Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Everyone on CD keeps saying Pittsburgh yet it keeps losing population. The downtown is nice but the city still isn't exactly growing. My money would be on Milwaukee as a Chicago mini alternative.
Everyone on CD keeps saying Pittsburgh yet it keeps losing population. The downtown is nice but the city still isn't exactly growing. My money would be on Milwaukee as a Chicago mini alternative.
The issue is why would, if you want Chicago, simply move to Chicago? It’s not like Philly or Baltimore which are significantly cheaper than NY/DC.
That’s why I put it below Baltimore, cause everywhere around Baltimore is growing, SEPA, DE, DMV while Illinois/SE WI is pretty stagnate
The issue is why would, if you want Chicago, simply move to Chicago? It’s not like Philly or Baltimore which are significantly cheaper than NY/DC.
That’s why I put it below Baltimore, cause everywhere around Baltimore is growing, SEPA, DE, DMV while Illinois/SE WI is pretty stagnate
Not quite as large of a leap from Philadelphia to NYC or Baltimore to DC, but looking at COL tools seems to point to Chicago having a substantial though not quite as substantial cost of living increase over Milwaukee. I think one thing to note is that Milwaukee is also further away from Chicago than Baltimore is from DC. Overall though, even factoring that in, I agree with you on the ranking and for the same reasons though I would put Hartford above St. Louis. Wild card in regards to city limits is that I think St. Louis has gotten closest to doing a city-county consolidation which in some ways means a pretty rapid population jump if that happens. All of these cities, save arguably Milwaukee (or at least much less so Milwaukee) have issues with small city boundaries and flight from the city to suburbs being real easy to do to kneecap city finances.
Pittsburgh has largely managed to stem the bleeding. We now have a couple thousand apartment units either under construction or under development/review citywide. I think we are nearing the point where the growing neighborhoods like the Strip District, Shadyside, Squirrel Hill, Lawrenceville, South Side, etc. will finally be able to offset the losses in the rough neighborhoods like Homewood, Lincoln-Lemington, Beltzhoover, and Marshall-Shadeland.
Pittsburgh feels like it has exploded socioeconomically since I moved here in 2010 despite its ongoing population loss. If I'm not mistaken the city is only estimated to have lost about 60 people last year.
As has been mentioned most of our suburbs suck. With the exception of a few like Mt. Lebanon, Sewickley, Dormont, or Oakmont the rest of the suburbs are largely either declining mill towns or poorly-planned haphazard autocentric suburban sprawl. Meanwhile the city proper has a LOT of awesome livable neighborhoods akin to Canton or Fells Point or Edgewater or Lakewood or Shaker Heights or Elmwood Village or Lafayette Square.
As has been mentioned most of our suburbs suck. With the exception of a few like Mt. Lebanon, Sewickley, Dormont, or Oakmont the rest of the suburbs are largely either declining mill towns or poorly-planned haphazard autocentric suburban sprawl. Meanwhile the city proper has a LOT of awesome livable neighborhoods akin to Canton or Fells Point or Edgewater or Lakewood or Shaker Heights or Elmwood Village or Lafayette Square.
As big as metro Pittsburgh is, I figured there were more quality burbs than simply Sewickley and Mt. Lebanon (isn't Upper St. Clair pretty upscale as well?). As for areas inside the City borders, while I know the far eastern section of Pittsburgh (don't know the neighborhood name) is very exclusive with several mansions, I did think it was as extensive as Shaker Heights, Lakewood (near Lake Erie), or even lower Cleveland Heights (which is often overlooked as a real tony district esp along the Fairmount mansion corridor and Ambler Heights/Chestnut Hills overlooking Cleveland).
Hartford: so it got better regional dynamics than Cleveland. Slowing growing population, a Large number of high paying jobs, and a state government with basically no other choice for a city that is suppose to represent the state. But totally lacks even a single non-downtown hip neighborhood and I think a lot of urbanists would pick Boston/NY rather than settle in Hartford. Also has tremendous suburbs that might damper city migration. However, Hartford is the only city of the bunch with significant international migration so I may be underestimating it post-Trump and if Biden/Dems wins in 2024.
Hartford? Really? Okay... I'll take your word for it since I don't know enough about it other than relatives who live nearby in Waterbury whose Timex-based economy really bottomed out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by btownboss4
Cleveland: unfortunately I don’t see Cleveland Turing the corner. Anemic job growth thru multiple recession/recoveries make it tough to see a comeback. I also think the fact Cleveland’s best urban neighborhood might be Lakewood is a bit problematic. Cleveland does have a few hip urban neighborhoods (unlike Hartford) but I think it’s at least top 2 in terms of best suburbs of the bunch which will in my guess handicap the city itself from rebounding. And a combo of great suburbs and bad regional demographics puts it below Hartford
Yes, Cleveland has been hit, and hit hard, but is in fact slowly turning the corner... it is shrinking, but the population losses, themselves, are shrinking. There is job growth, esp in the medical industry given international powerhouse Cleveland Clinic and it smaller yet strong neighbor, University Hospitals. Meanwhile Sherwin-Williams, the nation's largest paints and resin manufacturer is seeing it 36-story office tower rising in the heart of town. Populaiton growth among millenieals, esp in white-collar industries as law, accounting and insurance (Progressive sits in suburban Mayfield Village) is rapidly catching up to the out-migration in the lesser-skilled industry following the large collapse/decline in heavy industry.
Hartford? Really? Okay... I'll take your word for it since I don't know enough about it other than relatives who live nearby in Waterbury whose Timex-based economy really bottomed out.
Yes, Cleveland has been hit, and hit hard, but is in fact slowly turning the corner... it is shrinking, but the population losses, themselves, are shrinking. There is job growth, esp in the medical industry given international powerhouse Cleveland Clinic and it smaller yet strong neighbor, University Hospitals. Meanwhile Sherwin-Williams, the nation's largest paints and resin manufacturer is seeing it 36-story office tower rising in the heart of town. Populaiton growth among millenieals, esp in white-collar industries as law, accounting and insurance (Progressive sits in suburban Mayfield Village) is rapidly catching up to the out-migration in the lesser-skilled industry following the large collapse/decline in heavy industry.
Cleveland has suburbs that compete with it even for the urbanists like Lakewood and Shaker Heights, really cute towns like Cuyahoga Falls and Rocky River. No other city really has strong competition like that (other than West Hartford, maybe Kenosha). In addition lakefront leafy suburban towns offer a great alternative. I think it faces the strongest competition from its suburbs in addition it has weak regional population trends. 2nd worst in the group. Unlike Pittsburgh I just don’t think Cleveland has the juice to run circles around it’s suburbs, which is more a credit to Cleveland suburbs than something Cleveland does worse than St Louis, Pittsburgh or Milwaukee cities. And Cleveland is straight up better than Hartford city
Hartford has a better regional population trend, but the city has like 2.5 blocks of trendy urban neighborhood to offer in total. Which is holding the city back. If Democrats win in 2024, immigrants move to CT and Hartford would benefit regardless of where young professionals want to live. That’s what I would bank on rather than 3500 people moving to Asylum Street
Cleveland has suburbs that compete with it even for the urbanists like Lakewood and Shaker Heights, really cute towns like Cuyahoga Falls and Rocky River. No other city really has strong competition like that (other than West Hartford, maybe Kenosha). In addition lakefront leafy suburban towns offer a great alternative.
I’ll definitely give you the lakefront advantage, but most of what you said above would easily apply to St. Louis as well, which has MANY parallels with Cleveland and then some, in my opinion. I really think it’s ridiculous to say that no other city in this discussion can compete with Cleveland’s attractive suburbs, that’s a real stretch. I would put Cleveland and St. Louis on equal footing when it comes to suburbs overall. Tons of parallels between the two.
If STL can fix the crime (read: perception of crime) problem, I really think the sky’s the limit. Some pieces are already starting to fall in place with “Gateway South” proposal, NGA, some re-emerging of the aerospace industry locally.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
