Jump to content
Guest urbanlife

Cleveland: Population Trends

Recommended Posts

^No way.  Portland.  That's the model we like on UO.

 

For TOD, yes, Cleveland needs to be looking at it more. What makes Portland impressive is not the city itself or any of its cultural amenities. What makes it impressive is its light rail system and all the spinoff development.

 

You basically had an average mid-sized river town in the middle of nowhere that just exploded because of very wise public investment and planning choices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite its sizable population gains, downtown Cleveland only had 3,404 residents per square mile as of 2010 - just over a third of the residential density of the West Boulevard area at 9,918. But I can't imagine a world where people generally think of West Boulevard as being more "urban" than downtown ... Or doing a better job of serving their transit, biking or walking needs.

 

Business districts and tourist districts need to be factored in regards to density. Downtown Cleveland is vibrant because over 100,000 people work there and are on the streets for most of the day....but, I would say like the majority of big city downtowns, it mostly dies off at night. This is true in every city I've worked in except New York. For more 24/7 activity, you need residential density. That's why Midtown and Lower Manhattan kick ass. It's not office workers, it's the people living there. But I'm very encouraged by Downtown Cleveland's development. I think it stands alone in Ohio (I hope people don't flame me for this). With its transit, location near Lake Erie, and the fact it has the largest employment base in Ohio, I see it as a very smart investment for anybody buying properties in the Rust Belt. I'd be putting a lot of money into Downtown Detroit, Downtown Toledo, Downtown Cleveland, and Downtown Buffalo right now (ditto with Sandusky and Erie). There are a lot of outstanding properties with prime locations available for pennies on the dollar compared to saltwater cities. The downtowns of those Lake Erie cities are going to come back regardless of their respective metro area economies. The bones are too strong. And Cleveland and Buffalo have transit backbones to build on too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ditto.  As current Portland resident, I'll confirm Portland is a perfect urban planning stencil for a midsize city like Cleveland (TOD, urban farming, mixed-used development, bike lanes, policy, etc).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^No way.  Portland.  That's the model we like on UO.

 

As Murray Hill mentioned there is a lot Cleveland can learn from Portland as far as urban development, but I also agree that Milwaukee is a good city to look too for ideas. Cleveland has a lot more in common with Milwaukee than it does Portland.

 

Milwaukee has done a good job of redeveloping it's former industrial riverfront with residential development and it has a great lakefront that is on the same scale as Cleveland's. Of course Milwaukee did a better job than Cleveland from the get-go as far as urban planning goes. Milwaukee has always had a lakefront that is parkland in the heart of the city, and has always had nice neighborhoods along that lakefront near the downtown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^No way.  Portland.  That's the model we like on UO.

 

As Murray Hill mentioned there is a lot Cleveland can learn from Portland as far as urban development, but I also agree that Milwaukee is a good city to look too for ideas. Cleveland has a lot more in common with Milwaukee than it does Portland.

 

Milwaukee has done a good job of redeveloping it's former industrial riverfront with residential development and it has a great lakefront that is on the same scale as Cleveland's. Of course Milwaukee did a better job than Cleveland from the get-go as far as urban planning goes. Milwaukee has always had a lakefront that is parkland in the heart of the city, and has always had nice neighborhoods along that lakefront near the downtown.

 

Let's be clear: Milwaukee indeed has had better lakefront planning from a residential perspective than Cleveland.  But I would not say Milwaukee, overall, is better planned than Cleveland, esp from a transit and overall land-use standpoint.  And as far as the riverfront, Cleveland in the Flats has been steadily improving and is closing the gap.  Of course, the radically different typographies of the 2 cities must be considered, with the steep cliffs down from the street grid into the Flats area along the Cuyahoga making riverfront residential development more challenging while industrial development more expedient, historically.  Thus we see, like the Flats residential development on the East and West banks, those areas are nice, but tend to be cut off and segregated from the long-established neighborhoods at the tops of the bluffs.  Milwaukee’s more street level river through downtown, like Chicago’s, make it more accessible and integrated into the downtown neighborhood.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Density in rust belt cities will never reach the same as its peak as long as the housing stock remains the same. This is a good thing. Rust Belt cities were not built for the high density of the East Coast. During Cleveland's peak it was extremely overcrowded. Terrible living conditions. In many cases, these neighborhoods have now right-sized. Many others have completely emptied out. The only true way for rust belt cities to increase density is by new construction.

 

I don't think 10,000 to 15,000 people per square mile is too dense at all. I've lived in neighborhoods of 20,000 to 30,000 people per square mile and honestly, they felt sleepy (Haight-Ashbury or Inner Richmond for example). I've also lived in areas with upwards of 70,000 people per square mile. I'd say 50,000 people per square mile feels about right to me and is a good density. Believe it or not, Ohio had a few neighborhoods with 30,000 to 50,000 people per square mile at its peak in the cores of Cincinnati, Toledo, and Cleveland. While it may have felt "crowded" to some, I don't think it ever reached the conditions of New York and San Francisco. And if it did, it was due to inadequate bathroom facilities and poor sanitation. High population density is certainly doable and livable. "Right-size" for the Rust Belt in my eyes is realistically about 10,000 people per square mile. Each city should double in population. I think the cities were right-sized at their peak populations in 1950, not today. Even city-wide density over 10,000 people per square mile will still be sleepy compared to first tier coastal cities (partially due to lack of tourism), but far more viable from a pedestrian or transit perspective. I've always felt 10,000 people per square mile is the sweet spot.

 

Whatever they used to have, here are the top 10 densities of blocks in each of Ohio's major cities.  The highlighted ones are the only blocks with 30,000 or greater densities. 

Akron

1. 21,626.5

2. 10,917.6

3. 10,738.5

4. 10,643.7

5. 10,264.2

6. 10,174.5

7. 10,049.7

8. 9,973.0

9. 9,624.5

10. 9,581.0

 

Cincinnati

1. 41,175.5

2. 23,493.3

3. 20,770.5

4. 19,966.9

5. 19,182.0

6. 19,126.7

7. 19,060.1

8. 16,975.5

9. 16,907.7

10. 14,163.7

 

Cleveland

1. 18,784.9

2. 18,545.4

3. 17,117.9

4. 17,069.8

5. 16,291.6

6. 16,236.0

7. 16,231.1

8. 16,021.7

9. 15,899.0

10. 15,388.1

 

Columbus

1. 61,114.0

2. 46,583.1

3. 38,020.0

4. 34,112.8

5. 31,005.4

6. 30,404.3

7. 29,874.1

8. 29,634.7

9. 26,970.4

10. 26,543.8

 

Dayton

1, 20,615,2

2. 14,432.8

3. 11,338.3

4. 10,530.8

5. 10,116.6

6. 9,940.3

7. 9,658.4

8. 9,604.7

9. 9,579.3

10. 9,539.7

 

Toledo

1. 12,454.3

2. 12,428.0

3. 12,024.4

4. 11,667.4

5. 11,664.9

6. 11,573.3

7. 11,550.6

8. 11,416.4

9. 11,167.3

10. 10,978.1

 

Youngstown

1. 6,536.8

2. 6,188.7

3. 6,133.2

4. 5,764.4

5. 5,687.1

6. 5,331.8

7. 5,274.0

8. 5,158.4

9. 5,023.7

10. 5,002.0 

 

And here are the number of neighborhoods (blocks) by city that have densities at or above 10,000.

 

Akron: 7

Cincinnati: 30

Cleveland: 111

Columbus: 84

Dayton: 5

Toledo: 14

Youngstown: 0

 

I bet this surprises a lot of people.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your bet is correct. I kind of figured Cincinnati would have higher density pockets because of the topography but wasn't expecting Cleveland to have that many more blocks of density above 10,000 ppsm.

 

I'm honestly just most surprised about Columbus. Those are some huge densities. Any info you can give on their locations for those of us not super familiar with Cbus?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What constitutes a "block"?  Are the blocks the same size in the various cities?  Because if not, doing a block to block comparison is kind of pointless. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's be clear: Milwaukee indeed has had better lakefront planning from a residential perspective than Cleveland.  But I would not say Milwaukee, overall, is better planned than Cleveland, esp from a transit and overall land-use standpoint.  And as far as the riverfront, Cleveland in the Flats has been steadily improving and is closing the gap.  Of course, the radically different typographies of the 2 cities must be considered, with the steep cliffs down from the street grid into the Flats area along the Cuyahoga making riverfront residential development more challenging while industrial development more expedient, historically.  Thus we see, like the Flats residential development on the East and West banks, those areas are nice, but tend to be cut off and segregated from the long-established neighborhoods at the tops of the bluffs.  Milwaukee’s more street level river through downtown, like Chicago’s, make it more accessible and integrated into the downtown neighborhood.   

 

Yes, obviously Cleveland has better transit than Milwaukee. Not sure how you can say that about land-use patterns, as that pretty much gets back to Milwaukee's lakefront planning.

 

Also, there are sections of the river in Milwaukee that slope down just like the flats, albeit on a smaller scale. These areas are not in the heart of downtown but are just north of it; and are former industrial ares that are now residential.

 

Here is the area I'm talking about. I think it would be a good example for the flats.

 

https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=43.057679,-87.899133&spn=0.002627,0.004442&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=43.057724,-87.90003&panoid=9S2KEVaDdrqal5s36emldA&cbp=12,77.75,,0,3.5

 

https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=43.053877,-87.905678&spn=0.003716,0.008883&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=43.053874,-87.907713&panoid=k-XTad4h9DzDzIlQEtkLNA&cbp=12,186.01,,0,2.08

 

And here is another section of Milwaukee that has been developed where there are less slopes, but still a good example to look at.

 

https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=43.031208,-87.907931&spn=0.003717,0.008883&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=43.031207,-87.909973&panoid=ri32uxNoOeH4ZLhUwkFuDA&cbp=12,102.8,,0,-1.19

 

I think Cleveland still has a ways to catch up to Milwaukee when it comes to riverfront development.

 

I'm honestly just most surprised about Columbus. Those are some huge densities. Any info you can give on their locations for those of us not super familiar with Cbus?

 

It's because of Ohio State's student housing and adjacent neighborhoods I think.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Census blocks aren't equal in size.  The actual density numbers of those blocks are more telling.  The blocks around OSU are the most dense.  'Cleveland's' densest block is actually the one in Lakewood, right on the border, with a density of just under 40,000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's be clear: Milwaukee indeed has had better lakefront planning from a residential perspective than Cleveland.  But I would not say Milwaukee, overall, is better planned than Cleveland, esp from a transit and overall land-use standpoint.  And as far as the riverfront, Cleveland in the Flats has been steadily improving and is closing the gap.  Of course, the radically different typographies of the 2 cities must be considered, with the steep cliffs down from the street grid into the Flats area along the Cuyahoga making riverfront residential development more challenging while industrial development more expedient, historically.  Thus we see, like the Flats residential development on the East and West banks, those areas are nice, but tend to be cut off and segregated from the long-established neighborhoods at the tops of the bluffs.  Milwaukee’s more street level river through downtown, like Chicago’s, make it more accessible and integrated into the downtown neighborhood.   

 

Yes, obviously Cleveland has better transit than Milwaukee. Not sure how you can say that about land-use patterns, as that pretty much gets back to Milwaukee's lakefront planning.

 

Also, there are sections of the river in Milwaukee that slope down just like the flats, albeit on a smaller scale. These areas are not in the heart of downtown but are just north of it; and are former industrial ares that are now residential.

 

Here is the area I'm talking about. I think it would be a good example for the flats.

 

https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=43.057679,-87.899133&spn=0.002627,0.004442&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=43.057724,-87.90003&panoid=9S2KEVaDdrqal5s36emldA&cbp=12,77.75,,0,3.5

 

https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=43.053877,-87.905678&spn=0.003716,0.008883&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=43.053874,-87.907713&panoid=k-XTad4h9DzDzIlQEtkLNA&cbp=12,186.01,,0,2.08

 

And here is another section of Milwaukee that has been developed where there are less slopes, but still a good example to look at.

 

https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=43.031208,-87.907931&spn=0.003717,0.008883&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=43.031207,-87.909973&panoid=ri32uxNoOeH4ZLhUwkFuDA&cbp=12,102.8,,0,-1.19

 

I think Cleveland still has a ways to catch up to Milwaukee when it comes to riverfront development.

 

I'm honestly just most surprised about Columbus. Those are some huge densities. Any info you can give on their locations for those of us not super familiar with Cbus?

 

It's because of Ohio State's student housing and adjacent neighborhoods I think.

 

 

 

Points well taken Rustbelter; no question that, unfortunately, Cleveland grew rapidly more based on industrial expediency than a more logical pattern of quality residential development like both Milwaukee, and it's neighbor to the south, Chicago did.  Milwaukee, btw, had a rapid transit system that it closed down (I think) in the 1950s.  Cleveland has been very slow to realize its assets, like the waterfronts and rail transit, as tools for neighborhood creation, stability and growth.  Finally, after many decades, we're starting to see some serious TOD planning and development in the city around a few Rapid Stations, like W. 25/Ohio City and the new Little Italy... and even near Tower City.  And of course, the planned high-density residential development around the Browns' stadium is our 1st real volley toward realizing the Lake as a quality-of-life asset... Of course 3 miles to the West, we DO have long standing, high-quality Chicago/Milwaukee type development in Edgewater Park, and the Edgewater and Gold Coast neighborhoods stretching westward.... No surprise the areas of overall highest population density in Greater Cleveland is in those areas as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your bet is correct. I kind of figured Cincinnati would have higher density pockets because of the topography but wasn't expecting Cleveland to have that many more blocks of density above 10,000 ppsm.

 

I'm honestly just most surprised about Columbus. Those are some huge densities. Any info you can give on their locations for those of us not super familiar with Cbus?

 

Most of the top 10 are along or near High Street from the Short North to Campus.  Almost all of them are actually getting more dense over time as well.

 

However, OSU is really not the only reason for the density.  If you expand the category out to those blocks with 5,000+ densities, Columbus and Cleveland have a difference of only 14 (350 vs. 336. Cincinnati has only 160).  Columbus has far more density than what people think, and it goes far beyond Campus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What constitutes a "block"?  Are the blocks the same size in the various cities?  Because if not, doing a block to block comparison is kind of pointless.

 

Why would it matter if they were the same size?  No boundary in which density is measured is equal from place to place, whether it be county, city, zip code, census tract or block. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Census blocks aren't equal in size.  The actual density numbers of those blocks are more telling.  The blocks around OSU are the most dense.  'Cleveland's' densest block is actually the one in Lakewood, right on the border, with a density of just under 40,000

 

Yes. I think the map I posted up thread is a far better indicator of density since it shows the contiguous density in San Francisco, New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago. These blocks need to be locked at in relation to the big picture. Density maps of cities are what to be looking at. San Francisco and New York really stand out.

 

Census blocks can be way too small to get an accurate picture, hence why I like neighborhood-level measurements. Say each city's densest areas with 1 to 5 square miles.

 

And of course the densest blocks in Columbus would be Ohio State-related. That really does drive up the numbers in around that section of High Street.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What constitutes a "block"?  Are the blocks the same size in the various cities?  Because if not, doing a block to block comparison is kind of pointless.

 

Why would it matter if they were the same size?  No boundary in which density is measured is equal from place to place, whether it be county, city, zip code, census tract or block. 

 

It can be, like taking density within 1-mile of downtown, 2-miles, 3-miles, etc. I prefer to look at the big picture and see the contiguous dense blocks (census tracts or neighborhood-sized density). That's why those "counts of dense blocks" don't paint the whole picture. You need to look at city-wide density maps color coded with different density levels.

 

I've seen many density maps like that and you can see it on the one I posted. These maps show you exactly where the densest areas in each city are located, how big they are, and the rolloff around them. When looking at a map like this, it's obvious that Chicago is not overall much denser or more contiguous than Los Angeles:

 

http://beyonddc.com/?p=4808

 

New York and San Francisco stand alone. The Detroit and St. Louis maps are most damning and heartbreaking, since they both used to peak well above 50,000 per square mile and now are not much denser than Sun Belt cities. Ditto with Ohio cities.

 

One thing to keep in mind is that even Chicago, despite the great urban core and downtown, still is a Great Lakes city (similar to Toronto in build, density, and urban core). It has dense, built-up, "big city" commercial streets, but most residential streets still have setbacks, trees, and little backyards. I think that's kind of a cool thing about Great Lakes cities. You get big coastal city density mixed with greenery. The declined Great Lakes cities had similar structure to Chicago and Toronto at peak and had they remained intact, would probably not look all that different today in their urban core neighborhoods (though fewer high-rises). Cleveland, Buffalo, Detroit, Toledo, etc. had great urban structures at their peaks. They had those dense commercial corridors that stretched for miles buffered by tree-lined residential streets of Great Lakes double-deckers, Victorians, small row homes, and mid-sized apartment buildings. There was a pretty amazing mix of late 19th century and early 20th century styles, perhaps architecturally the most diverse cities in the country.

 

One could argue New York and San Francisco are too dense since there is far less greenery (though New York makes its density work due to transit). Great Lakes cities were always much greener...only today some of that greenery is urban prairie. That's the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And here are the number of neighborhoods (blocks) by city that have densities at or above 10,000.

 

Akron: 7

Cincinnati: 30

Cleveland: 111

Columbus: 84

Dayton: 5

Toledo: 14

Youngstown: 0

 

I bet this surprises a lot of people.

 

The problem is census blocks aren't neighborhoods or geographically defined measurements. Anyone who has been around Ohio knows that Cincinnati's core is denser than Columbus (though the population gap has narrowed). You don't get that picture if you just count up irregular-sized blocks between cities. Someone would look at this list and be all "Columbus is denser than Cincinnati!" It's really not, and part of this is due to Cincinnati's larger, denser downtown with higher daytime population.

 

Also, some of those Toledo census blocks are larger than other ones you measured. It's just not apples to apples (measuring core square mile, core five square miles, core 10 square miles, core 20 square miles, etc. is apples to apples), hence why you need to look at a city-wide map or at least larger groupings like census tracts. Pre-WW2 Toledo is similar to pre-WW2 Columbus in geographic area and density, which makes sense since they were the same size in the pre-WW2 urban era. Columbus has had increased density along a few High Street tracts, but decreased density along Broad and many other urban core neighborhoods. That's the story of Ohio in general. You can point to High Street, but that doesn't negate what happened to other Columbus neighborhoods. The pre-1950 Columbus urban boundary area lost tens of thousands of people from 2000 to 2010. It declined as much as Cincinnati and Toledo did...though admittedly didn't shrink as much as Cleveland did. Columbus still has a lot of low density urban ghetto areas continuing to lose population (this is early stage gentrification, not late stage like New York, Boston, or Bay Area). Structurally, despite its good for Ohio economy, Columbus looks like a Rust Belt city (without industry) and suffered through the same urban decline and poor planning (the inner ring freeway is arguably the worst in Ohio, possibly the Midwest). It can't blame it on industrial decline like Cleveland, Toledo, Cincinnati, Dayton, etc., but it can blame it on poor planning decisions. It's myth that it's a golden child. Has it turned the corner on High Street? Yes, but most of the city still needs real help and real money to have a true transformation of the urban core. It's dealing with a lot of the same issues that other Ohio cities are dealing with.

 

Looking at a city-wide density map will show this. The decline is right there in the low density areas. I don't want to take this too far off track, but I feel caution should be taken when looking at cities by individual census block counts. The Three C's all have declined density. It's not a Cleveland problem, it's an Ohio problem.

 

*And by extension, it's a Rust Belt regional problem. It's the same issue in Southeastern Michigan, Upstate New York, and Western Pennsylvania.

 

However, OSU is really not the only reason for the density.  If you expand the category out to those blocks with 5,000+ densities, Columbus and Cleveland have a difference of only 14 (350 vs. 336. Cincinnati has only 160).  Columbus has far more density than what people think, and it goes far beyond Campus.

 

It's true Columbus population density is not much different from Cleveland or Cincinnati today. This is very similar to the Chicago versus Los Angeles density argument. Columbus may not look that dense from an historic urban perspective, but yes, along High Street for a few miles, there is real density. Columbus overall is a younger city and a lot of its density is housed in newer buildings (for example, Ohio State dorms). When people say it feels "suburban," it's more because of style and newness, not actual density.

 

As I said earlier, when you're standing in cities like Cleveland (or any Ohio city), your mind fills in blanks. I could be on a mostly destroyed block of Euclid Avenue, look up at an impressive mid-rise streetfront building from the early 20th century, and my mind says "urban" or "dense." I'm ignoring the five buildings leveled around it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What constitutes a "block"?  Are the blocks the same size in the various cities?  Because if not, doing a block to block comparison is kind of pointless.

 

Why would it matter if they were the same size?  No boundary in which density is measured is equal from place to place, whether it be county, city, zip code, census tract or block. 

 

It can be, like taking density within 1-mile of downtown, 2-miles, 3-miles, etc. I prefer to look at the big picture and see the contiguous dense blocks, that's why those "counts of dense blocks" don't paint the whole picture. You need to look at city-wide density maps color coded with increasing density.

 

I've seen many density maps like that and you can see it on the one I posted. These maps show you exactly where the densest areas in each city are located, how big they are, and the rolloff around them. When looking at a map like this, it's obvious that Chicago is not overall much denser or more contiguous than Los Angeles:

 

http://beyonddc.com/?p=4808

 

New York and San Francisco stand alone. The Detroit and St. Louis maps are most damning and heartbreaking, since they both used to peak well above 50,000 per square mile and now are not much denser than Sun Belt cities. Ditto with Ohio cities.

 

One thing to keep in mind is that even Chicago, despite the great urban core and downtown, still is a Great Lakes city (similar to Toronto in build, density, and urban core). It has dense, built-up, "big city" commercial streets, but most residential streets still have setbacks, trees, and little backyards. I think that's kind of a cool thing about Great Lakes cities. You get big coastal city density mixed with greenery. The declined Great Lakes cities had similar structure to Chicago and Toronto at peak and had they remained intact, would probably not look all that different today in their urban cores neighborhoods (though fewer high-rises). Cleveland, Buffalo, Detroit, Toledo, etc. had great urban structures at their peaks. They had those dense commercial corridors that stretched for miles buffered by tree-lined residential streets of Great Lakes double-deckers, Victorians, small row homes, and mid-sized apartment buildings. There was a pretty amazing mix of late 19th century and early 20th century style, perhaps the architecturally most diverse cities in the country.

 

One could argue New York and San Francisco are too dense since there is far less greenery (though New York makes its density work due to transit). Great Lakes were always much greener...only today some of that greenery is urban prairie. That's the problem.

 

There's a school of thought in the Midwest that Midwestern cities should replicate East Coast cities in every way, including streetscaping and the styles of housing that exist in the downtown neighborhoods.  This is called the Rust Belt School of Ignorance.  Columbus' downtown areas are very dense AND they are very similar to the reaches of Queens and Brooklyn.  Cleveland and Cincinnati's housing stock resemble niches of New York housing even more than Columbus' does, and far more plentiful and diverse, especially in Cincinnati. 

 

Ohio IS the East Coast and Ohioans need to stop letting the people who live by the ocean decide how we value our home state and its grandest cities.  The available stock is dense enough in Cleveland.  There is spirit in the Northeast Ohio area that supports a potential Cleveland renaissance.  Improved fixed transit is the on-ground solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a PD article posted numerous times:

Still, a largely unheralded brain gain has already shaped powerful new patterns. The study found that:

 

•" The number of STEM jobs in the region--jobs in science, technology, engineering and math--grew by 25 percent in the last decade.

 

• A growing knowledge economy boosted wages. From 2003 to 2012, per capita income in the region rose from $33,359 to $44,775.

 

• Younger newcomers are fueling the brain gain. The number of college-educated 25 to 34 year olds in Greater Cleveland grew by 23 percent from 2006 to 2012.

 

• The skill level of Cleveland's young adult workforce is world class. It ranks 7th nationally, ahead of San Francisco, Chicago, Seattle and Austin, for professional and graduate degrees.

 

• The new Clevelanders are helping to create "global neighborhoods" in downtown, Tremont, Ohio City, Edgewater, Lakewood and Cleveland Heights--places where incomes are rising fastest."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NPR discusses how young adults are moving back to #Cleveland. http://t.co/mwbefepMVh

 

thats a link to pintrest.  Where is the article?

 

Here's a recording of the broadcast: https://soundcloud.com/alternate-routes/episode-1-why-young-people-are-moving-back-to-cleveland

 

*Note: Above anything else, I wish people would realize how useless population statistics by municipal boundary are.  The "2nd largest City in Ohio" doesn't mean anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^SixthCity--and I apologize to the board--if your name refers to the city's size, Cleveland was actually the country's FIFTH city after the 1920 Census. I've heard the reference to "6th city" before/elsewhere, but we were actually 5th.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^SixthCity--and I apologize to the board--if your name refers to the city's size, Cleveland was actually the country's FIFTH city after the 1920 Census. I've heard the reference to "6th city" before/elsewhere, but we were actually 5th.

 

You're correct but for some reason, the nickname "The Sixth City" stuck and was adopted by many local businesses and the public at large during the former half of the 20th century.  Obviously being "The Fifth City" would be slightly more impressive but "The Sixth City" has a certain ring to it - don't ya think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cleveland was the sixth-largest city for twice as long as it was the fifth city. It was sixth-largest in the 1910s and the 30s, but fifth-largest in the 1920s. Amazing to think that LA didn't surpass Cleveland until the 1930s -- in my parents' lifetime.


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gives an idea where demand is within the City.  Tremont and Edgewater clock in with higher median sales prices than suburban Cleveland.

 

Home prices up across most of Cleveland, strongest in Edgewater, Tremont, Central, Kamm's Corners

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio - Single-family home prices increased across most of Cleveland last year, with two of the sharpest jumps in the Edgewater area on the West Side side and Central to the East Side.

 

These two areas, and a few other sections of Cleveland, rivaled some suburban locations for pricing.

 

The Northeast Ohio Media Group reported earlier that suburban prices in Cuyahoga County increased 3 percent last year to a median of $120,000, based on a NEOMG analysis of county real estate records.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2015/03/home_prices_up_across_most_of.html#incart_river

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gives an idea where demand is within the City.  Tremont and Edgewater clock in with higher median sales prices than suburban Cleveland.

 

Home prices up across most of Cleveland, strongest in Edgewater, Tremont, Central, Kamm's Corners

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio - Single-family home prices increased across most of Cleveland last year, with two of the sharpest jumps in the Edgewater area on the West Side side and Central to the East Side.

 

These two areas, and a few other sections of Cleveland, rivaled some suburban locations for pricing.

 

The Northeast Ohio Media Group reported earlier that suburban prices in Cuyahoga County increased 3 percent last year to a median of $120,000, based on a NEOMG analysis of county real estate records.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2015/03/home_prices_up_across_most_of.html#incart_river

 

 

Great news.  Love the comments from the out ring basement dwellers.  Always filled with intelligent insight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a school of thought in the Midwest that Midwestern cities should replicate East Coast cities in every way, including streetscaping and the styles of housing that exist in the downtown neighborhoods.  This is called the Rust Belt School of Ignorance.  Columbus' downtown areas are very dense AND they are very similar to the reaches of Queens and Brooklyn.  Cleveland and Cincinnati's housing stock resemble niches of New York housing even more than Columbus' does, and far more plentiful and diverse, especially in Cincinnati. 

 

It’s true that Cleveland should not seek to emulate NYC et al, but that extends a little bit further to the very concept of density itself. 

 

I’ve become convinced that different people have different tolerances for constant dense surroundings. For most of us it becomes an imposition at some point, the question is “what point?”.  Is it enough to take an occasional break from it, or does the “break” need to be the norm?  Culture and even heredity likely play a role.

 

If I’m right, that means that each urban area’s population will have a different average affinity for density, and therefore a different percentage of its population potentially interested in dense neighborhoods.  This does not impact the effects of poverty, but may make those poorer dense areas more violent.

 

A city being historically dense will have a role.  New Yorkers of course consider crowding routine to a degree that even the most urbanist Clevelander might find uncomfortable. They were brought up that way.  Likewise, some of those who come from other parts of the world don’t have the same concepts of personal space that we do.  This is particularly true in Asia, and Asian immigrants congregate where?  New York, San Francisco, LA, and to some degree Seattle.

 

A city like Cleveland, with a lot of rural influence and a historically established tendency towards sprawl, will have a more limited number of people interested in denser areas.  What that means is its best to build on the areas where it’s working, and embrace and work with lower densities elsewhere.  Otherwise neighborhoods cannibalize each other and blight sets in.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What rural influence?? Neighborhoods aren't cannibalizing each other. The demand for them per recent demographic shifts is as yet unmet. There's lots of growing left to do.

 

The only cannibalizing going on are new developments in exurban areas siphoning off residents from older suburban areas which are now filling up with lower-income residents from urban neighborhoods that are being rebuilt for Millennials seeking low-mileage lifestyles and empty nesters looking to downsize. Put development restrictions on to save our established communities and our protect our pocketbooks from over-taxation to support duplicative, overbuilt infrastructure. Such restrictions don't have to say "you can't build here." Instead, they say things like "our priority for spending tax dollars is to maintain what we have already built."


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as a mouthful this statement is KJP, I couldn't have said it any better. 

 

The only cannibalizing going on are new developments in exurban areas siphoning off residents from older suburban areas which are now filling up with lower-income residents from urban neighborhoods that are being rebuilt for Millennials seeking low-mileage lifestyles and empty nesters looking to downsize.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What rural influence?? Neighborhoods aren't cannibalizing each other. The demand for them per recent demographic shifts is as yet unmet. There's lots of growing left to do.

 

The only cannibalizing going on are new developments in exurban areas siphoning off residents from older suburban areas which are now filling up with lower-income residents from urban neighborhoods that are being rebuilt for Millennials seeking low-mileage lifestyles and empty nesters looking to downsize. Put development restrictions on to save our established communities and our protect our pocketbooks from over-taxation to support duplicative, overbuilt infrastructure. Such restrictions don't have to say "you can't build here." Instead, they say things like "our priority for spending tax dollars is to maintain what we have already built."

 

You're putting the cart before the horse.  For the most part, people are leaving the inner ring because of the influx of residents whose culture  (as opposed to income or race) they find uncomfortable.  The developments exist because there is demand.  They are not creating the demand.  Homeowners don't tend to move casually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're putting the cart before the horse.

 

I took a verbal snapshot of what's going on. Sorry to hear you don't like what's happening.


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Homeowners don't tend to move casually"

 

 

Tell that to 1970s Cleveland, which lost 3 households a day the entire decade for a multitude of reasons.

 

I'm encouraged by the numbers for Central, which I wouldn't have expected.  Central was one of the neighborhoods during the 2010 census which actually grew in population as well.  There is a ton of newer construction in the neighborhood, including for sale housing.  For what the neighborhood has been through in the previous decades, it may have finally turned a corner.  And if Central can, the same may be true for other  perpetually struggling neighborhoods in the city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

Tell that to 1970s Cleveland, which lost 3 households a day the entire decade for a multitude of reasons.

 

 

More like 15 households per day, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Homeowners don't tend to move casually"

 

Tell that to 1970s Cleveland, which lost 3 households a day the entire decade for a multitude of reasons.

 

There were a multitude of reasons to move, which were  hardly casual.  Busing tops the list, but there were others such as job losses/transfers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or things like the city unable to provide basic services like garbage pickup, working sewer systems, police not responding to emergencies (they're still unable to respond to low-priority calls), frequent property crimes, widespread and open drug dealing, prostitution and other crimes. The schools were spotty, with east-side schools dysfunctional and west-side schools competitive with suburban schools. Busing aside, I worked with people who lived on Cleveland's west side but moved out of the city when school board members canceled all sorts of extra-credit and extra-curricular programs at west-side schools because east-side schools didn't have them or couldn't effectively carry them out. They were concerned with the legal issues of offering unequal educational opportunities, so they reduced everything to the lowest common denominator. Very different today. Schools are encouraged to compete with other.

 

Indeed, as much as we still rip on the city of Cleveland. It is at least able to provide basic services or some local CDCs provide an overlay extra services including security, property maintenance, etc.


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I think this would be the best place to post this...

 

Anyway, I am currently working on a research essay for my English composition class, and you guessed it, my topic is Cleveland. I am playing the devil's advocate in this essay even though I love the city, but this is a problem I believe needs to be addressed.

 

I sent a variation of an email to several people at the city office and at DCA. I'll post below what I sent to Marrinucci at DCA. I haven't heard back from anyone yet.... Any ideas on who else to contact? Or could any of you suffice as credible sources voicing your opinions, or does anyone have any extra facts that may be useful? I posted this here because the problem in my paper has to do with the city's recent population trends.

 

 

 

Mr. Marinucci:

 

Hello, my name is N*** J****. I am a student at Riverside High School in Painesville and Lakeland Community College in Kirtland. Currently, I am working on a paper for my English composition class at Lakeland, and I am hoping that you may be able to answer a few questions for me as well as share your opinion on the subject.

 

Our papers are problem and solution research papers, and we were free to pick the subject to write about. I chose to write about Cleveland. I consider the city of Cleveland to be my home, and when I am out of town and people ask where I am from, I tell them "Cleveland with pride." I love this city, and it is easy to tell that the DCA does too. The work your organization has put into downtown is truly astonishing. The downtown is so much more than I remember it being ten years ago when I was younger. DCA's "You & Downtown Cleveland" video just goes to show how far downtown has come, and I am sure you can agree.

 

Earlier this year when your organization released the downtown population estimate and showed that downtown's population has increased nearly 70% in the last decade and is still expected to exponentially grow further, I was absolutely elated. I thought; Cleveland is finally becoming a "big city" once again, with a growing population and booming commercial activity. 

 

However, I also read the forums on UrbanOhio.com quite frequently, and one thread sparked my curiosity and made me think deep and hard about Cleveland's future. http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,28533.0.html This thread is on income inequality, and Cleveland is mentioned quite often throughout the entirety of the discussion. This made me think with the young professionals and commercial development moving to downtown and a few select neighborhoods like Tremont, Ohio City and University Circle; little development is being seen in the surrounding, poverty-stricken areas of the city where the majority of the population resides. It also talks about the city's declining population as a whole. Could the declining population and the big-city costs that won't change with population, affect the downtown negatively?

 

My thesis for this paper is: If the rapid development of Cleveland continues to be contained to the downtown and a few select neighborhoods, then this gentrification and growth could begin to harm the city as a whole.

 

Could it be possible if the downtown keeps growing and the surrounding neighborhoods keep shrinking that the city could no longer support its vibrant new areas in the near future? Or do you think that the development will radiate out further into these neighborhoods from the downtown? I remember reading about Cleveland's last heyday, and the downtown was supported almost entirely by its strong neighborhoods. Cleveland also appeared to have a much more efficient rapid transit system that reached further into these neighborhoods at this time, with a very impressive streetcar network. If the RTA were to build a better rail system once again, could that encourage growth into other neighborhoods, as the Healthline has done on Euclid Avenue? Currently, are there any other orginizations similar to DCA that work to better Cleveland's other neighborhoods? If so, do you think they could become as successful as DCA? And my final question; where do you see the city of Cleveland as a whole in ten years?

 

Thank you so much for taking your time to read this and I would very much appreciate your answers and your opinions on these topics.

 

-N*** J****

 

*I blocked out my name. you never know who is online...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...