Is it easier to urbanize sunbelt boomtowns or (re)urbanize old rust belt cities?

[JoeMusashi]

A city that tends to fly under the radar but might be a good example for Rust Belt cities re-urbanizing is Milwaukee. It has been very ambitious in its efforts to eliminate abandoned areas, urban blight/brownfields, reusing older buildings, and creating new neighborhoods largely from scratch. It also tore down a freeway spur and is currently reconfiguring other ramps to create land for future lakefront development. It has been pretty successful in building new residential (including a number of towers) and generally making it a cool place to live.

A few links of major redevelopment efforts in the city,

Redevelopment of former Pabst Brewery into new neighborhood
http://www.thebrewerymke.com/index.htm

Redevelopment of downtown Park East Freeway corridor.
http://parkeastmke.com

17 acre open field turning into research/technology park
http://www.watertechnologypark.com

Urban blight to thousands of jobs, new parkland..
http://www.renewthevalley.org

Central city industrial brownfield redevelopment
http://www.thecorridor-mke.org

Inner Harbor redevelopment
http://refreshmke.com/innter_harbor.html

[Doady]

Milwaukee seems to be doing a lot of good things. But is it really a Rust Belt city?

Originally Posted by memph

Well long cul-de-sacs mean that there is only one direction destinations can be in where they won't greatly increase walking distances. And truly urban cities will have destinations in more than one direction. Even with short cul-de-sacs, if you have a lot of them, they effectively create large blocks, like the NE side of Mockingbird Lane in Mississauga. So you want a limited number of cul-de-sacs, and they have to be small. You could have pedestrian only connections between them, but then they're not true cul-de-sacs.

Yes, I was referring cul-de-sacs and cresents with pedestrian-only connections. That's common now. It doesn't necessarily have to impede pedestrian movement in any way. But redevelopment/urbanization is probably another story...

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Doady

Milwaukee seems to be doing a lot of good things. But is it really a Rust Belt city?

yes, really. factories, beer, grit...

it's just that nothing got extraordinarily out of hand, there, and the metro is on the small side. it's a classic midwestern factory/cornerbar city to it's core, though, far more so than some larger midwestern cities. always flies under the radar.

[chris08876]

The thing I'm wondering about this all is when it comes to Detroit. Could it ever be saved? Every year is just keeps loosing more residents. Downtown seems like the only salvation for the city, but I am wondering if it will ever recover.

Originally Posted by bobdreamz

Most people forget that Miami is a "Sunbelt" city:

it was "gridded" from day one and in the above photo resides about 6 million people in the metro.
If we can "Urbanize" the Everglades I'm sure other sunbelt cities can too!

I do like what Miami-Dade county is doing with a lot of the area. The infill that is occurring is definitely adding some nice density to many parts of the county. Even in the suburbs. Also, the creation of new rail lines will aid in creating areas of high density around proposed stations. The region has been experiencing some nice growth rate as well. The amount of high rises and mid rises in the whole county is outstanding. Crane Spotters is a good source for information on a lot of unknown projects that litter the landscape but are often not mentioned in the paper or online development sites.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

yes, really. factories, beer, grit...

it's just that nothing got extraordinarily out of hand, there

agreed.

milwaukee, just like any industrial great lakes city, is definitely rust belt, but it didn't experience as severe a drop in manufacturing jobs as some of the other great lakes cities further east.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rust_Be...ange_54-02.png



also, milwaukee's protected lakefront kept the areas near lake michigan in very high demand during the white flight decades. that, along with attracting significantly more mexican immigrants than other midwest cities during the past several decades (chicago spillover?), meant that milwaukee has held on to much more of its higher population density areas than any other midwest city (outside of chicago, of course).

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=207275

[nei]

It surprises me that Chicago has such a large Mexican population. It's not the Southwest, I wonder what encouraged them to move there. In comparison most of the Northeast has a relatively small Mexican population (NYC's is mostly very recent for example). Why the difference between Chicago and the Northeast?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by nei

It surprises me that Chicago has such a large Mexican population. It's not the Southwest, I wonder what encouraged them to move there. In comparison most of the Northeast has a relatively small Mexican population (NYC's is mostly very recent for example). Why the difference between Chicago and the Northeast?

Why would that be more surprising than New York having such a large Puerto Rican population?

[goat314]

I think we have to keep in mind that not all Rustbelt cities are created equally. Many have transitioned their economies and are no more industrial than their Sunbelt brethren. For Example, my city has lost thousands upon thousands of manufacturing jobs (something completely out of our hands) but was adding nearly the same amount of ed-med high skilled jobs over the same time period. Now that sector is booming and a lot of new construction is taking place in the urban core.

As far as urbanization, most Rustbelt cities are still considerably more dense than Sunbelt cities despite losing a crap load of population. I think its a mixed bag. Some Sunbelt cities will take it to the next level of urbanism, while many Rustbelt cities will continue to turn urban prairies.

I see Pittsburgh, St. Louis, and Cincinnati getting healthier. I see Dallas, Miami, and Atlanta getting more urban. A few other cities in the mix.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

agreed.

milwaukee, just like any industrial great lakes city, is definitely rust belt, but it didn't experience as severe a drop in manufacturing jobs as some of the other great lakes cities further east.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rust_Be...ange_54-02.png

I've always been under the impression that Milwaukees manufacturing centers around specialty items, and builds machines and tools that other cities used/use to build other things (like cars), and maybe industry in Milwaukee has been more adaptable because of this reason. Perhaps Milwaukee also didn't go the auto manufacturing route to the extent (and collapse) that really hurt Detroit/Cleveland/St. Louis.

[10023]

Originally Posted by nei

It surprises me that Chicago has such a large Mexican population. It's not the Southwest, I wonder what encouraged them to move there. In comparison most of the Northeast has a relatively small Mexican population (NYC's is mostly very recent for example). Why the difference between Chicago and the Northeast?

Probably first came as agricultural workers in the Midwest, and then ended up in Chicago because it's the main city in the region. Then it builds on itself.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by 10023

Probably first came as agricultural workers in the Midwest, and then ended up in Chicago because it's the main city in the region. Then it builds on itself.

Roads and rails to the southwest/mexico basically started/ended in Chicago (and not the east coast). Chicago got that early wave of Mexican immigrants, building the foundation.

[M II A II R II K]

I guess the beer belt would always be pumping out beer regardless of the times or the economy.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

I guess the beer belt would always be pumping out beer regardless of the times or the economy.

except for when it needed to make beer the most: the prohibition part of the great depression. it was long enough to almost completely destroy the brewing industry, and do some serious damage to the st. louis economy (and spurred the growth of monsters like anheuser-busch later on ...who admittedly was always very good to st. louis).

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

I've always been under the impression that Milwaukees manufacturing centers around specialty items, and builds machines and tools that other cities used/use to build other things (like cars), and maybe industry in Milwaukee has been more adaptable because of this reason. Perhaps Milwaukee also didn't go the auto manufacturing route to the extent (and collapse) that really hurt Detroit/Cleveland/St. Louis.

that has always been my impression of milwaukee's manufacturing industry as well. i think it was more highly technical and specialized kinds of goods that couldn't as easily be outsourced to factories elsewhere. and it was no where near as heavily reliant upon one single manufacturing industry the way that detroit was built almost entirely upon automobiles.

[pdxtex]

^^^just a guess but maybe being so close to chicago has had an insular effect on milwaukee, maybe shielding it a bit from downturns in the economy. i dunno, i mean its almost close enough to commute to. take the hiawatha and its only an hour and half ride. its kind of stretch but im sure some people do it.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by pdxtex

^^^just a guess but maybe being so close to chicago has had an insular effect on milwaukee, maybe shielding it a bit from downturns in the economy.

given the complex interplay between the two cities due to their proximity to each other, I think it might be just as plausible to argue that Chicago's large shadow has actually hindered Milwaukee's economic growth and development. whatever the case, it's the kind of question that a PhD thesis in urban economics could be based on.

Originally Posted by pdxtex

i dunno, i mean its almost close enough to commute to. take the hiawatha and its only an hour and half ride. its kind of stretch but im sure some people do it.

if I remember correctly, the Hiawatha line between Chicago and Milwaukee is one of the few Amtrak lines outside of the east coast that actually pays for itself through fare collection, so yes, it is heavily used with 7 trains each way everyday. there might be a very small number of commuters who make the train trip between the two cities on a daily basis, but I think the bulk of those using the Hiawatha as a commuter line are much more likely to be in a situation where they live in either Milwaukee or Chicago, but have to go into the head office in the other city one or two days a week, and then telecommute the rest of the time. that seems like it would be much more likely than spending 3 hours on a train every single day.

[pdxtex]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

given the complex interplay between the two cities due to their proximity to each other, I think it might be just as plausible to argue that Chicago's large shadow has actually hindered Milwaukee's economic growth and development. whatever the case, it's the kind of question that a PhD thesis in urban economics could be based on.




if I remember correctly, the Hiawatha line between Chicago and Milwaukee is one of the few Amtrak lines outside of the east coast that actually pays for itself through fare collection, so yes, it is heavily used with 7 trains each way everyday. there might be a very small number of commuters who make the train trip between the two cities on a daily basis, but I think the bulk of those using the Hiawatha as a commuter line are much more likely to be in a situation where they live in either Milwaukee or Chicago, but have to go into the head office in the other city one or two days a week, and then telecommute the rest of the time. that seems like it would be much more likely than spending 3 hours on a train every single day.

well tip back a few drinks on the way home and its kind of like happy hour. there would be some regulars. metro-north bar cars are now history apparently. maybe chicago and milwaukie and pick up the tradition. http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nati...MEO/story.html

[caligrad]

it depends.... Best example. My city, our county, Los Angeles. A city that is always changing and always transforming itself yet... FREAKING NIMBYS are quick to stop the extensions of our subway systems because of "earthquakes and methan gas bubbles" but yet the same NIMBYS are complaining of traffic..... The same NIMBYS ask for denser developments but as soon as a new skyscraper is proposed they come running down from the hills because they don't want their views blocked. L.A. has all the tools to b great modern metropolis, which it already is, but with "old money" blocking every new development in the pipelines, it becomes unbearable when a simple project takes 5 years just to get approved.

I think there is less fight/hesitation from NIMBYS in the rust belt cities than in the sun belt, the only 2 cities that go against his is Houston and Dallas where pretty much if you have the money, you can build anywhere.

[pdxtex]

^^^height restrictions to preserve beautiful vistas as seen from dense urban environments are stupid. mandating ground floor retail should happen everywhere though.

[10023]

Originally Posted by caligrad

I think there is less fight/hesitation from NIMBYS in the rust belt cities than in the sun belt, the only 2 cities that go against his is Houston and Dallas where pretty much if you have the money, you can build anywhere.

All successful cities have what you call "NIMBYs", because there is some segment of the population who like things the way they are. It's not a regional distinction, it's about money. E.g., Chicago has a surface parking lot right on the Inner Drive in the Gold Coast, and it's only because every time something gets proposed the neighbors complain about views (the next building in is 65 E. Goethe, where some Wrigleys and others live).