Myriam, hummm, well let's see - in the U.S. I've lived in NYC, Boston, Chicago, Houston, Miami, San Francisco, L.A., Seattle and Portland. If you can't appreciate the attributes of Boston, you'll fit right in - in Chicago. Bada bing! Ah, no intent to connote negativity – just having a little fun:) But seriously Boston rocks, sorry you don't feel the same…But I am curious, what pizza places have you tried in Boston? What other restaurants? There are so many restaurants worth visiting before you leave. And what about shopping – what about the (original) Filene's Basement? And come on, the Red Sox – have you ever been to a game at Fenway park?
I'm surprised no one mentioned Milwaukee yet. I will put in a plug for my hometown of 21 years.
A lot has been said about the Calatrava addition to the Milwaukee Art Museum, so I won't bore you with the details. Call it the Bilbao Effect, if you will, but the town has grown to respect architecture over the past 5-10 years. The newspaper has an architectural critic who seems to compare everything to Calatrava's work.
The baseball team built a retractable-roof stadium a few years ago, and the city is home to three urban universities (UW-Milwaukee, Marquette, and MSOE) - two trends mentioned about cities above.
The city has also seen an increase of downtown housing - on the East Side, Third Ward, and neighborhoods further south of downtown. A few years ago, they city tore down part of a freeway that separated two parts of downtown; major development is planned for the new space. As for other transportation initiatives, louismeier started a thread a few months ago about them.
Milwaukee County has fallen on rough financial times recently - I haven't kept up with it enough to know what's really going on. However, when I was home over the summer, my mother remarked with dismay that the county didn't have enough money to keep up the flower beds or open the public pools. I reminded her that DC had recently declared a crime emergency, so things could be worse for Milwaukee.
Nothing beats the big little city, though. You can be anywhere in 10 minutes or less.
Well Since I started this thread which turned into a pizza contest, i guess i will rep my city too.
Cincinnati seems to be very comparable to lots of the mentioned small big cities. Cheap cost of living, Accessible, great history, sports town, new museum (CAC, Zaha), relatively recent Performing arts center (Pelli), several universities, and lots of potential. Over the Rhine is one of the most significant areas of historic architecture in the country. it is in the slow process of being cleaned out and revitalized, but has the ability to have the charm of soho. Weve got two new stadiums (Paul Brown Stadium is the nicest one ive ever been to) and there is a riverfront development in the works. Downtown housing is on the rise, but the neccessary amenities are not there like groceries and gas.
Unfortunately unlike Portland we have several fortune 500 companies that have too much pull in city decisions. Things are just moving too slow in this town, but which the right decisions and people in charge, could be a world class place to live.
And Id choose Cincinnati chili anyday over Pizza from Boston or Chicago.
There are very few places in this country that I actually dislike. And there are very few American cities that I don't love, but I don't love Boston. It's just too much sometimes. It doesn't help that I love to drive but Boston's roads make me want to drive into the ocean. It's nice for a visit but I'd just visit Chicago or NYC instead.
I'm not choosing sides by any means but I'm trying to illustrate that we all love cities for different reasons.
Gosh there's so many, isn't there?!? There's so many damn little cities in this country, we could go on forever. We haven't even started on New Orleans yet.....
WonderK – so true – so many cities have their own characteristics and all have their own personality for which I (we) love for different reasons; and believe me you have to be crazy to drive in Boston. I learned to drive in that crazy city so I guess I am partial to wanting to drive into the ocean:)
It's ok katze, I can take the ribbing. ;) I have loved every city I've lived in till this one, and I *do* like this one, I just get frustrated time and time again that I can't afford to properly enjoy myself here. Really it's just the money thing, over and over again. Well that and the puritanical laws like the 'no happy hour! none for you!' law and the 'everything must close at 9 o'clock! 9 O'CLOCK!' law. Anyway, there are lots of great restaurants, and trust me, I've enjoyed them--I'm a foodie. I just can't *afford* them. And Pittsburgh and Chicago and other cities have the same quality food, sometimes with more innovation, for much less money. I would LOVE to go to a game at fenway--I'm not even a sports fan but even I would like to enjoy that--but I can't afford a ticket. etc. etc., you get the point. Also I'm pretty bummed that I can't get to most of the stuff around here b/c I don't have a car and the public transit is pretty clunky. Not the worst in the world (despite what people say) but the fact that it shuts off at midnight is a total killjoy. Not to mention the lack of a "ring line". Ahh, it's a very pretty town with lots to offer. I just think it would be perfect if I were in my thirties and had the money for a south end brownstone and I could happily raise my kids in walking distance of parks, schools, music class, and everything else--I'm just not that person yet, and I want my 20s to have more rock 'n roll than this town has.
Also do not talk about Boston shopping. It blows, blows, blows. There is not a single redeeming factor of the shopping here. The affordable stuff is only found in mega-chains or shitty picked-over sales warehouses (also chains), there are very few creative boutiques offering hand-made or somewhat alternative clothing, the ones there are charge $375 an article, and there aren't even any european outlets at the very least to offset things (besides H&M--which has a HORRIBLE buyer for its two stores here!). They could at the very least import a Zara, but no...
I guess we do have a Puma store, but you can't shop there for all the assaulting music and BU students. (ha, ha, ha...) Now there I go sounding bitter again... I think I'm just spoiled in the shopping arena--I grew up in Orange County!
I also forgot when we were talking about Portland that while Portland University downtown is really too small to count (though I took a life-changing summer course there on contemporary urban issues and a co-graduate from Cranbrook now teaches there so obviously they have some amazing faculty), Portland does have Reed College, which brings a huge super-liberal contingent of liberal arts hippies into the mix. Not unlike waht Swarthmore and Haverford do in Philly, though of course they are east-ie schools to how west-ie Reed is.
spent three years in baltimore...
and it changed a lot while i was there.
yes, crime runs rampant as you go into the poverty ring between the harbor and northern baltimore (where i was), but overall, the good areas did spread into the badder ones while i was there.
park space might have something to do with that, as the overall premise of the inner harbor has really revitalized the city and created a financial center downtown (Legg Mason, BofA Building, T.Rowe Price (even though they kind of operate from Owing Mills)). (Park space around expensive properties seems to work nicely to lower crime).
There are a whole bunch of developments around the Charles Village area that are fetching lots of cash. Two blocks from Greenmount Ave. (relatively bad area), 1 bedroom apts are going for 400,000 and being sold rather quick.
enough anectdotal stuff...
my analysis of what actually happened in baltimore.
big decline.
crime and heroin runs rampant.
one in every nine baltimoreans is addicted to heroin.
revitalization projects in the harbor.
the inner harbor developments make property prices go up massively.
poor people move and create this poverty ring that runs from around 15th to 25th street (being interrupted by the arts village around penn station).
This ring "sandwiched" in between the suburb-sprawl centrifugal forces and the city-center-centripedal forces.
Luckily, this is somewhat working to make the city a much more habitable place, at least in many areas that were previously very very bad off.
Portland and the Pacific NW on a whole does have some good micros for sure. Then again Widmer and Red Hook have sold controlling stakes to A-B so there's little difference. Additionally, the midwest is no slouch to microbrews either.
However, the south is seriously lacking decent beer. There is an abysmal lack of variety. How can people drink Miller Lite? Seriously.
we have some pretty good micros. some are only served in the place that makes 'em, meaning you have to come to louisville: cumberland brews, browning's. bluegrass brewing co sends theirs around, but i doubt they go very far out of town.
I've literally drank my way from Pittsburgh to Minneapolis visiting 20 breweries/brewpubs in the span of a week. Louisville needs to be my next stop apparently.
Boston might not have its own beer scene, but our bars typically have a good selection of beer. Wine, on the other hand, isn't typically well represented.
And the pizza at Cinderella's in Cambridge is damn good.
Myriam – as for clothing, I certainly cannot argue with you on that – Orange County rocks. I think I only prefer Boston shopping because I am a bit more conservative when it comes to clothing, that's all! BTW – you mentioned transportation. You think Boston's transportation is bad – Chicago is even worse – now I might eat my words on this and heck, it has been a number of years since I have been there so things may have improved drastically since I left. But I remember always getting frustrated trying to get from point A to point B – it would require three bus transfers and hours to get a few miles from your house and you still ended up having to walk a quarter mile to get where you needed to be. I remember standing in the rain once waiting for a stupid bus – I was waiting for a good 45 minutes to an hour and had to laugh because all the bus schedules say "service every thirty minutes" Yeah, right. Anyway, I hated the transportation in chi-town. As for cheap eats – I do not recall finding many (at least when I lived there). I had more luck in Boston. Again, things might have changed. But try Greek town – I recall good quality food at good prices. And if you can splurge a little bit ($25pp+) and you like Mexican food, go to Rick Bayless's Frontera Grill on N. Clark. It's awesome. I love his upscale sister restaurant as well, Topolobampo (upscale Mexican) but it's quite a bit more expensive. Anyway, Good luck with your move, and I hope you enjoy Chicago!
I don't think the T is actually bad, it's just nowhere near what it should be. Running it later at night would be a huge improvement--the only reason it doesn't is because of the huge taxi union... super shitty. Again, expensive! But it's cheap and gets me mostly where I need to go, and I like the stations and the old green line trains.
I love the "L", though, and have been using it a lot in the past year. It takes awhile to get places, sure, but keep in mind Chicago is something like 3 times the size of Boston. I also like the fact that the trains are fast, the platforms have heaters in the winter (take that, T!), and you don't have to go allll the way downtown and back out just to get someplace that was only 3 miles away from you in the first place. Also you don't have to sit sideways on the trains, which is the stupidest design mistake ever. (Thank you, London tube, for forever inflicting that idea on public transit planners.)
But it's not a bad system for the city. It could be better, but it could be worse.
Katze: have you been to TJ Scallywags (I think its in Allston by Grasshoper)? I saw an add for it but haven't been there yet, all vegan if you're into that thing.
addictionbomb (and others), I have what might be an interesting anecdote about Baltimore:
A good friend of mine interned at the Mayor's office over the summer. He told me that Baltimore was the "capitol of heroine", a sad fact which I did not know previously. Heck of a thing to be the "capitol" of.
Anyway, crime in the neighborhoods there is based a lot on the drug trade. So this cop comes up with an idea to move an entire police task force into a neighborhood for a month....set up street blockades, run checkpoints, not allow anyone who doesn't live there past the blockades, etc. Basically to make the police present in the neighborhood, but also to establish a personal connection with the residents.
Well they started doing this on the trial basis, thinking that it would disrupt the drug trade for a little while at least, and then figuring that it would come back.....but in the neighborhoods where this plan has been implemented, the drug trade has NOT returned. I guess for a number of reasons, not the least of which is community empowerment.
I think it's such an interesting story though, because this was all started by one person.....I think that's one other thing that "small big cities" have in common, and why I find them so engaging. The power of one person to affect change in a city the size of Cincy or Indy or Pittsburgh is so much more than in your Boston or New York, where it literally takes entire councils or boards or at the very least, the mob, to get things done. That sense of individual power is definitely tangible in Cincy, how about in other places?
ok, i haven't read most of this thread, but back to the original post which i feel is somewhat off the mark. the taxonomy of the title "small big cities" is misleading since the original poster seems to be principally interested in the rust belt cities of the american middle west. aside from being an obvious oxymoron, a small big city isn't likely to grow much and all of the aforementioned places are actually quite dynamic although most of them seem to be on a down swing at the moment. they may have shrunk, but there is a strong likelihood of them rebounding at some point in the not too distant future. personally, i think it's far more likely that in, say 200 years, las vegas will be a ghostown largely reclaimed by the desert while detroit is thriving along an important nexus of the great lakes.
consider that after peaking with a population near one million in ancient times, rome shrunk to as little as 50,000 residents before eventually rebounding and expanding to its present population of 2.5 million within city limits. granted that took nearly 1,000 years, but the dark ages didn't help things any.
what kills me is this notion that there is something that can be done in order to improve these places or keep them "stayin alive." the problems of most of these places is simple a result of demographics and not much more. the cities of the mid west have lost lots of people to the south & west and even the east coast to some extent. i'm going to sound a bit like kunstler here, but much of the growth in the south & west has been a result of cheap energy that has enabled these places via air-conditioning & automobiles to become attractive. this is debatable, but as energy prices rise over the next several decades i wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see a trend of steady but sustained growth in many of these mid west cities, many of which are located in strategically significant points along the great lakes & the water infrastructure of the eastern us.
anyhow, i'm ranting a bit...i suppose their are some policy decisions by government officials that can have a distinct impact on a city's fortunes. e.g., detroit still has a city income tax?!
2.5%!!!! you have got to be mother-fucking kidding me! what do i possibly gain by paying a premium to live in a shit hole town that doesn't even offer a grocery store! they ought to be paying me to live here!
so that's maybe one example. it's clearly an anachronism and a vestige of an earlier, wealthier time. but ultimately, i suspect that the only way in which you can really help or otherwise make an impact on a city is by being there...and if it's not going to be you then who are you going to get to be there?
the wealthy buying sexy starting at only $499,000 lofts & condominiums? yeah, definitely a few of them, but there really aren't enough rich people to populate every urban core. and besides, most of those people own multiple residences and barely spend more than three weeks/year in any of their many homes. in other words, they're not really there.
the masses of from the suburbs? not likely because at this point most of them, in the midwest at least, are from the black hole of a generation that grew up on a foundation of freeways and skepticism of cities in general...and they're too old & stubborn to alter their ways now. they'll catch a ballgame or play in town but for the most part they wouldn't dare to be there because, in their words, "where would we park?"
the quickest turnaround would, i believe, be a result of a concerted effort to attract immigrants to these cities. i find it odd that the big problem seemingly everywhere else in the world is the explosive growth of slums & the overcrowding of urban centers & their peripheries when right in the middle of america we have whole swaths of established infrastructure going to waste. isn't the prediction that by 2030 2 billion of the 8 billion people on earth will be squatting in urban slums (check robert neuwirth's shadow cities for an easy intro to more info on those numbers)? even a very small percentage of 2 billion people would be more than enough to repopulate the mid-western towns referred to in the original post. mix it up & bring'em in from asia, africa, south america and the sub-continent. at this point i doubt that we could breed enough people to quickly turnaround these places (although some shrinking norwegian towns have tried) what ever happened to the melting pot anyways? why not keep the american dream alive?
lastly, i believe that jane jacobs made some rather interesting points on the differences between city/towns (small cities), regions, fast explosive growth, etc. not sure which book i'm thinking of, but try either (or both) the economy of cities (1970) & cities and the wealth of nations (1985)...both excellent, insightful, loaded with examples and often overlooked by architects
i write too much when i'm drinking merlotch...bedtime
in the original post, population was not my concern, but more importantly culture and vigor. I dont necessary want my city or others to grow; that seems to lead to rushed construction and skyrocketing real estate. I just want to know if any cities are doing anything to develop a new identity as their past identity fades away. New museums and performing arts centers seem to be a symbol of generic identity. What about in between them? What cities are thinking about the small scale details to set themselves apart?
boston and chicago are both getting new bus shelters and city information boards... those are not small cities but they are great moves for a city to keep a vibrant street culture.
one bad move boston has made recently was to outlaw sidewalk signs and cafes, which has had a noticeably depressing effect on street-level vitality. one great thing about chicago is the proliferation of the "beer garden"--even starbucks has tons of sidewalk cafe tables.
those two examples are things that would help a city of any size, i'd say.
is that what you're looking for? also: plant street trees, address scale issues and "border areas" as jane jacobs defines them, etc etc...
what could possibly have triggered a moratorium on sidewalk signs and cafes, myriam? some sort of liability issue? that just flies in the face of everything other cities seem to be trying to do.
It's something the mayor is known for having done. I'll have to look into it. Every shopkeeper complains about the fact that you have to pay a lot of money and wait for 6 months to get (if you're lucky) a permit for one of those folding "special of the day" cafe signs, and there are frequent busts for illegal ones. I'll look it up.
Ok, the sidewalk seating ban I can't find quickly, but the same long-time bostonian who told me about the sign ban told me about it, so I trust the info.
This same state is fiercely pro-gay marriage, stem cell research, pro-choice, etc. etc.--they are so keen on protecting everyone's right do what they want with their lives that they won't let anyone do anything.
well you cant drink outside in albucrackee. but you can huff paint. as far as happy hours go, well maybe people are getting too happy with their 25 cent beer nights.
i have a question though: why is albucrakee big enough to be considered a small big city? i love new mexico, but albuquerque for me is more just a huge small town. it only has one freeway interchange, and the downtown isn't anything to write home about.
well, maybe i slightly misread the intent of the question (although i still believe that demographic/population drives much of a citys innovation).
anyhow
"I just want to know if any cities are doing anything to develop a new identity as their past identity fades away."
i'll use detroit here since it is most familiar to me. recently, there have been some conversations regarding the state of new orleans post-katrina. a few people have called new orleans the new detroit and have pointed out that the hurricane has significantly changed public perception of new orleans from party city of super bowls & mardi gras to "poor, black city" (keith owens, metrotimes) of violence, drugs & urban decay.
i find this somewhat ironic, since much of the recent popular improvement in detroit (downtown, at least) seems to be in the vain of the pre-katrina new orleans. that is, there has been an emphasis hosting super bowls, final fours & other sporting events in addition to casinos and a general glaze of entertainment. many of the reviews from last year's super bowl said that detroit was a good host and given new orleans demise, i suppose, that there is some opportunity for this strategy to work. add in some of downtown detroit's other features like the hockeytown cafe, the hard rock cafe, a greektown and an elevated monorail (the sublime people mover) that i swear could have been purloined from a disney back lot and suddenly you have a city that on the verge of becoming real "universal sity walk"...if that can even be consider such a thing.
it's probably debatable as to how much of this can really be considered a coherent "strategy" since i don't think any one person or group is in charge here. i'm also doubtful that it's particularly helpful for most of a city's residents.
but at any rate, i think this example does qualify as a city having some success in crafting a "new identity as their past identity fades away."
puddles - I take issue with kunstler and others saying the southern cities are not-sustainable in a world without cheap oil. While I completely agree places like Las Vegas and Phoenix are living on borrowed time, oil isnt the issue. One thing Kunstler and other peak oil people always gloss over is the most vital resource we've got - water. The concrete beltways around Houston and Atlanta may be huge miss-appropriations of resources in a world without cheap oil, but both of those cities have abundant water and lush vegitation. People have survived heat and humidity without A/C in the past and they can do it in the future.
As for the "rust belt" cities creating a new identity, I think growth is a key component and without growth these once great cities are destined for failure. Many people shun growth for the reasons mentioned, like increasing cost of living. Then again, without growth there isn't any new wealth creation. Without wealth creation there is no new museum, or stadium, or library. At best the city would only be able to maintain its existing infastructure. The civic things mentioned would simply not be possible - unless the city was going to give up something else.
That's why I go back to the It's the jobs argument. Employment will attract people. That will in turn spur wealth creation. Spending that wealth will attract more jobs, more people, more wealth. Eventually the population will demand the civic improvements that everyone seems to believe identifies a city.
Funny thing with the rust belt cities is that they've already got the civic buildings in place but feel new ones, specifically star architect designed, will turn a city around. Business isn't flocking to Cincy after Zaha's new contemporary art center opened. From my business travels in Ohio seems Columbus is the growing city in the state and Cincy is losing businesses to Kentucky on a daily basis. Notice Ohio largely missed the whole housing bubble of the past 5 years? Ever wonder why?
Now what does define a city? It's the business. Think of LA and everyone sees movies/hollywood. New York and you see Wall Street. Detroit and you see Ford/GM. Houston and oil. Pittsburgh and steel. San Jose and computers. Major employers, affect our cities far more than any civic project ever could.
I have to bite my tounge saying this because I'd love to have a new art museum commission, but those type of projects will do little to revive a depressed city. We architects love to be utopian. Master planners of society. Then again, if we were always right Corbu's "towers in the park" plans would've worked.
Small Big Cities
well she went to northwestern...
Myriam, hummm, well let's see - in the U.S. I've lived in NYC, Boston, Chicago, Houston, Miami, San Francisco, L.A., Seattle and Portland. If you can't appreciate the attributes of Boston, you'll fit right in - in Chicago. Bada bing! Ah, no intent to connote negativity – just having a little fun:) But seriously Boston rocks, sorry you don't feel the same…But I am curious, what pizza places have you tried in Boston? What other restaurants? There are so many restaurants worth visiting before you leave. And what about shopping – what about the (original) Filene's Basement? And come on, the Red Sox – have you ever been to a game at Fenway park?
Ah, I agree with treekiller - brighton sucks - come on dude. You had to of ventured beyond brighton...
I'm surprised no one mentioned Milwaukee yet. I will put in a plug for my hometown of 21 years.
A lot has been said about the Calatrava addition to the Milwaukee Art Museum, so I won't bore you with the details. Call it the Bilbao Effect, if you will, but the town has grown to respect architecture over the past 5-10 years. The newspaper has an architectural critic who seems to compare everything to Calatrava's work.
The baseball team built a retractable-roof stadium a few years ago, and the city is home to three urban universities (UW-Milwaukee, Marquette, and MSOE) - two trends mentioned about cities above.
The city has also seen an increase of downtown housing - on the East Side, Third Ward, and neighborhoods further south of downtown. A few years ago, they city tore down part of a freeway that separated two parts of downtown; major development is planned for the new space. As for other transportation initiatives, louismeier started a thread a few months ago about them.
Milwaukee County has fallen on rough financial times recently - I haven't kept up with it enough to know what's really going on. However, when I was home over the summer, my mother remarked with dismay that the county didn't have enough money to keep up the flower beds or open the public pools. I reminded her that DC had recently declared a crime emergency, so things could be worse for Milwaukee.
Nothing beats the big little city, though. You can be anywhere in 10 minutes or less.
no i never went anywhere. i had everything delivered im a shut-in.
Well Since I started this thread which turned into a pizza contest, i guess i will rep my city too.
Cincinnati seems to be very comparable to lots of the mentioned small big cities. Cheap cost of living, Accessible, great history, sports town, new museum (CAC, Zaha), relatively recent Performing arts center (Pelli), several universities, and lots of potential. Over the Rhine is one of the most significant areas of historic architecture in the country. it is in the slow process of being cleaned out and revitalized, but has the ability to have the charm of soho. Weve got two new stadiums (Paul Brown Stadium is the nicest one ive ever been to) and there is a riverfront development in the works. Downtown housing is on the rise, but the neccessary amenities are not there like groceries and gas.
Unfortunately unlike Portland we have several fortune 500 companies that have too much pull in city decisions. Things are just moving too slow in this town, but which the right decisions and people in charge, could be a world class place to live.
And Id choose Cincinnati chili anyday over Pizza from Boston or Chicago.
And Cincy produced a Ms. Carmen Electra
Ah, come on Vado, not true…:) Domino's doesn't provide services to meet all our needs:)
is Domino's your boston pizza choice??? awesome
chaptertwo, do you mean 5-way?
Vado - most places I eat pizza you have to carry a gun when you go there.
When is the last time you placed a sports bet at Domino's?
another ringing endorsement!
There are very few places in this country that I actually dislike. And there are very few American cities that I don't love, but I don't love Boston. It's just too much sometimes. It doesn't help that I love to drive but Boston's roads make me want to drive into the ocean. It's nice for a visit but I'd just visit Chicago or NYC instead.
I'm not choosing sides by any means but I'm trying to illustrate that we all love cities for different reasons.
Gosh there's so many, isn't there?!? There's so many damn little cities in this country, we could go on forever. We haven't even started on New Orleans yet.....
5-way, 4-way, or a 3-way, some prefer cheese coneys..
either go big or go home :)
WonderK – so true – so many cities have their own characteristics and all have their own personality for which I (we) love for different reasons; and believe me you have to be crazy to drive in Boston. I learned to drive in that crazy city so I guess I am partial to wanting to drive into the ocean:)
It's ok katze, I can take the ribbing. ;) I have loved every city I've lived in till this one, and I *do* like this one, I just get frustrated time and time again that I can't afford to properly enjoy myself here. Really it's just the money thing, over and over again. Well that and the puritanical laws like the 'no happy hour! none for you!' law and the 'everything must close at 9 o'clock! 9 O'CLOCK!' law. Anyway, there are lots of great restaurants, and trust me, I've enjoyed them--I'm a foodie. I just can't *afford* them. And Pittsburgh and Chicago and other cities have the same quality food, sometimes with more innovation, for much less money. I would LOVE to go to a game at fenway--I'm not even a sports fan but even I would like to enjoy that--but I can't afford a ticket. etc. etc., you get the point. Also I'm pretty bummed that I can't get to most of the stuff around here b/c I don't have a car and the public transit is pretty clunky. Not the worst in the world (despite what people say) but the fact that it shuts off at midnight is a total killjoy. Not to mention the lack of a "ring line". Ahh, it's a very pretty town with lots to offer. I just think it would be perfect if I were in my thirties and had the money for a south end brownstone and I could happily raise my kids in walking distance of parks, schools, music class, and everything else--I'm just not that person yet, and I want my 20s to have more rock 'n roll than this town has.
Also do not talk about Boston shopping. It blows, blows, blows. There is not a single redeeming factor of the shopping here. The affordable stuff is only found in mega-chains or shitty picked-over sales warehouses (also chains), there are very few creative boutiques offering hand-made or somewhat alternative clothing, the ones there are charge $375 an article, and there aren't even any european outlets at the very least to offset things (besides H&M--which has a HORRIBLE buyer for its two stores here!). They could at the very least import a Zara, but no...
I guess we do have a Puma store, but you can't shop there for all the assaulting music and BU students. (ha, ha, ha...) Now there I go sounding bitter again... I think I'm just spoiled in the shopping arena--I grew up in Orange County!
i can say only one thing about pizza and louisville - positively, absolutely no question - we don't have the best pizza here. papa john's anyone?
I think Columbus, OH is the greatest small-big-city. Aren't they home to Victoria's Secret?
I also forgot when we were talking about Portland that while Portland University downtown is really too small to count (though I took a life-changing summer course there on contemporary urban issues and a co-graduate from Cranbrook now teaches there so obviously they have some amazing faculty), Portland does have Reed College, which brings a huge super-liberal contingent of liberal arts hippies into the mix. Not unlike waht Swarthmore and Haverford do in Philly, though of course they are east-ie schools to how west-ie Reed is.
opens on the 14th...
http://www.indyculturaltrail.org/map.html
spent three years in baltimore...
and it changed a lot while i was there.
yes, crime runs rampant as you go into the poverty ring between the harbor and northern baltimore (where i was), but overall, the good areas did spread into the badder ones while i was there.
park space might have something to do with that, as the overall premise of the inner harbor has really revitalized the city and created a financial center downtown (Legg Mason, BofA Building, T.Rowe Price (even though they kind of operate from Owing Mills)). (Park space around expensive properties seems to work nicely to lower crime).
There are a whole bunch of developments around the Charles Village area that are fetching lots of cash. Two blocks from Greenmount Ave. (relatively bad area), 1 bedroom apts are going for 400,000 and being sold rather quick.
enough anectdotal stuff...
my analysis of what actually happened in baltimore.
big decline.
crime and heroin runs rampant.
one in every nine baltimoreans is addicted to heroin.
revitalization projects in the harbor.
the inner harbor developments make property prices go up massively.
poor people move and create this poverty ring that runs from around 15th to 25th street (being interrupted by the arts village around penn station).
This ring "sandwiched" in between the suburb-sprawl centrifugal forces and the city-center-centripedal forces.
Luckily, this is somewhat working to make the city a much more habitable place, at least in many areas that were previously very very bad off.
maybe pizza isn't the answer, maybe
BEER is!
ok, portland has gazillion microbrews. st. louis has A-B, nuf said to back up what was discussed earlier in this thread.
And I won't even talk about Sam Adams (now owned by A-B) or the boston beer failures.
Portland and the Pacific NW on a whole does have some good micros for sure. Then again Widmer and Red Hook have sold controlling stakes to A-B so there's little difference. Additionally, the midwest is no slouch to microbrews either.
However, the south is seriously lacking decent beer. There is an abysmal lack of variety. How can people drink Miller Lite? Seriously.
we have some pretty good micros. some are only served in the place that makes 'em, meaning you have to come to louisville: cumberland brews, browning's. bluegrass brewing co sends theirs around, but i doubt they go very far out of town.
I've literally drank my way from Pittsburgh to Minneapolis visiting 20 breweries/brewpubs in the span of a week. Louisville needs to be my next stop apparently.
Boston might not have its own beer scene, but our bars typically have a good selection of beer. Wine, on the other hand, isn't typically well represented.
And the pizza at Cinderella's in Cambridge is damn good.
Myriam – as for clothing, I certainly cannot argue with you on that – Orange County rocks. I think I only prefer Boston shopping because I am a bit more conservative when it comes to clothing, that's all! BTW – you mentioned transportation. You think Boston's transportation is bad – Chicago is even worse – now I might eat my words on this and heck, it has been a number of years since I have been there so things may have improved drastically since I left. But I remember always getting frustrated trying to get from point A to point B – it would require three bus transfers and hours to get a few miles from your house and you still ended up having to walk a quarter mile to get where you needed to be. I remember standing in the rain once waiting for a stupid bus – I was waiting for a good 45 minutes to an hour and had to laugh because all the bus schedules say "service every thirty minutes" Yeah, right. Anyway, I hated the transportation in chi-town. As for cheap eats – I do not recall finding many (at least when I lived there). I had more luck in Boston. Again, things might have changed. But try Greek town – I recall good quality food at good prices. And if you can splurge a little bit ($25pp+) and you like Mexican food, go to Rick Bayless's Frontera Grill on N. Clark. It's awesome. I love his upscale sister restaurant as well, Topolobampo (upscale Mexican) but it's quite a bit more expensive. Anyway, Good luck with your move, and I hope you enjoy Chicago!
Pixelwhore - I'll have to check out Cinderella's in Cambridge. Haven't tried it and I am always looking for a good pie...
i never seemed to have problems getting anywhere in the chi. They added a new line this summer.
i enjoyed Five Faces and the beautiful Wrigleyville Dogs.
glad to hear it chaptertwo - things may have improved since I left:)
I don't think the T is actually bad, it's just nowhere near what it should be. Running it later at night would be a huge improvement--the only reason it doesn't is because of the huge taxi union... super shitty. Again, expensive! But it's cheap and gets me mostly where I need to go, and I like the stations and the old green line trains.
I love the "L", though, and have been using it a lot in the past year. It takes awhile to get places, sure, but keep in mind Chicago is something like 3 times the size of Boston. I also like the fact that the trains are fast, the platforms have heaters in the winter (take that, T!), and you don't have to go allll the way downtown and back out just to get someplace that was only 3 miles away from you in the first place. Also you don't have to sit sideways on the trains, which is the stupidest design mistake ever. (Thank you, London tube, for forever inflicting that idea on public transit planners.)
But it's not a bad system for the city. It could be better, but it could be worse.
Katze: have you been to TJ Scallywags (I think its in Allston by Grasshoper)? I saw an add for it but haven't been there yet, all vegan if you're into that thing.
for some reason no matter what gets said, it always goes back to food... i thought this place was about architecture...?
Pixel: Nope, but I'll definitely check it out – I get into all kinds of food. Have you been to the Veggie Planet in Cambridge - thought it was good.
for all its sins, the boston shopping scene is eternally redeemed on account of louis
addictionbomb (and others), I have what might be an interesting anecdote about Baltimore:
A good friend of mine interned at the Mayor's office over the summer. He told me that Baltimore was the "capitol of heroine", a sad fact which I did not know previously. Heck of a thing to be the "capitol" of.
Anyway, crime in the neighborhoods there is based a lot on the drug trade. So this cop comes up with an idea to move an entire police task force into a neighborhood for a month....set up street blockades, run checkpoints, not allow anyone who doesn't live there past the blockades, etc. Basically to make the police present in the neighborhood, but also to establish a personal connection with the residents.
Well they started doing this on the trial basis, thinking that it would disrupt the drug trade for a little while at least, and then figuring that it would come back.....but in the neighborhoods where this plan has been implemented, the drug trade has NOT returned. I guess for a number of reasons, not the least of which is community empowerment.
I think it's such an interesting story though, because this was all started by one person.....I think that's one other thing that "small big cities" have in common, and why I find them so engaging. The power of one person to affect change in a city the size of Cincy or Indy or Pittsburgh is so much more than in your Boston or New York, where it literally takes entire councils or boards or at the very least, the mob, to get things done. That sense of individual power is definitely tangible in Cincy, how about in other places?
ok, i haven't read most of this thread, but back to the original post which i feel is somewhat off the mark. the taxonomy of the title "small big cities" is misleading since the original poster seems to be principally interested in the rust belt cities of the american middle west. aside from being an obvious oxymoron, a small big city isn't likely to grow much and all of the aforementioned places are actually quite dynamic although most of them seem to be on a down swing at the moment. they may have shrunk, but there is a strong likelihood of them rebounding at some point in the not too distant future. personally, i think it's far more likely that in, say 200 years, las vegas will be a ghostown largely reclaimed by the desert while detroit is thriving along an important nexus of the great lakes.
consider that after peaking with a population near one million in ancient times, rome shrunk to as little as 50,000 residents before eventually rebounding and expanding to its present population of 2.5 million within city limits. granted that took nearly 1,000 years, but the dark ages didn't help things any.
what kills me is this notion that there is something that can be done in order to improve these places or keep them "stayin alive." the problems of most of these places is simple a result of demographics and not much more. the cities of the mid west have lost lots of people to the south & west and even the east coast to some extent. i'm going to sound a bit like kunstler here, but much of the growth in the south & west has been a result of cheap energy that has enabled these places via air-conditioning & automobiles to become attractive. this is debatable, but as energy prices rise over the next several decades i wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see a trend of steady but sustained growth in many of these mid west cities, many of which are located in strategically significant points along the great lakes & the water infrastructure of the eastern us.
anyhow, i'm ranting a bit...i suppose their are some policy decisions by government officials that can have a distinct impact on a city's fortunes. e.g., detroit still has a city income tax?!
2.5%!!!! you have got to be mother-fucking kidding me! what do i possibly gain by paying a premium to live in a shit hole town that doesn't even offer a grocery store! they ought to be paying me to live here!
so that's maybe one example. it's clearly an anachronism and a vestige of an earlier, wealthier time. but ultimately, i suspect that the only way in which you can really help or otherwise make an impact on a city is by being there...and if it's not going to be you then who are you going to get to be there?
the wealthy buying sexy starting at only $499,000 lofts & condominiums? yeah, definitely a few of them, but there really aren't enough rich people to populate every urban core. and besides, most of those people own multiple residences and barely spend more than three weeks/year in any of their many homes. in other words, they're not really there.
the masses of from the suburbs? not likely because at this point most of them, in the midwest at least, are from the black hole of a generation that grew up on a foundation of freeways and skepticism of cities in general...and they're too old & stubborn to alter their ways now. they'll catch a ballgame or play in town but for the most part they wouldn't dare to be there because, in their words, "where would we park?"
the quickest turnaround would, i believe, be a result of a concerted effort to attract immigrants to these cities. i find it odd that the big problem seemingly everywhere else in the world is the explosive growth of slums & the overcrowding of urban centers & their peripheries when right in the middle of america we have whole swaths of established infrastructure going to waste. isn't the prediction that by 2030 2 billion of the 8 billion people on earth will be squatting in urban slums (check robert neuwirth's shadow cities for an easy intro to more info on those numbers)? even a very small percentage of 2 billion people would be more than enough to repopulate the mid-western towns referred to in the original post. mix it up & bring'em in from asia, africa, south america and the sub-continent. at this point i doubt that we could breed enough people to quickly turnaround these places (although some shrinking norwegian towns have tried) what ever happened to the melting pot anyways? why not keep the american dream alive?
lastly, i believe that jane jacobs made some rather interesting points on the differences between city/towns (small cities), regions, fast explosive growth, etc. not sure which book i'm thinking of, but try either (or both) the economy of cities (1970) & cities and the wealth of nations (1985)...both excellent, insightful, loaded with examples and often overlooked by architects
i write too much when i'm drinking merlotch...bedtime
in the original post, population was not my concern, but more importantly culture and vigor. I dont necessary want my city or others to grow; that seems to lead to rushed construction and skyrocketing real estate. I just want to know if any cities are doing anything to develop a new identity as their past identity fades away. New museums and performing arts centers seem to be a symbol of generic identity. What about in between them? What cities are thinking about the small scale details to set themselves apart?
boston and chicago are both getting new bus shelters and city information boards... those are not small cities but they are great moves for a city to keep a vibrant street culture.
one bad move boston has made recently was to outlaw sidewalk signs and cafes, which has had a noticeably depressing effect on street-level vitality. one great thing about chicago is the proliferation of the "beer garden"--even starbucks has tons of sidewalk cafe tables.
those two examples are things that would help a city of any size, i'd say.
is that what you're looking for? also: plant street trees, address scale issues and "border areas" as jane jacobs defines them, etc etc...
what could possibly have triggered a moratorium on sidewalk signs and cafes, myriam? some sort of liability issue? that just flies in the face of everything other cities seem to be trying to do.
It's something the mayor is known for having done. I'll have to look into it. Every shopkeeper complains about the fact that you have to pay a lot of money and wait for 6 months to get (if you're lucky) a permit for one of those folding "special of the day" cafe signs, and there are frequent busts for illegal ones. I'll look it up.
Don't forget, Steven, they also outlawed "Happy Hour" in the state of Massachusetts. Now don't ask me what the possible reasoning for that could be.
Ok, the sidewalk seating ban I can't find quickly, but the same long-time bostonian who told me about the sign ban told me about it, so I trust the info.
But let's see, in recent years the mayor and city have been trying to ban street performers, cracking down on those awful sandwich board signs (and other unlicensed signs, btw), attempting to ban newspaper boxes and historic brick sidewalks (those two are still a hot fight), and even drinking in the neighborhood where a sporting event is being held.
This same state is fiercely pro-gay marriage, stem cell research, pro-choice, etc. etc.--they are so keen on protecting everyone's right do what they want with their lives that they won't let anyone do anything.
well you cant drink outside in albucrackee. but you can huff paint. as far as happy hours go, well maybe people are getting too happy with their 25 cent beer nights.
yes, the midwest has more good looking chicks.
i have a question though: why is albucrakee big enough to be considered a small big city? i love new mexico, but albuquerque for me is more just a huge small town. it only has one freeway interchange, and the downtown isn't anything to write home about.
puddles you are right.
well, maybe i slightly misread the intent of the question (although i still believe that demographic/population drives much of a citys innovation).
anyhow
"I just want to know if any cities are doing anything to develop a new identity as their past identity fades away."
i'll use detroit here since it is most familiar to me. recently, there have been some conversations regarding the state of new orleans post-katrina. a few people have called new orleans the new detroit and have pointed out that the hurricane has significantly changed public perception of new orleans from party city of super bowls & mardi gras to "poor, black city" (keith owens, metrotimes) of violence, drugs & urban decay.
i find this somewhat ironic, since much of the recent popular improvement in detroit (downtown, at least) seems to be in the vain of the pre-katrina new orleans. that is, there has been an emphasis hosting super bowls, final fours & other sporting events in addition to casinos and a general glaze of entertainment. many of the reviews from last year's super bowl said that detroit was a good host and given new orleans demise, i suppose, that there is some opportunity for this strategy to work. add in some of downtown detroit's other features like the hockeytown cafe, the hard rock cafe, a greektown and an elevated monorail (the sublime people mover) that i swear could have been purloined from a disney back lot and suddenly you have a city that on the verge of becoming real "universal sity walk"...if that can even be consider such a thing.
it's probably debatable as to how much of this can really be considered a coherent "strategy" since i don't think any one person or group is in charge here. i'm also doubtful that it's particularly helpful for most of a city's residents.
but at any rate, i think this example does qualify as a city having some success in crafting a "new identity as their past identity fades away."
no le bossman...you are right. i gave it another listen and the mc5 are definitely just noise.
puddles - I take issue with kunstler and others saying the southern cities are not-sustainable in a world without cheap oil. While I completely agree places like Las Vegas and Phoenix are living on borrowed time, oil isnt the issue. One thing Kunstler and other peak oil people always gloss over is the most vital resource we've got - water. The concrete beltways around Houston and Atlanta may be huge miss-appropriations of resources in a world without cheap oil, but both of those cities have abundant water and lush vegitation. People have survived heat and humidity without A/C in the past and they can do it in the future.
As for the "rust belt" cities creating a new identity, I think growth is a key component and without growth these once great cities are destined for failure. Many people shun growth for the reasons mentioned, like increasing cost of living. Then again, without growth there isn't any new wealth creation. Without wealth creation there is no new museum, or stadium, or library. At best the city would only be able to maintain its existing infastructure. The civic things mentioned would simply not be possible - unless the city was going to give up something else.
That's why I go back to the It's the jobs argument. Employment will attract people. That will in turn spur wealth creation. Spending that wealth will attract more jobs, more people, more wealth. Eventually the population will demand the civic improvements that everyone seems to believe identifies a city.
Funny thing with the rust belt cities is that they've already got the civic buildings in place but feel new ones, specifically star architect designed, will turn a city around. Business isn't flocking to Cincy after Zaha's new contemporary art center opened. From my business travels in Ohio seems Columbus is the growing city in the state and Cincy is losing businesses to Kentucky on a daily basis. Notice Ohio largely missed the whole housing bubble of the past 5 years? Ever wonder why?
Now what does define a city? It's the business. Think of LA and everyone sees movies/hollywood. New York and you see Wall Street. Detroit and you see Ford/GM. Houston and oil. Pittsburgh and steel. San Jose and computers. Major employers, affect our cities far more than any civic project ever could.
I have to bite my tounge saying this because I'd love to have a new art museum commission, but those type of projects will do little to revive a depressed city. We architects love to be utopian. Master planners of society. Then again, if we were always right Corbu's "towers in the park" plans would've worked.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.