Largest midwest cities ranked by city-core population

[Steely Dan]

Here are the midwest's 15 largest cities ranked by population within a certain radius from each city's respective city hall (2010 census numbers).


Within 1 mile of city hall:
1. Chicago: 63,120
2. Minneapolis: 31,036
3. Milwaukee: 21,587
4. Cincinnati: 17,681
5. St. Louis: 17,359
6. Grand Rapids: 16,099
7. Omaha: 15,582
8. Indianapolis: 14,058
9. Kansas City: 13,709
10. Akron: 12,479
11. Cleveland: 9,471
12. Dayton: 9,182
13. Detroit: 8,709
14. Toledo: 8,304
15. Columbus: 7,416


Within 2 miles of city hall:
1. Chicago: 181,714
2. Minneapolis: 123,526
3. Milwaukee: 86,261
4. Grand Rapids: 75,613
5. Cincinnati: 65,264
6. Omaha: 56,244
7. Toledo: 55,739
8. Akron: 53,715
9. Columbus: 49,667
10. Indianapolis: 45,079
11. Dayton: 41,053
12. St. Louis: 40,184
13. Kansas City: 32,900
14. Detroit: 32,810
15. Cleveland: 32,193


Within 3 miles of city hall:
1. Chicago: 318,522
2. Minneapolis: 228,927
3. Milwaukee: 208,776
4. Cincinnati: 138,235
5. Columbus: 134,826
6. Grand Rapids: 127,535
7. Akron: 122,395
8. Omaha: 113,044
9. Indianapolis: 102,412
10. Dayton: 101,817
11. Toledo: 94,058
12. St. Louis: 94,038
13. Kansas City: 77,388
14. Cleveland: 64,721
15. Detroit: 64,046


Within 4 miles of city hall:
1. Chicago: 508,949
2. Minneapolis: 325,198
3. Milwaukee: 319,111
4. Columbus: 221,466
5. Cincinnati: 205,624
6. Grand Rapids: 184,887
7. Akron: 177,674
8. Omaha: 168,724
9. Toledo: 166,569
10. Indianapolis: 166,266
11. St. Louis: 160,117
12. Kansas City: 155,802
13. Dayton: 152,789
14. Cleveland: 139,945
15. Detroit: 109,104


Within 5 miles of city hall:
1. Chicago: 764,400
2. Minneapolis: 448,499
3. Milwaukee: 438,629
4. Cincinnati: 315,665
5. Columbus: 314,557
6. Omaha: 253,723
7. St. Louis: 251,432
8. Grand Rapids: 247,473
9. Indianapolis: 240,970
10. Akron: 227,825
11. Cleveland: 227,309
12. Kansas City: 216,483
13. Dayton: 214,614
14. Toledo: 213,529
15. Detroit: 198,341

source: http://allcolumbusdata.com/?p=1079


chicago is a no-brainer at the top (even considering that almost half of the area within these radii from city hall is water in chicago's case), but the real surprise for me was milwaukee. like chicago, a huge chunk of the area for milwaukee is just lake michigan, yet it's right up there with minneapolis, a city that has land surrounding its city hall on all sides (ie. it's not on the shore of a great lake). considering that, i'd guess one could make the case that milwaukee has the most densely populated city core in the midwest outside of chicago.

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

chicago is a no-brainer at the top (even considering that almost half of the area within these radii from city hall is water in chicago's case), but the real surprise for me was milwaukee. like chicago, a huge chunk of the area for milwaukee is just lake michigan, yet it's right up there with minneapolis, a city that has land surrounding its city hall on all sides (ie. it's not on the shore of a great lake). considering that, i'd guess one could make the case that milwaukee has the most densely populated city core in the midwest outside of chicago.

Yeah, I imagined if the buildings along the lake were compacted around the core the numbers would be enormous. But you can certainly tell when you visit these cities just how they post these numbers. Minneapolis has lots of highrise and midrise buildings close to the core. Other cities have a big transitional zone around the downtown with not so much. Just think about Detroit or Cleveland where areas around the core filled with infrastructure, light industry or undeveloped land that would otherwise be usable real estate.

Although the rankings ignore these factors, it's fair to say it has implications on how well people will use their downtown or commute to it. In Detroit's case, it proves that there needs to be better transit so the downtown can be more easily accessed by a greater chunk of the population since they aren't focused in the core.....which much of it is tied up with stadiums and freeways or big plazas.....stuff that's never going to be turned over as developable real-estate any time soon.

[Cleveland Brown]

Chicago's City Hall is much further inland than in Detroit or Cleveland. This is important because although Chicago and Cleveland may be lakefront cities, more of Chicago's radius will be filled with land, whereas since City Hall is closer to the water in Cleveland, nearly half of its radius will be water. Detroit's municipal building is within 500 feet and Cleveland's City Hall would be even closer, but for the Rock Hall and Brown's stadium. I would also venture to guess that Windsor's population is excluded from the Detroit figures.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Brown

Chicago's City Hall is much further inland than in Detroit or Cleveland. This is important because although Chicago and Cleveland may be lakefront cities, more of Chicago's radius will be filled with land, whereas since City Hall is closer to the water in Cleveland, nearly half of its radius will be water. Detroit's municipal building is within 500 feet and Cleveland's City Hall would be even closer, but for the Rock Hall and Brown's stadium.

i HIGHLY doubt that moving either cleveland's or detroit's city hall a half mile inland would bump either city anywhere close to the top of the list.

Originally Posted by Cleveland Brown

I would also venture to guess that Windsor's population is excluded from the Detroit figures.

considering these population figures are from the US census bureau, they do not include any people living in canada.

[pip]

what's the trick behind those numbers? I have been to some of the top cities on that list and they seem so quiet. As much as I like Milwaukee, lived there for a while, it is certainly not half Chicago. Selective walking? Is it because some cities develop north/south with population density and not east/west?

[UrbanNebraska]

And people think Omaha isn't very dense. Actually surprised to see it that high on the list.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by pip

what's the trick behind those numbers? I have been to some of the top cities on that list and they seem so quiet. As much as I like Milwaukee, lived there for a while, it is certainly not half Chicago. Selective walking? Is it because some cities develop north/south with population density and not east/west?

^ That's because Chicago has WAY more (office and non-office) workers, shoppers, tourists, etc.

Only in the last 2 decades has the Loop proper (and south Loop, West Loop) increasingly become a place where people live, as opposed to visit.

I am also quite intrigued by Milwaukee's performance on this list..

[Arquitect]

The city that surprises me the most is Grand Rapids! The fact that there is such huge numbers a couple miles from its city hall speaks greatly about the huge urban shift that has occurred there in the past couple decades. If only they had kept their beautiful old city hall instead of tearing it down in lieu of a parking structure.

[pip]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ That's because Chicago has WAY more (office and non-office) workers, shoppers, tourists, etc.

Only in the last 2 decades has the Loop proper (and south Loop, West Loop) increasingly become a place where people live, as opposed to visit.

I am also quite intrigued by Milwaukee's performance on this list..

Wicker Park, Lakeview for example have hardly any office workers. All those high rise condos in River North. It's a development pattern. Chicago is skinny along the lakefront for the active areas. Squish it into a square instead of a skinny rectangle.

[hudkina]

Adding Windsor to the 5 mile radius would bring Detroit's number up closer to 400,000.

[Cleveland Brown]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i HIGHLY doubt that moving either cleveland's or detroit's city hall a half mile inland would bump either city anywhere close to the top of the list.

I didn't say that it would bump either to the top of the list. It's just something to consider and I'm sure it does make a difference by a few thousand people.

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

considering these population figures are from the US census bureau, they do not include any people living in canada.

Just look at any map of Detroit and Windsor and you'll see how arbitrary it is to exclude such a large population solely because it lies in another country.

[LMich]

Originally Posted by Arquitect

The fact that there is such huge numbers a couple miles from its city hall speaks greatly about the huge urban shift that has occurred there in the past couple decades.

Huh? There hasn't been a "huge urban shift" and certainly not in the positive direction. While the immediate downtown core has gained in population (which is true of most downtown cores, lately), the inner-city neighborhoods have been losing population for decades like most every other city in the region, and the city as a whole lost nearly 5% of its population in the last decade. The city bucked the downward trend in the 90's, but that was the exception and not the rule of its recent past.

I think it'd be more accurate to say that it speaks to how much is still left, despite the decline. Grand Rapids has all of the problems of every other rustbelt city. The difference is that it has a lot of wealthy families and a halfway competent city government that cared about the city center and wouldn't allow it to die.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Brown

I didn't say that it would bump either to the top of the list. It's just something to consider and I'm sure it does make a difference by a few thousand people.

oh, i'm sure that the numbers would change a bit, but the way your original post was worded, it sounded to me like you were saying chicago had this big advantage because its city hall is 3/4 mile in from the lake instead of 1/4 mile. that would greatly affect things at the one mile and even two mile radii, but by the time you're out to the 5 mile radius, nearly half of the area in that circle is just empty lake water for chicago as it is for cleveland (or a foreign country in detroit's case). chicago gets such high population numbers due to its high density, not because its city hall is a half mile further inland.

chicago is not the city to single out in this exercise for advantageous geography/city hall location. for cities that have the real advantage, consider places like indy, columbus, grand rapids, etc. that are surrounded by land (within the US) on all sides.

Originally Posted by Cleveland Brown

Just look at any map of Detroit and Windsor and you'll see how arbitrary it is to exclude such a large population solely because it lies in another country.

there are definitely different ways to consider the inclusion/exclusion of foreign populations in metropolitan areas that straddle international borders. as this was a US census bureau exercise, it's fairly easy to understand why foreign populations weren't included here.

i'll also add that out of all the various political lines that get drawn on maps, international borders are far and away the most significant and meaningful in my opinion. international borders are far more serious and "real" than the other types of jurisdictional lines that exist in our metro areas (ie. municipalities, districts, townships, counties, states, etc.)

[hudkina]

To be fair, people in Windsor and Detroit listen to the same radio stations, watch many of the same TV stations (I actually grew up watching the Canadian version of Sesame Street and a huge chunk of Canada gets Detroit's local stations), follow the same sports teams, go to the same concerts, use the same airport. Young people in Detroit go into Windsor for the lower drinking age, Windsor residents come to Detroit for the cheap shopping. Many Windsor residents go to school at Wayne State and some even work at the Detroit Medical Center or Downtown in office towers. You don't technically need a passport to cross the border, as Michigan residents can get what is called an Enhanced License so that they can cross into Canada with ease. While there isn't much commuting occuring between the two cities, everything else suggests a single metropolitan area.

[LMich]

I'd include Windsor if we were just talking the shopper interchange, alone. Canadian shoppers are integral to the business of most malls in this area and vice versa. Like you said, there isn't much commuting for work purposes, but that's probably about the only area in which the two aren't intergrated as a single region. I can certainly see legitimate technical reasons why someone might make this just a national list, but could also see even more legitimate reasons to go across national borders.

[hudkina]

The list is generated by the Census Bureau, so obviously it's only going to include data collected by the Census Bureau. I'm just arguing for the fact that Windsor and Detroit are much more closely aligned than many people think. There's very little commuter interchange between Detroit's northern suburbs and Downriver, but that doesn't mean they aren't part of the same metropolitan area.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by pip

Wicker Park, Lakeview for example have hardly any office workers. All those high rise condos in River North. It's a development pattern. Chicago is skinny along the lakefront for the active areas. Squish it into a square instead of a skinny rectangle.

First of all, it sounds like you are missing a lot of the action in Milwaukee for some reason. There is actually quite a lot going on in certain districts there. Also, as TUP said, Chicago's downtown is being fed by 10 million people, Milwaukee's downtown is being fed by 1.8 million people. There are simply a lot more people travelling in and out of Chicago's downtown than there are travelling in and out of Milwaukee's downtown.

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

chicago is a no-brainer at the top (even considering that almost half of the area within these radii from city hall is water in chicago's case), but the real surprise for me was milwaukee. like chicago, a huge chunk of the area for milwaukee is just lake michigan, yet it's right up there with minneapolis, a city that has land surrounding its city hall on all sides (ie. it's not on the shore of a great lake). considering that, i'd guess one could make the case that milwaukee has the most densely populated city core in the midwest outside of chicago.

To be honest, I'm not surprised by Milwaukee. Driving through Milwaukee over the highrise bridge has always been a real treat because it showcases the massive density of the neighborhoods that surround Milwaukee's core. Milwaukee also has a lot of room to grow on a list like this as the Menominee River Valley and Park East Freeway are redeveloped. If only Milwaukee could get some legitimate non-bus transit to take advantage of it's density.

[GRap]

What makes this interesting is Chicago, Milwaukee, and Cleveland are on lakes and Cinci, St Louis, Omaha, KC are all on state lines that tend to decrease numbers in the other states and Detroit being on INT border that doesn't count on the other side at all, and then Toledo has both a state line and a lake close by.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i'll also add that out of all the various political lines that get drawn on maps, international borders are far and away the most significant and meaningful in my opinion. international borders are far more serious and "real" than the other types of jurisdictional lines that exist in our metro areas (ie. municipalities, districts, townships, counties, states, etc.)

I still don't get the point of excluding Windsor from this exercise. Yes, Detroit is a special case because it's the only big city in the region that sits directly on an international border. But it is what it is, not including Windsor doesn't tell the whole story. Windsor and Detroit clearly have economies that are as strongly linked as you would expect of any two cities that sit in such close proximity, whether or not they are in the same country. I think you should either remove Detroit from the discussion or include Windsor, even with an asterisk.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I think you should either remove Detroit from the discussion or include Windsor, even with an asterisk.

as has been mentioned several times now, these numbers come directly from the US census bureau, and the US census bureau doesn't count people living in canada.

it has nothing to do with what i personally chose to include or not include; i had nothing to do with the creation of the list.