Jump to content
Guest urbanlife

Cleveland: Population Trends

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Dougal said:

I was hopeful that when construction numbers began consistently exceeding tear-downs the population would turn around.  BUT ... tear-downs are not the same as abandonments, which are still high. Factor in declining family size, and the recent growth in OC, UC, and downtown still doesn't equal net growth.

 

For now, I think the region needs to be happy with the outcome of the demographic churn accompanying a near static population: a more educated, higher-earing, younger population is driving the recent regional economic improvements.

Agreed. But it's not just those neighborhoods anymore. You have apartment projects and townhome projects in Hough, Glenville, Fairfax, UC, Little Italy, and even Larchmere. Some of those projects are big and will help defray losses in those neighborhoods. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We'd be seeing the city-wide growth even sooner, or it could be happening already, if there wasn't such an enormous level of disparity between opportunities for people in different parts of the metro area.  As a city we are paying the price of decades of segregation and racism.  A lot of the growth in the near-west, UC, downtown, etc. is people who benefited and are now moving back into the city (children of suburban families, downsizers, or people moving back to the city in their 30s from other metros).  This sort of trend is going to help broaden the tax base in the city, improve the schools, improve infrastructure, and encourage investment city-wide, and I think we are starting to see more of the broader growth spread into those areas and for benefits of investment to be felt city-wide, but it takes time to fix decades of purposeful neglect.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, KFM44107 said:

Agreed. But it's not just those neighborhoods anymore. You have apartment projects and townhome projects in Hough, Glenville, Fairfax, UC, Little Italy, and even Larchmere. Some of those projects are big and will help defray losses in those neighborhoods. 

 

You're absolutely right and I think Hough will be the next hot spot.  I just didn't want a long list to take away from my point that the demographic 'quality' gains are enough for now to cause a huge economic gain for the area (while hoping that the virus disruption is fleeting). 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Yes, while the population remains stagnant that doesn't take into account the fact that the numbers are churning and the churn is replacing a poorer group with a wealthier group. Say what you will about economic displacement/gentrification but in one of the poorer cities in the US those changes benefit the city in a number of ways i.e. more tax dollars to the city, more $ spent locally, probably greater citizen participation in the neighborhood. 

 

And as a card carrying liberal I will say the new residents add to diversity because the old CLE had a greater percentage of minorities as well as poorer people. Diversity is good. Economic diversity is good. So is Ethnographic diversity. We need it all. New energy, new ideas, new life and yes, new money too. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another important thing in this discussion is that the average size household is still declining.  There could be more overall households and still less overall people.  I think this is one of the biggest factors in there still being a population decline.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just mentioned this in the Ohio population thread, but Ohio City and Tremont have not been exploding in population in recent years except perhaps the last two or three. The decline in household size hadn't been offset enough by new units. One or two person households of high earners moving in and replacing a working class nuclear family or multi-generational home, while good for the city budget are not good in the census numbers. I think only now with the explosion in multi-family construction in those neighborhoods will be be seeing true growth. Downtown and UC have exploded in population because there has been pretty much nothing but new multi family construction. I imagine Little Italy has been similar to the near west side with chopped up 4 unit houses being rehabbed into SFHs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/22/2020 at 2:15 PM, PoshSteve said:

I just mentioned this in the Ohio population thread, but Ohio City and Tremont have not been exploding in population in recent years except perhaps the last two or three. The decline in household size hadn't been offset enough by new units. One or two person households of high earners moving in and replacing a working class nuclear family or multi-generational home, while good for the city budget are not good in the census numbers. I think only now with the explosion in multi-family construction in those neighborhoods will be be seeing true growth. Downtown and UC have exploded in population because there has been pretty much nothing but new multi family construction. I imagine Little Italy has been similar to the near west side with chopped up 4 unit houses being rehabbed into SFHs.

Ya. That type of density is what it's going to take to move the population needle. However the per capita income is definitely up. 

Edited by KFM44107
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


"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
1 hour ago, KJP said:

 

Seems to me there’s a big gap in that analysis, namely it doesn’t look at tracts that were between 20% and 30% poverty and are no longer in that range. If you look even at the east coast cities there aren’t a lot of tracts that met the narrow definition. Maybe 8 tracts in DC, a few less in Baltimore, and only 1 in Pittsburgh.

 

Edit: Also seems arbitrary to pick 1980 as a baseline. Lots of the tracts on the west side increased their poverty rates from 1980-2020 but have declined since 2010 or even 2000 according to their data.

Edited by bumsquare
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes a study can take too long a of a view.  Looking at 2000-2020 would be more illuminating than 1980-2020 because the declines of the 80's and 90's were catastrophic across so much of the city.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The High Poverty Map is cool, but I'm not sure what useful story it tells. If you look at Cleveland in isolation it looks bad, but if you compare to most other cities, you simply realize that most cities have not reduced poverty since 1980 in a way that would show up on this map. Cleveland at least has a few "blue" areas. Nashville doesn't even have any! Nashville! Neither does Phoenix! So I'm not sure what the map has to do with population or economic growth other than perhaps to suggest the U.S. as a whole is doing a poor job of raising people in urban areas out of poverty.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...