Detroit had like 1.2 million-1.3 million today, specially with less freeways, it would be urban and dense enough to be counted as a big urban city, with all the benefits that factor alone brings to a city in the US since the 2000's.

I do think the population of the city would have stabilized much sooner with fewer freeways. Some decline was inevitable, but I don't think the city would have experienced the never-ending slide that ended up occurring. Detroit still had just under 1 million residents as recently as 2000, so stabilizing at 1.2 - 1.3 million was really not out of the question. Detroit was also still in the top 10 cities by population in 2000, compared to #27 in 2020.

[Crawford]

This NYC freeway began construction in 1936. It was horribly devastating, displaced tens of thousands, destroyed vast urban fabric and should have never been built. Yet in 2024, it's surrounded by vibrant areas:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7143...8192?entry=ttu

This Detroit neighborhood successfully stopped a freeway expansion in the postwar years. A freeway was planned to replace the then-thriving commercial arterial:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3959...8192?entry=ttu

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

This NYC freeway began construction in 1936. It was horribly devastating, displaced tens of thousands, destroyed vast urban fabric and should have never been built. Yet in 2024, it's surrounded by vibrant areas:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7143...8192?entry=ttu

This Detroit neighborhood successfully stopped a freeway expansion in the postwar years. A freeway was planned to replace the then-thriving commercial arterial:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3959...8192?entry=ttu

One major difference between the BQE and Detroit's freeways is that the BQE is mostly elevated and didn't break up the street grid. All of Detroit's freeways are below grade and thus disrupt the pre-existing street grids.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I do think the population of the city would have stabilized much sooner with fewer freeways. Some decline was inevitable, but I don't think the city would have experienced the never-ending slide that ended up occurring. Detroit still had just under 1 million residents as recently as 2000, so stabilizing at 1.2 - 1.3 million was really not out of the question. Detroit was also still in the top 10 cities by population in 2000, compared to #27 in 2020.

Indeed. Detroit was still above 1 million in 1990, maybe the bottom year for most major US cities. In a scenario where the decline was slower since the 1950's, it could be bottomed around 1.2-1.3 million and from there it could enjoy the unprecedent urban renaissance US cities started to experience this century.

[Emprise du Lion]

Originally Posted by Yuri

The area just east of Downtown Buffalo seems worse than Cleveland, at least from Google Maps. Ditto for north St. Louis. Looks worse.

My personal opinion when comparing Detroit to St. Louis, and mind you that I haven't been to Detroit in about a decade, was that it felt like you hopped around from intact neighborhoods to abandoned neighborhoods in Detroit more frequently than you do in St. Louis.

The dark side of that for St. Louis is that this is because St. Louis decided to just let everything north of Delmar Blvd mostly die for decades. This means some horrifically abandoned neighborhoods quite literally border some of St. Louis' nicest, and yet the spillover of development barely occurs. I will add that there are some relatively intact neighborhoods in North City, but the rapid drop off once you cross Delmar Blvd is jarring.

Originally Posted by Yuri

Do you think if Detroit, Cleveland and St. Louis haven't allowed freeways or kept them at San Francisco's levels, that alone would make them retain like 1/3 more people than they did (maybe more) and they could be counted today amongst the 'big US urban cities"?

I think the highways here certainly accelerated suburbanization, especially ones like I-64 that can get you from St. Louis' eastern border to its western border in mere minutes, but the interesting thing today is that the most highwayed parts of the city are still the most popular areas.

The Central Corridor, aka where the vast majority of the investment is happening, has I-64 running straight through it. South City has I-44 cutting straight across town going east to west, and it also has I-55 primarily hugging the southern riverfront. North City, meanwhile, has I-70 primarily hugging the northern riverfront before it cuts across town going east to west further north in North City.

The riverfront, outside of the Arch, is industrial to this day, so North City arguably went through the least urban renewal in order to put in I-70, and yet its the least desirable part of St. Louis.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Indeed. Detroit was still above 1 million in 1990, maybe the bottom year for most major US cities. In a scenario where the decline was slower since the 1950's, it could be bottomed around 1.2-1.3 million and from there it could enjoy the unprecedent urban renaissance US cities started to experience this century.

I like to use Philadelphia as a reference point for Detroit since those two cities and metros were similarly sized in 1950. The city of Philadelphia also bottomed out in the 1990s, like a few other American cities. In an alternate history where Detroit's decline had paralleled what occurred in Philly, Detroit's population would be around 1.4 million today, and it would also still be a top 10 city.

[ColDayMan]

The obvious choice in Ohio is Toledo but really the state being divided into five different regions, we could all be evicted except for Columbus. Cincinnati to Kentucky, Dayton to Indiana, Toledo to Michigan, Northeast Ohio returns to Connecticut or something, Southeast Ohio goes to West Virginia.

[bigstick]

Chattanooga to Georgia.

[Metro-One]

Miami obviously belongs in North Dakota.

[edale]

Originally Posted by ColDayMan

The obvious choice in Ohio is Toledo but really the state being divided into five different regions, we could all be evicted except for Columbus. Cincinnati to Kentucky, Dayton to Indiana, Toledo to Michigan, Northeast Ohio returns to Connecticut or something, Southeast Ohio goes to West Virginia.

LOL please don't give any additional credence to the old 'Cleveland is Connecticut' claims

But I agree with your post. Not sure about Dayton going to Indiana, but I'll defer to you there. To me, Dayton is pretty connected to Cincinnati, especially with the Cin-Day sprawl zone that exists and is only getting bigger, but I agree it doesn't have any connection to Kentucky.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I like to use Philadelphia as a reference point for Detroit since those two cities and metros were similarly sized in 1950. The city of Philadelphia also bottomed out in the 1990s, like a few other American cities. In an alternate history where Detroit's decline had paralleled what occurred in Philly, Detroit's population would be around 1.4 million today, and it would also still be a top 10 city.

A 1.4M person Detroit in 2020 would've been so awesome!

And all it would've taken is for household numbers to stay consistent from peak, while only suffering the drop in average household size.

That's essentially where Philly and Chicago are at these days.


The main obstacles for Detroit following a similar path to those two were:

- white flight was already so nearly complete by 1990 (down to only 20% NHW); the tipping point had long since been passed by that time.

- Detroit largely missed out on the 90s immigration bonanza, relatively speaking.

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Detroit still had just under 1 million residents as recently as 2000

It's still hard to comprehend Detroit went from a city of 1,850,000 to now under 640,000.

The city limits lost more people than Buffalo has in its Metropolitan Statistical Area.

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

A 1.4M person Detroit in 2020 would've been so awesome!

- Detroit largely missed out on the 90s immigration bonanza, relatively speaking.

Agreed on both.

Even a small city like JManc's hometown, Utica, NY benefited from all of the Bosnians and other Balkan folks that fled former Yugoslavia in the 1990s and successive waves of refugees.

[SpawnOfVulcan]

I think a lot of people would say that Huntsville belongs in Tennessee; but, IMO, Huntsville, Decatur, Madison, Athens, and Sand Mountain create a microcosm that is uniquely "North Alabama". I know a majority of folks I grew up with would identify with North Alabama than Alabama as a whole.

[Docere]

I take it Cleveland and Cincinnati are pretty independent of each other and both saw themselves as the top dog in the state, more or less.

[meh]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The East Side of Cleveland definitely has Detroit-levels of abandonment. It's eviscerated.

Based on Google satellite imagery, I'm not seeing any urban prairie in Cleveland. Not sure what you're talking about.

Originally Posted by Yuri

The area just east of Downtown Buffalo seems worse than Cleveland, at least from Google Maps. Ditto for north St. Louis. Looks worse.

Detroit and St. Louis have areas of similar sparsity but—again based on Google satellite imagery—such areas are significantly more expansive in Detroit. In St. Louis that level of prairie is restricted to the north-side neighborhoods closest to the river, while those just to the west more resemble Cleveland's east-side 'hoods (missing teeth but not prairie).

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by Docere

I take it Cleveland and Cincinnati are pretty independent of each other and both saw themselves as the top dog in the state, more or less.

https://apps.bea.gov/itable/?ReqID=7...QiLCItMSJdXX0=

Looks like Cincy takes the slight lead with Columbus recently overtaking Cleveland.

So neat to see 3 Metros in one State so close to each other in population and GDP. It's more of "pick you favorite" Ohio Metro than a clear Alpha city.

[pj3000]

I know eastern OH very well, and Cleveland certainly does not have all that much "urban prairie"... especially for a city of its size.

On the other hand, check out Youngstown... the bulk of the south and east sides look like this part of the Oak Hill neighborhood (and the north side is pretty sparse too). The long block bounded by Oak Hill, Myrtle, Hillman, and Garfield comproses 8 acres... and only a single house remains... there used to be 50.

[ColDayMan]

Originally Posted by Docere

I take it Cleveland and Cincinnati are pretty independent of each other and both saw themselves as the top dog in the state, more or less.

There is no "top dog" in this state. Ohio is very city/metro-state driven. Cleveland's "Ohio" is far different than Cincinnati's "Ohio." Both will be surpassed by Columbus (if not already in Cleveland's case) but it doesn't matter. It'll always be the 3C's in this state as DATY (Dayton/Akron/Toledo/Youngstown) get screwed.

Originally Posted by edale

LOL please don't give any additional credence to the old 'Cleveland is Connecticut' claims

But I agree with your post. Not sure about Dayton going to Indiana, but I'll defer to you there. To me, Dayton is pretty connected to Cincinnati, especially with the Cin-Day sprawl zone that exists and is only getting bigger, but I agree it doesn't have any connection to Kentucky.

Heh, glad somebody caught that CT dig . Dayton is probably the most Ohio-centric city aside from Columbus in this state so I wouldn't necessarily see it be annexed into Indiana but due to proximity and anti-Kentuckyness of Dayton, it'll work. Cin-Day is certainly a region with two independent markets merging into one at Route 63 but that's basically where it ends. Dayton has no clue what goetta or Riverfest is; Cincinnati doesn't know what World's A Fair or Dayton-style pizza is.

But that's a testament to Ohio in general. We're all roommates living in a house that don't talk to each other but just pay rent.

Originally Posted by Wigs

So neat to see 3 Metros in one State so close to each other in population and GDP. It's more of "pick you favorite" Ohio Metro than a clear Alpha city.

Basically that. There's three cities that basically tie in metrics and hate each other. Though I do always find it interesting that Ohio's 6th largest MSA would be 28 states' first or second largest. That's weird.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I like to use Philadelphia as a reference point for Detroit since those two cities and metros were similarly sized in 1950. The city of Philadelphia also bottomed out in the 1990s, like a few other American cities. In an alternate history where Detroit's decline had paralleled what occurred in Philly, Detroit's population would be around 1.4 million today, and it would also still be a top 10 city.

I thought about Philadelphia as well. Around that time it looks so depressed, like on the Rocky movies or on the Philadelphia opening scenes. Now we see Philadelphia shining, looking wealth, with tons of developments on those YouTube videos praising urban living. Remaining urban alone helps Philadelphia today.

And if Detroit did worse than Philadelphia, but not becoming a city with 1/3 of the population, it would still look very different and arguably more urban. 1.2 million would put it where Dallas is today, but Dallas, of course, is more the 2x the size of Detroit.

As Detroit metro area is still wealth, about on the US average, its alternate strong core could put it on all those discussions of cities with great urban living and that alone would help it retain or even attract new dwellers.

Originally Posted by meh

Detroit and St. Louis have areas of similar sparsity but—again based on Google satellite imagery—such areas are significantly more expansive in Detroit. In St. Louis that level of prairie is restricted to the north-side neighborhoods closest to the river, while those just to the west more resemble Cleveland's east-side 'hoods (missing teeth but not prairie).

Yes, I meant St. Louis and even Buffalo seems worse than Cleveland in this respect. However Detroit looks much worse than those two.

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

- Detroit largely missed out on the 90s immigration bonanza, relatively speaking.

Its CSA grew over 5%. It was not that bad. Faster than Cleveland and St. Louis for instance.

For Pittsburgh and Buffalo than it was tragic: they shrank on that golden decade. And ironically, on the 2010's, the "worst" decade ever for US demographics, both grew for the first time since the 1960's.