Best bones in the Midwest

Originally Posted by ColDayMan

Milwaukee and Minneapolis are "denser" cities than St. Louis and you can thank topography and a solid grid system for that.

well, no. you can thank population loss for that but not grids or topography. Peak St. Louis was twice as dense as peak Milwaukee and ~1/3 denser than peak Minneapolis.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by IWant2BeInSTL

Peak St. Louis was twice as dense as peak Milwaukee and ~1/3 denser than peak Minneapolis.

you might want to check your facts on that.



1950 U.S. Census - 10 largest midwest cities:

- Chicago: 3,620,962 / 207.5 sq. miles = 17,450 ppsm

- St. Louis: 856,796 / 61.0 sq. miles = 14,046 ppsm

- Detroit: 1,849,568 / 139.6 sq. miles = 13,249 ppsm

- Milwaukee: 637,392 / 50.0 sq. miles = 12,748 ppsm*

- Cleveland: 914,808 / 75.0 sq. miles = 12,197 ppsm

- Minneapolis: 521,718 / 53.8 sq. miles = 9,697 ppsm

- Columbus: 375,901 / 39.4 sq. miles = 9,541 ppsm

- Indianapolis: 427,173 / 55.2 sq. miles = 7,739 ppsm

- Cincinnati: 503,998 / 75.1 sq. miles = 6,711 ppsm

- Kansas City: 456,622 / 80.6 sq. miles = 5,665 ppsm

source: http://www.census.gov/population/www...0027/tab18.txt


so in the 1950 census, when st. louis experienced its peak density, it was only ~10% denser than milwaukee. someone visiting st. louis and milwaukee in 1950 would not have experienced a radical difference in the population densities of the two cities. and thanks to the high desirability of its lakefront neighborhoods and large influx of latino immigrants on the SW side, milwaukee has held on to much more of its higher density areas than st. louis has over the decades.




(*) it should be noted that 1950 was actually not milwaukee's peak density census. in 1920, before the city went on an annexation spree, it was a smaller city with only 25.3 sq. miles and a population of 457,147, giving it an all-time peak density of 18,069 ppsm. so if you just compare all-time peak densities against each other, milwaukee was actually denser than st. louis at one point in time.

source: http://www.census.gov/population/www...0027/tab16.txt

[mmourning]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

(*) it should be noted that 1950 was actually not milwaukee's peak density census. in 1920, before the city went on an annexation spree, it was a smaller city with only 25.3 sq. miles and a population of 457,147, giving it an all-time peak density of 18,069 ppsm. so if you just compare all-time peak densities against each other, milwaukee was actually denser than st. louis at one point in time.

source: http://www.census.gov/population/www...0027/tab16.txt

Milwaukee has annexed that much land since 1950? Damn.

Also...I'd pit St. Louis's core 25 square miles in 1920 against Milwaukee's any day of the week. Most of our inner neighborhoods, then still extant, were as densely built as Baltimore (tons of row houses).

But it's not a competition and, <checks>, today's date is 3/27/2014, when we in STL have more vacant lots than we do row houses.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by mmourning

Milwaukee has annexed that much land since 1950? Damn.

in the 1950s, the leaders of milwaukee saw the way the suburban winds were starting to blow, and, not wanting to surrender all of their tax base to other municipalities, they wisely annexed as much of unincorporated milwaukee county as they legally could, swelling the city from 50 sq. miles in 1950 to 91 sq. miles by 1960. a good deal of that 41 sq. miles was undeveloped greenfields. some of the farthest northern reaches of that annexed land remain undeveloped to this very day!

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

you might want to check your facts on that.

My mistake, but i didn't use MKE's 1950 population. I used MKE's peak census population with it's current land area. Likewise, though, it doesn't really make sense to compare density over 28 sq. mi. with that over 62 sq. mi. (STL) or 58 sq. mi (MSP). In any case, I was only replying to ColdDayMan's assertion that MKE and MSP are currently more dense because of topography and street grid. This clearly isn't true since STL was denser than both and the respective street grids and topographies have remained relatively constant.

[ColDayMan]

Just an FYI, I was also kinda implying that St. Louis had continuous density as well due to the grid (as it's also far more gridded than, say, Cincinnati or Pittsburgh). I don't think it's a coincidence that Cincinnati is second to last on Steely's list due to half of that land back then probably being hillsides or wooded forests (i.e. Westwood, which is now the city's largest neighborhood was being built in the 40's and 50's on old woods from Mt. Airy). Flat grids provided better planning (re: Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukee) and general continuous density versus more rugged, haphazard terrain. That's all I was saying.

[d'trolley]

Originally Posted by IWant2BeInSTL

My mistake, but i didn't use MKE's 1950 population. I used MKE's peak census population with it's current land area. Likewise, though, it doesn't really make sense to compare density over 28 sq. mi. with that over 62 sq. mi. (STL) or 58 sq. mi (MSP). In any case, I was only replying to ColdDayMan's assertion that MKE and MSP are currently more dense because of topography and street grid. This clearly isn't true since STL was denser than both and the respective street grids and topographies have remained relatively constant.

Man don't ever tell an STL booster that their city isn't the densest, baddest, brickest, mother ever haha. They won't take it too well!

Dude, I don't know what is so difficult to understand about this. Statistics have even been shown. Milwaukee had a higher peak population density than STL, at least according to the stats shown so far. It's really not a big deal though, and we are talking about a small difference. You are right about Minneapolis though, it was never as dense as STL.

Col Day Man also made a good point earlier. The hilly river cities tend to have been built denser. Not sure what Pittsburgh's peak density was, but I bet it is higher than STL's. Pitt looks denser. Cincinnati had a population density of 32,000 in 1870 (from a source I found that is not the census, still looking for census numbers on that). That wouldn't surprise me at all though. You can't tell me that STL looks as dense as Cincy man. Have you seen Over-the-Rhine? Inner Cincy is dense as fuck, and pretty much all of the valleys have rowhomes and dense apartments. You notice that Cincy only has a population density in the 6ks in 1930 and 1950. Well that is because half the city is parks and hills. Very little of the city actually has buildings on it. It is actually amazing that it had that high of a density with that little usable space.

St. Louis no doubt has the bones of a once dense city. Granted the bones may be chock full of osteoporosis, but they are still there. Still, the city is mostly single family homes. They are built on narrow lots and with lots of brick, but still mostly single family homes. Sure the inner 25 sq. miles of St. Louis are much more filled with row homes, but there are still tons of single family in there as well. I would say a majority of Cincy and Pittsburgh are actual rowhomes. The topography just makes that a necessity.

Regardless, we are talking about small differences so it isn't a very big deal. Just realize that Milwaukee has been shown through statistics to have a higher peak density at this point, and that ColDayMan had a good point with the density being higher in hilly cities statement.

[d'trolley]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

in the 1950s, the leaders of milwaukee saw the way the suburban winds were starting to blow, and, not wanting to surrender all of their tax base to other municipalities, they wisely annexed as much of unincorporated milwaukee county as they legally could, swelling the city from 50 sq. miles in 1950 to 91 sq. miles by 1960. a good deal of that 41 sq. miles was undeveloped greenfields. some of the farthest northern reaches of that annexed land remain undeveloped to this very day!

Dude be glad that's all they annexed. KC annexed about 255 miles around that time. Jumped from 59 sq. miles to 315 sq. miles. Suffice to say their is undeveloped land in that annexed area remaining today lol!

Annexing just 41 sq. miles seems like a good amount for a 50 sq. mile city. Gives you plenty of space to develop further and keeps you from getting fenced in. All the while 90 sq. miles is still very manageable. I really wish we had been more conservative like that while annexing.

Originally Posted by d'trolley

Man don't ever tell an STL booster that their city isn't the densest, baddest, brickest, mother ever haha. They won't take it too well!

Dude, I don't know what is so difficult to understand about this. Statistics have even been shown. Milwaukee had a higher peak population density than STL, at least according to the stats shown so far. It's really not a big deal though, and we are talking about a small difference. You are right about Minneapolis though, it was never as dense as STL.

what? dude, i was addressing an incorrect (or at least incomplete) statement made by ColdDayMan. that's all. i was off on MKE density by a little, but my point still holds–STL was denser AT IT'S PEAK POPULATION than MKE and MPLS were AT THEIR PEAK POPULATIONS (at which times, I might add, their land areas were similar). and the point was NOT "St. Louis is better". the point was that STREET GRIDS AND TOPOGRAPHY ARE NOT THE REASONS THAT MKE AND MPLS ARE CURRENTLY MORE DENSE THAN STL. now maybe ColdDayMan meant that MKE and MPLS RETAINED more density in the face of population loss because of their topography (and maybe there's an argument there), or maybe he meant that topography forces clusters of high density in certain cities. but that's not what he said (until later). i feel like you're a little quick to cry "boosterism" sometimes. did you bother to read my initial comment? none of the statistics presented so far have invalidated my point.

[soulard&como]

Annnnd back to the photos. Density aside, great post!

[d'trolley]

Originally Posted by IWant2BeInSTL

what? dude, i was correcting an incorrect (or at least incomplete) statement made by ColdDayMan. that's all. i was off on MKE density by a little, but my point still holds–STL was denser AT IT'S PEAK POPULATION than MKE and MPLS were AT THEIR PEAK POPULATIONS (at which times, I might add, their land areas were similar). and the point was NOT "St. Louis is better". the point was that STREET GRIDS AND TOPOGRAPHY ARE NOT THE REASONS THAT MKE AND MPLS ARE CURRENTLY MORE DENSE THAN STL. now maybe ColdDayMan meant that MKE and MPLS RETAINED more density in the face of population loss because of their topography (and maybe there's an argument there), or maybe he meant that topography forces clusters of high density in certain cities. but that's not what he said. i feel like you're a little quick to cry "boosterism" sometimes. did you bother to read my initial comment? none of the statistics presented so far have invalidated my point.

Take it easy dude. Yes I read your first post, the one about STL being twice as dense as Milwaukee at its peak . Man, you just walked into our conversation about urban environments of hilly river cities as compared to flat, grid river cities with a whopper like that. What do you expect?

I only came back to support my viewpoint that topography does in fact have an impact on the density of cities. We weren't talking about current densities at all. We were talking about the way these cities were designed and their densities as they grew.

And yes I'm "crying out boosterism" lol because you jumped into the conversation with crazy made up statistics to make STL look better and telling people they were wrong. You even in this last post still say that ColDayMan is wrong, which I'm not so sure is true...

But it's whatever man, none of this is a big deal. We were just making comments on STL based on these pictures. It was never intended on becoming a city vs. city battle at all. Just comparing other similar cities. Great city pictures tend to make people start thinking in depth about those cities.

[JivecitySTL]

I would venture to say that the City of St. Louis is has a greater prevalence of 2 and 4-family flats than single family homes, although I don't have the stats to say for sure. Living here it certainly seems that way. The majority of residential dwellings in this thread are multi-family, which, in my opinion, is pretty typical in this city. I do know a lot of residential buildings have been converted to house larger, fewer units than they had at one time, resulting in lower density.

[d'trolley]

Originally Posted by JivecitySTL

I would venture to say that the City of St. Louis is has a greater prevalence of 2 and 4-family flats than single family homes, although I don't have the stats to say for sure. Living here it certainly seems that way. The majority of residential dwellings in this thread are multi-family, which, in my opinion, is pretty typical in this city. I do know a lot of residential buildings have been converted to house larger, fewer units than they had at one time, resulting in lower density.

Sure, I would agree with that. And of course many 2 and 4 flats have been converted into single family over time. There's definitely less people living in your average St. Louis dwelling than there used to be.

Originally Posted by d'trolley

Take it easy dude. Yes I read your first post, the one about STL being twice as dense as Milwaukee at its peak . Man, you just walked into our conversation about urban environments of hilly river cities as compared to flat, grid river cities with a whopper like that. What do you expect?

we're going to be very careful about language here because i'm not going to go around and around on this with you. i said "Peak St. Louis" was more dense than "peak Milwaukee". and although i didn't specify in my first post (not that it would have made a difference to you), people normally talk about peak population and not peak density. i was, indeed, talking about peak population, which i made clear in subsequent posts. i've already acknowledged that my back-of-the-envolope calculation of Milwaukee's density at peak population was off. and yet St. Louis at peak population was still denser than Milwaukee at peak population. how much denser is not relevant to the point i was making. please show me the statistics that contradict this.

Originally Posted by d'trolley

I only came back to support my viewpoint that topography does in fact have an impact on the density of cities. We weren't talking about current densities at all. We were talking about the way these cities were designed and their densities as they grew.

i never claimed that topography doesn't have an impact. please point to where i said that. i wasn't talking about current densities either. for the third or fourth time, in response to ColdDayMan who did in fact cite street grids AND topography as reasons that Milwaukee and Minneapolis are more dense than St. Louis, i said that street grids and topographies did not give Milwaukee and Minneapolis an advantage over St. Louis in density AS EVIDENCED by the fact that St. Louis at peak population, with its topography and street grid, was more dense than either Milwaukee or Minneapolis at their respective peak populations. THAT IS ALL I SAID. HOW THE F*CK IS THAT BOOSTERING OR BATTLING?

Originally Posted by d'trolley

And yes I'm "crying out boosterism" lol because you jumped into the conversation with crazy made up statistics to make STL look better and telling people they were wrong. You even in this last post still say that ColDayMan is wrong, which I'm not so sure is true…

you're not sure it's true? so you don't know, but you're making all kinds of accusations anyway. i didn't make up a damn thing. the only incorrect number that i used was Milwaukee's current land area instead of it's area when it's population peaked. and i already f*cking admitted that mistake. and even after the correction, St. Louis at its peak population was more dense than Milwaukee at it's peak population. and it only matters because i was making a point about topography and grids not being the deciding factors among the three cities. so again please, PLEASE tell me which statistics i made up. and if you're "not so sure it's true" let's see fewer smiley faces and lol's and more numbers.

Originally Posted by d'trolley

But it's whatever man, none of this is a big deal. We were just making comments on STL based on these pictures. It was never intended on becoming a city vs. city battle at all. Just comparing other similar cities. Great city pictures tend to make people start thinking in depth about those cities.

there never was a city vs. city battle. you're the one that accused me of boostering and making shit up. i'll be awaiting the details on that.

Originally Posted by d'trolley

Dude, I don't know what is so difficult to understand about this. Statistics have even been shown. Milwaukee had a higher peak population density than STL, at least according to the stats shown so far.

and one more time, just so there's no more confusion, peak population density =/= density at peak population.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by JivecitySTL

I would venture to say that the City of St. Louis is has a greater prevalence of 2 and 4-family flats than single family homes, although I don't have the stats to say for sure.

here's the data from the census bureau's ACS. the distribution of 2, 3 & 4 unit dwellings doesn't seem quite as high as detached single family homes in st. louis, but it's close (30.2% vs. 42.5%). throw in the rowhouse/townhouse and 5-9 unit categories and that makes it 40.2% vs. 42.5%. very close.



10 largest midwest cities ranked by lowest % detached single family homes:


CHICAGO:
1-unit, detached - 309,210 - 25.8%
1-unit, attached - 43,146 - 3.6%
2 units - 184,587 - 15.4%
3 or 4 units - 195,729 - 16.3%
5 to 9 units - 127,647 - 10.7%
10 to 19 units - 54,224 - 4.5%
20 or more units - 281,031 - 23.5%


CINCINNATI:
1-unit, detached - 63,521 - 37.8%
1-unit, attached - 7,980 - 4.8%
2 units - 16,978 - 10.1%
3 or 4 units - 20,757 - 12.4%
5 to 9 units - 16,774 - 10.0%
10 to 19 units - 18,549 - 11.0%
20 or more units - 22,923 - 13.7%


MILWAUKEE:
1-unit, detached - 104,629 - 40.3%
1-unit, attached - 15,269 - 5.9%
2 units - 56,131 - 21.6%
3 or 4 units - 20,197 - 7.8%
5 to 9 units - 14,760 - 5.7%
10 to 19 units - 10,066 - 3.9%
20 or more units - 37,214 - 14.3%


ST. LOUIS:
1-unit, detached - 74,862 - 42.5%
1-unit, attached - 7,186 - 4.1%
2 units - 28,116 - 16.0%
3 or 4 units - 25,001 - 14.2%
5 to 9 units - 10,427 - 5.9%
10 to 19 units - 5,151 - 2.9%
20 or more units - 24,847 - 14.1%


MINNEAPOLIS:
1-unit, detached - 81,915 - 44.4%
1-unit, attached - 7,814 - 4.2%
2 units - 17,196 - 9.3%
3 or 4 units - 8,075 - 4.4%
5 to 9 units - 6,657 - 3.6%
10 to 19 units - 14,652 - 7.9%
20 or more units - 47,638 - 25.8%


COLUMBUS:
1-unit, detached - 172,476 - 46.4%
1-unit, attached4 - 1,644 - 11.2%
2 units - 13,485 - 3.6%
3 or 4 units - 35,889 - 9.7%
5 to 9 units - 42,099 - 11.3%
10 to 19 units - 29,862 - 8.0%
20 or more units - 33,174 - 8.9%


CLEVELAND:
1-unit, detached - 102,731 - 47.4%
1-unit, attached - 14,159 - 6.5%
2 units - 42,584 - 19.6%
3 or 4 units - 14,453 - 6.7%
5 to 9 units - 9,354 - 4.3%
10 to 19 units - 8,673 - 4.0%
20 or more units - 23,366 - 10.8%


INDIANAPOLIS:
1-unit, detached - 225,342 - 59.3%
1-unit, attached - 28,674 -3 7.5%
2 units - 9,721 - 2.6%
3 or 4 units - 22,316 - 5.9%
5 to 9 units - 33,913 - 8.9%
10 to 19 units - 27,566 - 7.2%
20 or more units - 27,973 - 7.4%


KANSAS CITY:
1-unit, detached - 140,310 - 62.5%
1-unit, attached - 13,245 - 5.9%
2 units - 6,026 - 2.7%
3 or 4 units - 10,684 - 4.8%
5 to 9 units - 15,280 - 6.8%
10 to 19 units - 14,676 - 6.5%
20 or more units - 22,187 - 9.9%


DETROIT:
1-unit, detached - 238,007 - 65.5%
1-unit, attached - 24,757 - 6.8%
2 units - 31,414 - 8.6%
3 or 4 units - 9,483 - 2.6%
5 to 9 units - 8,123 - 2.2%
10 to 19 units - 10,871 - 3.0%
20 or more units - 39,255 - 10.8%

[d'trolley]

IWant2BeInSTL... Wow. As I said earlier, take it easy. I don't know why you're losing your cool. This is not a serious ordeal. Take a deep breath buddy!

Originally Posted by IWant2BeInSTL

you're not sure it's true? so you don't know, but you're making all kinds of accusations anyway. and if you're "not so sure it's true" let's see fewer smiley faces and lol's and more numbers.

Sorry I wasn't more clear about this, but you said that he is wrong and I think he is correct. I was just being a bit coy (for lack of a better word) when I said "I'm not so sure it's true." What I really meant was I absolutely don't think he's wrong. I think ColDayMan was correct. Of course I don't care anymore, I only bring this up to clarify what I said since it was so badly misinterpreted. (I blame it on myself for not being more clear).

Whatever though, stop taking this so damn seriously. You really want to see less smiley faces from me and lol's?? Sorry man I'm having fun here and not taking it seriously, so I got some smiles and laughs. You should too! We're discussing cities here, isn't that fun!

I am absolutely done with this stupid freakout though, so continue on if you want, but I will be doing something else aight. (lol what a ridiculous smiley wth!!)

[mrnyc]

dem bones!

i wish cleveland didn't bury so many of its bones...

1880 cle housing

[Centropolis]

[Centropolis]

st louis def loves its 2 story 4-flats - i think
its a great building type. they usually have wooden balconies in back and sometimes balconies over the front porches.

[JivecitySTL]

Here's an outstanding tour featuring all 79 official neighborhoods in the City of St. Louis:

http://nextstl.com/2011/01/groth-gui...y-of-st-louis/