Rank how the Top 10 Midwest Metros will stack up in 2030

[MarketStEl]

Originally Posted by TheProf

Colorado: Denver?

Since Boulder is part of Metro Denver last I looked, yes.

And now that I think of it, Kansas will probably become an interesting case here in the next 20 years or so: The easternmost 50 miles of I-70 in the state take you from its most important commercial center (a metropolitan area centered on a city just outside the state's borders) to the home of its flagship state university to its state capital, all traversable in an hour or less from any point in the three.

And the university town is now part of the largest metro's extended hinterland. (I don't see Topeka and Lawrence growing towards each other yet, though.)

[march2]

I have been ranking metros since 1985, so I'm going strictly on quality of life metrics. "Stature" is extremely subjective and can't really be objectively applied to QOL. Too, this is just my opinion for the information I have and use:

1. Kansas City: Has the best overall balance of livability in the midwest, IMO. They will continue to prosper.

2. Cincinnati: Very high quality of life and across the board strength. As long as they stay on their present trajectory, I put them at #2.

3. Columbus: Very close to Cincinnati. Better economy. If they could add a few unique recreational assets, they could challenge for #2.

4. Chicago: This is where Chicago's size helps them. But I can also see them falling farther down the list. They HAVE to get control of their abysmal crime rate. They have so much going for them for a metro of this size. But a continued lack of urgency from city officials to truly deal with the city's crime rate could see Chicago fall from this spot.

5. Indianapolis: They will coast alone. Not really fall, but not really increase by a whole lot either.

6. Minneapolis: This is where things get interesting. MSP could easily be #1. But their fast rising COL and the horrific social decline and idiotic defunding of their police department, the area's quality of life will tank unless clear, unemotional minds take charge. I almost never allow politics to enter into my rankings like this. But this extreme level of going off the rails will with 100% certainty adversely affect the QOL, no matter one's political leanings. It simply can't be ignored of glossed over.

7. Detroit: Now we're at the so-called "Legacy Cities". I don't put as much stock as many here on C-D do in the metrits of being a Legacy City. It's nice to look at one's past, but that's just the point. It's their PAST, not the present where we are now. I think Detroit, as a city, will make a nice upswing in the next 10 years to bring its QOL to the level of its suburbs. Part of that has to include greatly diversifying its economy. We'll see.

8. Milwaukee: Milwaukee has potential, but just doesn't seem to be putting forth the effort as many of the other's on this list are.

9. St. Louis: Here's an area that pretty much shoots itself in the foot time and time again. Great potential, but can't get a grip on its social, crime, and inner city blight problems. Until they can be honest with themselves and become more introspective in these areas, they will continue to decline, regardless of their past successes.

10. Cleveland: I love the Cleveland area in a lot of ways. But, as a city AND a metro, Cleveland's population is dying. This is a death nail to any area any way you cut it. It just affects too many QOL metrics to not put them last. It's going to take more than 10 years to find a way to reverse this AND actually make enough progress to move up.

I know many will vehemently disagree with my rankings. It's just my opinion, as is yours. But I believe it's pretty objective given past events and histories of areas that face such challenges.

[MarketStEl]

I'd say this is a very good analysis, and your choices are defensible. (Of course, I'm pleased to see you give KC the best prospects for the coming decade.) But I do have some comments on some of the choices:

Originally Posted by march2

1. Kansas City: Has the best overall balance of livability in the midwest, IMO. They will continue to prosper.

2. Cincinnati: Very high quality of life and across the board strength. As long as they stay on their present trajectory, I put them at #2.

3. Columbus: Very close to Cincinnati. Better economy. If they could add a few unique recreational assets, they could challenge for #2.

I do, however, agree with the poster who says that Kansas Citians have gotten somewhat complacent about civic improvements. This could be because the city got burned big-time on the Power & Light District, however, for the city does have a good track record of backing civic projects not using steel wheels on steel rails. The airport vote was more contentious than it should have been, and IMO the new airport less ambitious than it should be if KC is to achieve the unspoken goal of becoming a hub airport along the lines of cross-state rival Lambert-St. Louis International (now underused), but the voters did approve the expenditure, and it's about time.

Now, if everyone can swallow hard and get their act together on moving the Royals from the Truman Sports Complex to a downtown site near the Civic Center, that will be another plus for the city. (The Chiefs can stay right where they are, out by the beltway.) For the reason why, they need look no further than #2 Cincinnati. I believe Ohio's large cities are all underrated (save maybe Cleveland), #3 Columbus especially so, and I'm also pleased that you have rated Cincy and Columbus highly.

4. Chicago: This is where Chicago's size helps them. But I can also see them falling farther down the list. They HAVE to get control of their abysmal crime rate. They have so much going for them for a metro of this size. But a continued lack of urgency from city officials to truly deal with the city's crime rate could see Chicago fall from this spot.

It's not just the crime rate that's holding Chicago back right now — it's also Illinois' very dysfunctional state government. Chicagoland, however, holds the key to solving that problem too, if they'll just use it.

6. Minneapolis: This is where things get interesting. MSP could easily be #1. But their fast rising COL and the horrific social decline and idiotic defunding of their police department, the area's quality of life will tank unless clear, unemotional minds take charge. I almost never allow politics to enter into my rankings like this. But this extreme level of going off the rails will with 100% certainty adversely affect the QOL, no matter one's political leanings. It simply can't be ignored of glossed over.

I believe that the Minneapolis City Council intends to replace the existing police department with a reconstituted public safety agency, as Camden, N.J., did seven years ago in an effort to trim costs that also created a new police culture. I'm pretty sure Minneapolitans wouldn't stand for simply disbanding the cops without something else to take their place. If they can take a page from Camden City and County, the result might actually make the city stronger.

But I could be wrong, and if I am, then yes, your analysis of the likely outcome is on target. The reason I'm not sure it is is because most people are not using the term "defund the police" literally.

9. St. Louis: Here's an area that pretty much shoots itself in the foot time and time again. Great potential, but can't get a grip on its social, crime, and inner city blight problems. Until they can be honest with themselves and become more introspective in these areas, they will continue to decline, regardless of their past successes.

Paging "Better Together." Better give undoing the Great Divorce another shot.