Can Cleveland Become A '15-minute City'? Experts Say It's A Real Possibility

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by edale

Yeah, that's absolutely not true. Nevermind the very urban and pedestrian friendly NKY river cities just across from downtown, each with multiple walkable neighborhoods, there are lots of walkable neighborhoods besides Northside and Hyde Park in Cincy's city limits.

Clifton, Clifton Heights, Walnut Hills, Oakley, Mt. Lookout, East Walnut Hills...all have walkable business districts. In fact, most neighborhoods have traditional business districts. Cincy takes a hit on walkscore because of the hills, large swaths of industry, and floodplains that have rendered areas unsuitable for residential development. Also, as a fairly impoverished city, it has many neighborhoods with structurally dense, walkable business districts, without much in the way of open businesses. It has less to do with built form, and more to do with the purchasing power, or lack thereof, in many neighborhoods.

I would define the Clifton/Clifton Heights/Corryville area as being part of the urban core. Sure, it's not directly walkable to OTR, but they surround a big university and aren't that far away (maybe a 15-20 minute walk). I was considering Oakley as part of the general area around Hyde Park, which makes up another "node."

Mt. Lookout is basically a block in a pretty suburbanish part of the city. It's like me pointing to this portion of Mt. Lebanon in Pittsburgh. Walnut Hills still has pretty impressive structural density, but there's lots of gaps and still not a lot of active uses in the remaining commercial storefronts (though there's certainly upside potential). East Walnut Hills is actually pretty damn impressive right around the Madison/Woodburn intersection, but the walkscore here is still pretty low even right at the intersection (67), which is kinda perplexing.

I understand your point about the topography, though Pittsburgh is very similar in terms of its topographical challenges. On the other hand, we had probably the lowest level of white flight in terms of rust belt cities, and uniquely retained rich areas within city limits.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by eschaton

It's worth noting that up until 1868 Pittsburgh basically just consisted of modern-day Downtown, the Strip District, and parts of Uptown and the Lower Hill.

It was probably completely built out at rowhouse-level densities by 1850. Unlike Cinci, the city never really did develop NYC-style walkup tenements.

oh, that makes a lot more sense now. i didn't realize that city proper pittsburgh was so damn tiny in land area in the middle of the 19th century.

Originally Posted by biguc

Some of you are talking about 10-20k/sm density in this context. 10k/sm is still pretty low density.

20k/sm is when things start getting good and you can count on having a functioning high street in your neighbourhood

yes, from what i've observed and experienced, 20K+ ppsm is definitely closer to the threshold where the scales start to tilt more toward functional urbanism.

now, that doesn't mean that 10K+ ppsm is no different than low density sprawl, but even within the same city, i can notice the difference in vibrancy, function, and vibe between a 10K ppsm outer bungalow belt neighborhood and a 20K+ ppsm multi-family core neighborhood. my best friend bought a house for his family out in norwood park last year (hardcore "cop & fireman" bungalow belt way out on the far NW side of chicago), and his tract is ~10,500 ppsm. we live ~5 miles due east of him over in lincoln square in a tract that is ~26,000 ppsm, and the amount of things that we can actually walk to in 5-10 minutes from our home is like an order of magnitude higher, not to mention the fact that the retail corridors around him are way less cohesive and much more swiss-cheesed by strip malls, stand-alone parking lot retail buildings, and other auto-centric crap that very strongly encourages people to drive. now, it certainly ain't schaumburg bad, but it sure as hell doesn't feel like a denser, more urban chicago neighborhood either.

norwood park high street: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9801...7i16384!8i8192

lincoln square high street: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9676...7i16384!8i8192

Originally Posted by Crawford

Wow, Chicago just exploded. It was like the Dubai of the Civil War era.

chicago was considered the fastest growing city the world had ever seen back in the latter half of the 19th century.

it was the industrial revolution's supreme example of an "instant city".

from a virtually uninhabited frontier marsh in the middle of a virgin continent to a giant bustling city of 1M people in just 6 decades.

Originally Posted by lio45

It's a pointless, impossible standard to aspire to, if we're talking about every single square inch of the city being "a 15-minute location". Every city has low-density SFH neighborhoods, and at least some of them are here to stay.

A more realistic aim would be "everyone in this city who wants to live in a 15-minute neighborhood actually does", i.e. there's no rundown rowhouse-style (or denser) area that's a food desert.

and beyond just the typical outer SFH bungalow-belt areas, what are we supposed to do with things like airports and vast industrial facilities like steel mills?

ohare airport is within the incorporated city limits of chicago. it's ~13 sq. miles in land area. it will never be "walkable" or part of a 15-minute city.

the all or nothing standard is way beyond practical.

Originally Posted by eschaton

I understand your point about the topography, though Pittsburgh is very similar in terms of its topographical challenges. On the other hand,
we had probably the lowest level of white flight in terms of rust belt cities, and uniquely retained rich areas within city limits.

chicago held on to its urban upper-class wealth enclave of the Gold Coast during the urban dark ages too.

and milwaukee's upper east side held on pretty well too.

both examples above were greatly aided by their lakefront locations.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

oh, that makes a lot more sense now. i didn't realize that city proper pittsburgh was so damn tiny in land area in the middle of the 19th century.

If you take a look at this 1867 map (just before city annexation of the huge eastern part in 1868), you can see that nothing on the north shore of the Allegheny / Ohio River was a part of Pittsburgh, nor was anything on the south shore of the Monongahela River.

Same goes for the south shore of the Allegheny (upper right corner of this map, where it says Lawrenceville, you can see "Boundary St.")... urban development had stretched up along the Allegheny on both sides for a few decades... and for the north shore of the Monongahela (lower right corner of the map), as well as the bulk of that center "triangle".

http://www.mapsofpa.com/pitts/1867-8530.jpg

[ChiSoxRox]

When looking at historical population trends, I personally prefer counties. They overstate populations slightly, but they're constant area once you get past the first few censuses.

1810
Allegheny, PA: 25,317
Hamilton, OH: 15,258

1820
Allegheny, PA: 34,921
Hamilton, OH: 31,764
St. Louis, MO: 10,049 (County includes the city until 1877)
Cuyahoga, OH: 6,328
Wayne, MI: 3,574

1830
Hamilton, OH: 52,317
Allegheny, PA: 50,552
St. Louis, MO: 14,125
Cuyahoga, OH: 10,373
Wayne, MI: 6,781

1840
Allegheny, PA: 81,235
Hamilton, OH: 80,145
St. Louis, MO: 35,979
Cuyahoga, OH: 26,506
Wayne, MI: 24,173
Cook, IL: 10,201 (created in 1831)
Milwaukee, WI: 5,605 (1835)

1850
Hamilton, OH: 156,844
Allegheny, PA: 138,290
St. Louis, MO: 104,978
Cuyahoga, OH: 48,099
Cook, IL: 43,385
Wayne, MI: 42,756
Milwaukee, WI: 31,077

1860
Hamilton, OH: 216,410
St. Louis, MO: 190,524
Allegheny, PA: 178,831
Cook, IL: 144,954
Cuyahoga, OH: 78,033
Wayne, MI: 75,547
Milwaukee, WI: 62,518

1870
St. Louis, MO: 351,189
Cook, IL: 349,966
Allegheny, PA: 262,204
Hamilton, OH: 260,370
Cuyahoga, OH: 132,010
Wayne, MI: 119,068
Milwaukee, WI: 89,930

1880
Cook, IL: 607,524
St. Louis, MO: 382,406 (this is city + county from here on)
Allegheny, PA: 355,869
Hamilton, OH: 313,374
Cuyahoga, OH: 196,943
Wayne, MI: 168,444
Milwaukee, WI: 138,537

1890
Cook, IL: 1,191,922
Allegheny, PA: 551,959
St. Louis, MO: 488,077
Hamilton, OH: 313,374
Cuyahoga, OH: 309,970
Wayne, MI: 257,114
Milwaukee, WI: 236,101

1900
Cook, IL: 1,838,735
Allegheny, PA: 775,058
St. Louis, MO: 625,278
Cuyahoga, OH: 439,120
Hamilton, OH: 409,479
Wayne, MI: 348,793
Milwaukee, WI: 330,017

1910
Cook, IL: 2,405,233
Allegheny, PA: 1,018,463
St. Louis, MO: 769,446
Cuyahoga, OH: 637,425
Wayne, MI: 531,591
Hamilton, OH: 460,732
Milwaukee, WI: 433,187

1920
Cook, IL: 3,053,017
Allegheny, PA: 1,185,808
Wayne, MI: 1,177,645
Cuyahoga, OH: 943,495
St. Louis, MO: 873,634
Milwaukee, WI: 539,449
Hamilton, OH: 493,678

1930
Cook, IL: 3,982,123
Wayne, MI: 1,888,946
Allegheny, PA: 1,374,410
Cuyahoga, OH: 1,201,455
St. Louis, MO: 1,033,553
Milwaukee, WI: 725,263
Hamilton, OH: 589,356

1940
Cook, IL: 4,063,342
Wayne, MI: 2,015,623
Allegheny, PA: 1,411,539
Cuyahoga, OH: 1,217,250
St. Louis, MO: 1,090,278
Milwaukee, WI: 766,885
Hamilton, OH: 621,987

1950
Cook, IL: 4,508,792
Wayne, MI: 2,435,235
Allegheny, PA: 1,515,237
Cuyahoga, OH: 1,389,532
St. Louis, MO: 1,263,145
Milwaukee, WI: 871,047
Hamilton, OH: 723,952

[pj3000]

^ yeah, much more informative. Thanks for posting these data.

You can really see how the advent of the railroads started to push Pittsburgh, Chicago, and Cleveland to the top... with Chicago then just becoming the absolute hub for all the hinterlands, and then obviously the advent of the automobile for Detroit later on.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

chicago was considered the fastest growing city the world had ever seen back in the latter half of the 19th century.

it was the industrial revolution's supreme example of an "instant city".

from a virtually uninhabited frontier marsh in the middle of a virgin continent to a giant bustling city of 1M people in just 6 decades.

What I find really, really fascinating is to think of the people who, within their lifetime, saw the change. A guy born around ~1820 who passed away around ~1900 at ~80 and who arrived in Chicago as a teenager and lived there their entire life.

The widow of the guy who founded Dallas in virgin prairie lived until 1919.

Even more impressive, the widow of the guy who founded Vancouver lived until 1948!

[ChiSoxRox]

Originally Posted by lio45

What I find really, really fascinating is to think of the people who, within their lifetime, saw the change. A guy born around ~1820 who passed away around ~1900 at ~80 and who arrived in Chicago as a teenager and lived there their entire life.

The widow of the guy who founded Dallas in virgin prairie lived until 1919.

Even more impressive, the widow of the guy who founded Vancouver lived until 1948!

James W. Denver was Territorial Governor of Kansas in the 1850s when a land speculator named a camp on the High Plains far to the west in his honor, before Colorado Terrritory is formed during the Civil War. From Wikipedia:

[Governor] Denver reportedly visited Denver, Colorado, in 1875 and 1882, but complained that his visits received little affection from the residents of the city named after him.

He would live to see "his city" pass 100k in the 1890 Census.

[edale]

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

When looking at historical population trends, I personally prefer counties. They overstate populations slightly, but they're constant area once you get past the first few censuses.

Thanks for putting that together. For Cincinnati, I think it's important to include the two small Kentucky counties, Kenton and Campbell, right across from downtown Cincinnati in these totals. Combined, they provide a truer picture of Cincy's population. I couldn't find any data for Kenton County prior to 1850, so the numbers from 1810-1840 are Campbell County, KY only. Here they are below + Hamilton county for the revised 'regional' totals:



1810- 3,473 + 15,258 = 18,731

1820- 7,022 + 31,764 = 38,786

1830- 9,883 + 52,317 = 62,200

1840- 5,124 (curious to see the drop in this decade) + 80,145 = 85,269

1850- 30,165 + 156,844 = 187,009

1860- 46,376 + 216,410 = 262,786

1870- 63,502 + 260,370 = 323,872

1880- 81,423 + 313,374 = 394,797

1890- 98,369 + 374,593 = 472,962

1900- 117,794 + 409,479 = 527,273

1910- 129,724 + 460,732 = 590,456

1920- 135,321 + 493,678 = 628,999

1930- 166,925 + 589,356 = 756,281

1940- 165,057 + 621,987 = 787,044

1950- 180,450 + 723,952 = 904,402

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by lio45

What I find really, really fascinating is to think of the people who, within their lifetime, saw the change. A guy born around ~1820 who passed away around ~1900 at ~80 and who arrived in Chicago as a teenager and lived there their entire life.

two of my maternal great-great-great-grandparents immigrated to chicago as a young newlywed couple from germany sometime in the 1850s (no one knows the exact year anymore).

they arrived in a chicago that was a burgeoning frontier town with ~50K people and unlimited opportunity. roughly two decades later they would lose their home in the great chicago fire and have to rebuild. when they died in the early 20th century, they left a chicago that was one of the largest cities in the world with over 2M people!

what's fun to think about is that my neighborhood up on the far northside (primarily built-out 1900 -1930) would've still been oak savannahs mixed with some
farms for most of their lives. the grounds of my kids' school still has 3 GIANT old oak trees growing from the before times (they're all over 200 years old now). they were saplings along the banks of the chicago river (since channelized and re-routed a couple blocks over) back before chicago was even a thing.


oh to be able to share some beers and a conversation with them for an afternoon!

[pj3000]

^ that would be amazing to witness (and be a part of) a city like Chicago "growing up"... and would be amazing to hear the stories

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by lio45

What I find really, really fascinating is to think of the people who, within their lifetime, saw the change. A guy born around ~1820 who passed away around ~1900 at ~80 and who arrived in Chicago as a teenager and lived there their entire life.

The widow of the guy who founded Dallas in virgin prairie lived until 1919.

Even more impressive, the widow of the guy who founded Vancouver lived until 1948!

Well a guy who was 20 in 1985 in Dubai would've lived in a charming town. Today as a 57 year old he lives in one of the biggest cities in the world.

[ChiSoxRox]

Originally Posted by edale

Thanks for putting that together. For Cincinnati, I think it's important to include the two small Kentucky counties, Kenton and Campbell, right across from downtown Cincinnati in these totals. Combined, they provide a truer picture of Cincy's population. I couldn't find any data for Kenton County prior to 1850, so the numbers from 1810-1840 are Campbell County, KY only. Here they are below + Hamilton county for the revised 'regional' totals:

That's a good point. Counties are better than shifting city limits IMO, but they still have a granularity to take into account.

It looks like Kenton was carved directly out of Campbell in January 1840, early enough to be a separate figure in the 1840 Census -- which is the last Census report *not* digitized on the Census website.

[OhioGuy]

Originally Posted by jd3189

Saw this video last week. Don’t know if it should be its own thread, but this thread about Cleveland got me thinking on how many Midwestern cities could get the added boost they need for a revival. Could be detrimental to the DC area at first, but the federal government will still be based there. In addition, I want to look more into how the CDC’s presence in Atlanta has affected that city.

• Video Link

The USDA partially moved to Kansas City and has struggled with both retention and hiring.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Gantz

New York would have to disburse office space around the boroughs, and that is not happening to a large degree outside some outliers. It is a very centralized city when it comes to jobs. The rest of the stuff (food, museums, nightlife, etc), I agree, is already fairly decentralized.

If the concept includes most people's workplaces, sure. But the version I'm suggesting (have heard about the most) is more about services people need fairly often, like the grocery or the dentist.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by mhays

But the version I'm suggesting (have heard about the most) is more about services people need fairly often, like the grocery or the dentist.

Yeah, that's my take on it as well.

And my neighborhood does really well on that score. With one really annoying exception, there isn't much in the way of fairly often used services that's not within an easy walk of our front door.

That lone exception is a good old school hardware store. We're in a bit of a "hole" in the city fabric for that. There's a true value a mile west of us in Albany Park, an ace hardware about 1.2 miles south in North Center, and a crafty beaver about 1.3 miles east in Uptown. They're all great, but it's roughly a 20 - 25 minute walk to each of them, which is just long enough to be annoying, though still very easily bikeable.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

chicago held on to its urban upper-class wealth enclave of the Gold Coast during the urban dark ages too.

and milwaukee's upper east side held on pretty well too.

both examples above were greatly aided by their lakefront locations.

Yeah, I was discounting Chicago as I consider it more of a "recovered rust belt" location.

There are middle-class portions of Milwaukee, but not truly wealthy ones. Justice Map seems broken now, but looking at the income overlay, the wealthiest section of the city is around Downer Woods/the Upper East Side, and in the range of $87,000-$109,000 household income. Pittsburgh has three census tracts of that income range, and another four that are wealthier. Squirrel Hill is just the kind of wealthy urban enclave you don't really find much off the coasts (outside of the North Side of Chicago).

Looking at the other major rust belt cities, Cleveland, Detroit, and St. Louis don't have anything $100,000+. Cincinnati seems to have a single tract in the Mt. Lookout area.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Yeah, I was discounting Chicago as I consider it more of a "recovered rust belt" location.

There are middle-class portions of Milwaukee, but not truly wealthy ones. Justice Map seems broken now, but looking at the income overlay, the wealthiest section of the city is around Downer Woods/the Upper East Side, and in the range of $87,000-$109,000 household income. Pittsburgh has three census tracts of that income range, and another four that are wealthier. Squirrel Hill is just the kind of wealthy urban enclave you don't really find much off the coasts (outside of the North Side of Chicago).

Looking at the other major rust belt cities, Cleveland, Detroit, and St. Louis don't have anything $100,000+. Cincinnati seems to have a single tract in the Mt. Lookout area.

Detroit does have at least one census tract with $100k+ median household income: https://censusreporter.org/profiles/...5382-wayne-mi/

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Detroit does have at least one census tract with $100k+ median household income: https://censusreporter.org/profiles/...5382-wayne-mi/

Wow, you're right. I knew there was residual wealth in Palmer Woods, but it's shocking to me a tract with a median household income of $111,000 directly abuts one with a median household income of $11,000.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Wow, you're right. I knew there was residual wealth in Palmer Woods, but it's shocking to me a tract with a median household income of $111,000 directly abuts one with a median household income of $11,000.

This is probably why there aren't more $100k tracts in the city. A lot of the areas with high incomes are located in tracts with high rates of poverty.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Cincinnati seems to have a single tract in the Mt. Lookout area.

This is deceiving because the wealthy never abandoned the city limits of Cincinnati, and also the city is laid out in such a way that extremely wealthy people often live just 2-3 blocks from extremely poor people. There are many examples of this, not just one clear line of demarcation.

The wealthiest people in the Cincinnati metro aspire to live in Indian Hill, which is an ultra-low density village which consumes much of the eastern half of Hamilton County: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian...ighlighted.svg.

This village succeeded in stopping the Blue Ash Airport (this is why Cincinnati's airport is in Kentucky) and forced the circle freeway to be built beyond its borders, which is why Cincinnati has the longest loop highway in the United States (and one of minimal use as a bypass). It also stopped construction of Cross-County Highway at its borders, so there is no lateral expressway across it to the above-mentioned circle freeway.

That said, because the population of the village is so low, most of the region's wealthy live elsewhere, and many still live within the city limits. This is a big reason why Cincinnati didn't completely collapse like Detroit, Cleveland, etc.