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

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I don't think built form has anything to do with it. If it weren't for the depopulation of both cities, Cleveland and Detroit would have some of the highest Walkscores in the country. Both would easily be in the top 10, and one of them could conceivably be in the top 5.

I dunno. I mean St. Lous lost a larger percentage of its population than Cleveland y ed t it remains more walkable.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I dunno. I mean St. Lous lost a larger percentage of its population than Cleveland y ed t it remains more walkable.

1950 Cleveland would have a far higher Walkscore than 2022 St. Louis.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

1950 Cleveland would have a far higher Walkscore than 2022 St. Louis.

What about 1950 St. Louis?

My point is just Cleveland was one of the last Rust Belt cities to boom. It didn't really peak in growth till after 1900. Neighborhood walkability already was dropping a bit during the streetcar era, as there was an expectation you would take transit out of your own hood to a regional center of commerce for some shopping needs.

[mhays]

The 15-minute concept isn't just about corner stores and coffee shops you go to every day. It's also the other services you need occasionally, like medical clinics.

Someone pointed to population densities. I agree they've hugely important, and 10-20k/sm is as good a minimum as any. You can adjust that for prosperity (ability to support businesses), the ease/culture of walking, and any other factors.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by eschaton

What about 1950 St. Louis?

My point is just Cleveland was one of the last Rust Belt cities to boom. It didn't really peak in growth till after 1900. Neighborhood walkability already was dropping a bit during the streetcar era, as there was an expectation you would take transit out of your own hood to a regional center of commerce for some shopping needs.

Maybe St. Louis was more walkable than Cleveland in 1950. St. Louis had a (slightly) higher density than Cleveland in 1950, so it's plausible that a StL would've had a higher Walkscore calculation, if that was a thing at the time. But I don't think the difference was that substantial, and probably would not have been very discernible to someone on the ground in both cities in 1950.

FWIW, both Cleveland and St. Louis boomed ahead of Detroit, but Detroit's population density topped out right about the same place that St. Louis's did. And since I know Detroit very well, I can tell you that Detroit's de-population disproportionately affected its most walkable areas. I assume this is the same for Cleveland and St. Louis. The built form has never been Detroit's issue...
well maybe it was too "urban" to thrive with the anti-transit, pro-roads, sprawl friendly policies of southeast Michigan... But built form is not the reason that its vitality as a city was stunted.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by eschaton

My point is just Cleveland was one of the last Rust Belt cities to boom.

Is that really true?

By 1900 Cleveland was 3rd largest non-bos-wash city in the nation. only Chicago and St. Louis we're substantially bigger in the interior at that time.


Largest US cities 1900:

1. New York: 3,437,202
2. Chicago: 1,698,575
3. Philadelphia: 1,293,697
4. St. Louis: 575,238
5. Boston: 560,892
6. Baltimore: 508,957
7. Cleveland: 381,768
8. Buffalo: 352,387
9. San Francisco: 342,782
10. Cincinnati: 325,902
11. Pittsburgh: 321,616
12. New Orleans: 287,104
13. Detroit: 285,704
14. Milwaukee: 285,315
15. Washington: 278,718

Source: https://www.biggestuscities.com/1900

[ChiMIchael]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Oh man do I hate these shallow takes on why Rust Belt cities are depopulated. It has little to do with industry and a lot to do with how the regions these cities are located in use their land. Moving government agencies from D.C. to Detroit, Cleveland, Cincinnati, or St. Louis wouldn't do anything to save them.

I have an idea, but what exactly does this mean?

[MolsonExport]

I heard that Montreal was becoming a 23 minute city.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

I heard that Montreal was becoming a 23 minute city.

no, that’s how long it takes to make a hard boiled egg.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by ChiMIchael

I have an idea, but what exactly does this mean?

The Detroit area has about doubled the land of its urban area over the past 50 years, while adding very little population. Until about a decade ago the region continued to sprawl as if it were growing at its mid-century rate.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Is that really true?

By 1900 Cleveland was 3rd largest non-bos-wash city in the nation. only Chicago and St. Louis we're substantially bigger in the interior at that time.


Largest US cities 1900:

1. New York: 3,437,202
2. Chicago: 1,698,575
3. Philadelphia: 1,293,697
4. St. Louis: 575,238
5. Boston: 560,892
6. Baltimore: 508,957
7. Cleveland: 381,768
8. Buffalo: 352,387
9. San Francisco: 342,782
10. Cincinnati: 325,902
11. Pittsburgh: 321,616
12. New Orleans: 287,104
13. Detroit: 285,704
14. Milwaukee: 285,315
15. Washington: 278,718

Source: https://www.biggestuscities.com/1900

Don't mean to be a homer, but considering Allegheny City was incorporated into Pittsburgh in 1907, the 129,000 people in it should have been included in Pittsburgh's total, which would have caused it to leapfrog to just behind Baltimore.

Regardless, Cleveland grew by an additional 533,000 people between 1900 and 1950 (all of that but around 15,000 before 1930). That's more than doubling, and a lot of early 20th century neighborhoods.

But I do think it's true that when you look at the Rust Belt/Midwest, the rough order of "takeoff" was:

Cincinnati
Pittsburgh
St. Louis
Chicago
Buffalo/Cleveland
Milwaukee/Detroit

[Gantz]

Originally Posted by mhays

I suspect the "first" 15-minute city would be New York, or some other relatively dense place with a history of mixing uses, where there's a large demand for all the basics in any walkable radius.

But certainly every city should strive to create neighborhood retail and service districts in all parts of town. Cleveland has walkable commercial strips that can be rejuvenated if they aren't already, with some gaps to address.

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.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Don't mean to be a homer, but considering Allegheny City was incorporated into Pittsburgh in 1907, the 129,000 people in it should have been included in Pittsburgh's total, which would have caused it to leapfrog to just behind Baltimore.

Regardless, Cleveland grew by an additional 533,000 people between 1900 and 1950 (all of that but around 15,000 before 1930). That's more than doubling, and a lot of early 20th century neighborhoods.

But I do think it's true that when you look at the Rust Belt/Midwest, the rough order of "takeoff" was:

Cincinnati
Pittsburgh
St. Louis
Chicago
Buffalo/Cleveland
Milwaukee/Detroit

"taking off" is a bit of a judgement call. is it when a town first crosses 50K? 100K? 250K? in terms of first establishment as towns (not mere frontier fur-trading outposts with a fort), the general development order seems to go: river cities -> lake erie cities -> lake michigan cities, but we are only talking a couple decades here. the lake cities played catch-up pretty damn quickly, with chicago blitzkrieging the group from behind, and by 1860 all 8 of them were either above 50K are very swiftly approaching that benchmark. it's a bit of a fuzzy concept, but below is the raw population data for the rustbelt regulars by decade.

and yes, Pittsburgh should rightfully have Allegheny added to its 19th century numbers, and Cincy should have its old Kentucky towns across the river added as well, and all of them would have meaningful suburbia sprouting by 1900, but the city proper #s are the quickest and easiest to access. not perfect, but here it is anyway.

also, what happened to pittsburgh in the 1850s? all of these cities saw solid to explosive growth in the 19th century decades, but Pittsburgh plateaued a bit in the decade, only growing 5.6%. what gives?


1800:

Pittsburgh: 1,565
Cincinnati: 850



1810:

Pittsburgh: 4,768
Cincinnati: 2,540
St. Louis: 1,600
Buffalo: 1,508



1820:

Cincinnati: 9,642
Pittsburgh: 7,248
St. Louis: N/A
Buffalo: 2,095
Detroit: 1,422
Cleveland: 606



1830:

Cincinnati: 24,831
Pittsburgh: 12,568
Buffalo: 8,668
St. Louis: 4,977
Detroit: 2,222
Cleveland: 1,075



1840:

Cincinnati: 46,338
Pittsburgh: 21,115
Buffalo: 18,213
St. Louis: 16,469
Detroit: 9,102
Cleveland: 6,071
Chicago: 4,470
Milwaukee: 1,700



1850:

Cincinnati: 115,435
St. Louis: 77,860
Pittsburgh: 46,601
Buffalo: 42,261
Chicago: 29,963
Detroit: 21,019
Milwaukee: 20,061
Cleveland: 17,034



1860:

Cincinnati: 161,044
St. Louis: 160,773
Chicago: 112,172
Buffalo: 81,129
Pittsburgh: 49,221
Detroit: 45,619
Milwaukee: 45,246
Cleveland: 43,417



1870:

St. Louis: 310,864
Chicago: 298,977
Cincinnati: 216,239
Buffalo: 117,714
Cleveland: 92,829
Pittsburgh: 86,076
Detroit: 79,577
Milwaukee: 71,440



1880:

Chicago: 503,185
St. Louis: 350,518
Cincinnati: 255,139
Cleveland: 160,146
Pittsburgh: 156,389
Buffalo: 155,134
Detroit: 116,340
Milwaukee: 115,587



1890:

Chicago: 1,099,850
St. Louis: 451,770
Cincinnati: 296,908
Cleveland: 261,353
Buffalo: 255,664
Pittsburgh: 238,617
Detroit: 205,876
Milwaukee: 204,468



1900:

Chicago: 1,698,575
St. Louis: 575,238
Cleveland: 381,768
Buffalo: 352,387
Cincinnati: 325,902
Pittsburgh: 321,616
Detroit: 285,704
Milwaukee: 285,315



1910:

Chicago: 2,185,283
St. Louis: 687,029
Cleveland: 560,663
Pittsburgh: 533,905
Detroit: 465,766
Buffalo: 423,715
Milwaukee: 373,857
Cincinnati: 363,591



1920:

Chicago: 2,701,705
Detroit: 993,678
Cleveland: 796,841
St. Louis: 772,897
Pittsburgh: 588,343
Buffalo: 506,775
Milwaukee: 457,147
Cincinnati: 401,247



1930:

Chicago: 3,376,438
Detroit: 1,568,662
Cleveland: 900,429
St. Louis: 821,960
Pittsburgh: 669,817
Milwaukee: 578,249
Buffalo: 573,076
Cincinnati: 451,160



1940:

Chicago: 3,396,808
Detroit: 1,623,452
Cleveland: 878,336
St. Louis: 816,048
Pittsburgh: 671,659
Milwaukee: 587,472
Buffalo: 575,901
Cincinnati: 455,610



1950:

Chicago: 3,620,962
Detroit: 1,849,568
Cleveland: 914,808
St. Louis: 856,796
Pittsburgh: 676,806
Milwaukee: 637,392
Buffalo: 580,132
Cincinnati: 503,998



source: wikipedia

[iheartthed]

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.

Even doing that there's no way that we'll get to the point where people don't have to commute in NYC. But NYC could be a city where everybody is within a 15-minute walk or 15-minute public transit ride of their needs. I currently live within a 15-minute walk of almost any amenity that I could possibly need, and I'm within a 15-minute train ride of my office.

I also don't see the point of eliminating commuting altogether for cities with robust public transit systems. If the purpose is to reduce energy consumption then getting people out of their cars is the goal. New York is the least of this country's worries on that front.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

also, what happened to pittsburgh in the 1850s? all of these cities saw solid to explosive growth in the 19th century decades, but Pittsburgh plateaued a bit in the decade, only growing 5.6%. what gives?

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.

Allegheny City across the river grew by about 7,000 over the decade, which makes sense, as that area had a lot of flat land available right by the river. I think that the South Side (then the independent boroughs of Birmingham/East Birmingham) also started booming during this period.

The East End of the city didn't really begin growing till the very late 19th century, outside of Lawrenceville, which was relatively flat and by the river. There was a big topographical difference, which wasn't really solved until the streetcar network was built out.

[pj3000]

^ Exactly. The modern-day Southside was divided up into 4 boroughs (Ormsby, South Pittsburgh, Birmingham, East Birmingham) and was not a part of the city of Pittsburgh until the 1870s-80s. This area was a major industrial and population center by the 1830s.

Also, check out that entire stretch along the northern bank of the Allegheny River... the industrial towns of Millvale, Etna, and Sharpsburg had begun their industrial booms by the mid 1800s.

City of Pittsburgh numbers in a comparison like this are as meaningless back then as they are today.

[biguc]

Originally Posted by summersm343

I'm confused.... how are parts of Manhattan, Brooklyn, Downtown Boston, Center City Philadelphia, Loop and Near North Chicago, Downtown DC and Downtown San Francisco not already 15-minute cities? Does the entire city have to consist of 15-minute neighborhoods?.... these US cities already have numerous 15-minute areas that's for sure.

It's the entire city.

Some of you are talking about 10-20k/sm density in this context. 10k/sm is still pretty low density. Considering that Paris is really, really dense (>50k/sm), and the 15 minute city thing is still aspirational (if realistic) there, I don't see how 10k/sm even could support a 15 minute city.

20k/sm is when things start getting good and you can count on having a functioning high street in your neighbourhood, but on a city-wide scale you'd need pretty uniform planning. 30k seems like the safer bet.

[Crawford]

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

[edale]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I said it was the worst barring Detroit. I was wrong, because I forgot how bad Cincinnati's Walkscore was. It's easy to forget, because the core area around OTR is so nice, but outside of the immediate urban core, there's just the Northside, Hyde Park and then...nothing...in terms of walkability.

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.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by biguc

It's the entire city.

Some of you are talking about 10-20k/sm density in this context. 10k/sm is still pretty low density. Considering that Paris is really, really dense (>50k/sm), and the 15 minute city thing is still aspirational (if realistic) there, I don't see how 10k/sm even could support a 15 minute city.

20k/sm is when things start getting good and you can count on having a functioning high street in your neighbourhood, but on a city-wide scale you'd need pretty uniform planning. 30k seems like the safer bet.

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.