Skyscraper City Forum banner
1 - 5 of 5 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,194 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
This is a question on growth curves, geared to Chicago and its midwestern neighbors. It could just as easily be used on other cities & regions as well, due to its generic nature.

Chicago is a huge major city, a city that has developed an incredible critical mass. Downtown Chicago's growth is based on its critical mass. Chicago's development is based on growth feeding on growth, on all the right things on the ground to make make further development profitable, by having a large population with large disposable income that again contributes to further business profitability. Its sheer size, importance, and economic might make a Navy Pier redevleopment, a Millennium Park, a Museum Campus possible.

Then, take other midwestern cities: the ones that are established in creating an inviting, growing downtown (as is Mpls), the ones turning the corner out of the doldrums (StL, Det), the ones based on sheer promotionalism (Indy, Columbus)...throw in the others (Clev, Cincy, KC, Milw, etc.):

will these cities, far smaller than Chicago, experience a growth curve downtown greater than Chicago because of turn arounds and their frankly smaller size magnifies growth

-or-

does Chicago's growth that feeds on existing critical mass accelerate more than the others due to the incredible magnet setting that has been created here?

Exponentially, where will the growth cruve be steeper: in Chicago or in the other midwestern cities? And thus, in the process, does the gap between Chicago and the other cities get greater or less???????

(i.e. could a revitalized, reinvigorated St. Louis actually find itself in a worse positon vis-a-vis Chicago which somehow manages to widen the gap by ever more extraordinary growth?)

I hope this makes sense as I really would like to know what you guys are thinking.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,194 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
The Urban Politician said:
:hammer:

^That was too mind-boggling for me...
in simple terms, does a city that has little going downtown and starts to grow tend to grow at a faster rate than a well established megacity, enjoying growth based on critical mass?

I don't know if that simplified or not, but I gave it a shot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
194 Posts
pecentage wise yes i think the smaller city grows at a faster rate... but i mean if you take a look at the type of growth and sheer numbers going on. chicago clearly wins over the smaller city growth.

plus all those midwestern cities they had a steady decline in population for the past twenty years correct? so they have exisiting infrastructure and people are moving back into it.

just imagine lakeshore east happening in cleveland.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
469 Posts
mypetrobot said:
pecentage wise yes i think the smaller city grows at a faster rate... but i mean if you take a look at the type of growth and sheer numbers going on. chicago clearly wins over the smaller city growth.

plus all those midwestern cities they had a steady decline in population for the past twenty years correct? so they have exisiting infrastructure and people are moving back into it.

just imagine lakeshore east happening in cleveland.
You beat me to the point about Lakeshore East. Percentage wise, the smaller downtowns will grow faster. In absolute terms, Chicago will win and end up widening the gap.

If Lakeshore East were being built in Milwaukee, it would immediately redefine the skyline and place an unheard of impact on the city. In Chicago, it is a large scale project that will ADD to the skyline, and ADD yet another thriving neighborhood to downtown, but it certainly will not have anywhere near the impact that it would in Milwaukee.

In short, a development like Lakeshore East by itself might stack up favorably against all other highrise projects going on in the midwest combined.
 
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
Top