WestBLVD

I was having dinner on East 4th last night when a guy with his family walking to the Indians game proclaimed, "Hey, check out the great air conditioning for those apartments!" ... referring to the gaping holes in the side of the building. So sad that even to the general public's eye that building was viewed as apartments, when it wasn't, and could have easily been in a few years. I've never felt so disgusted walking downtown as last night, seeing that building being crumbled is so disheartening. What's more incredible is how quickly it came down. So funny how every development project in Cleveland takes years of planning and bickering and stoppages and starts and redesigns, but when someone gets the idea to tear down a historical structure, it's gone 2 months later. Just sickening.

With the innerbelt lane closures pretty much going into full swing over the past few days, it's no surprise that they delayed this project a few more years. I figured a lot of I-90 traffic would get funneled to the West Shoreway, but didn't expect the heavy volume I've been seeing the past few days. It feels like there are twice as many cars compared to the week before. Clifton and Lake Avenues were a parking lot at rush hour both today and yesterday. I'm not sure how much of a factor this was in delaying the project, but it would be a nightmare to have both of these arteries into downtown under construction at the same time.

cleveland.com blog about ticketing a cyclist for not stopping at stop signs: http://www.cleveland.com/roadrant/index.ssf/2011/07/lakewood_tickets_cyclist_for_m.html Yikes at the comments ... definitely gives a vibe for the general (conservative) public's view on bicycles. Very sad. It definitely brings up the debate about laws for bikes and motor vehicles. It really is a case by case basis. If you are biking through a residential grid pattern street with a 4 way stop at each block, it's entirely different than biking through a red light on a busy road with lots of traffic. I find this on par to citing a pedestrian for crossing at intersection with a "do not walk" sign flashing and not a car in site.

It's looking pretty bad. The sidewalks are unkempt with trash, weeds, and pebbles. The empty car lot around the corner also gives a depressed state feeling. There's so much potential in this general vicinity, but I think it'll take a while. At least Brothers still acts as an anchor.

Arabica Coffee on Detroit and 116th in Cleveland closed after 9.5 years. I'm not terribly surprised as the recent opening of MoCa on Clifton and 104th probably over saturated the coffee market for that general vicinity. No way you can support 4 coffee shops in a half mile radius there.

Also regarding gentrification, the maps on the NY Times site show change in census tract housing vacancies. No surprise that the majority of the region saw an increase in housing vacancies, the notable exception include Ohio City, which saw a 38% decrease in housing vacancies, but of course still lost population, a hint that decreasing household sizes were a likely factor. http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/map

The Edgewater area (anything north of the tracks) similarly parallels the housing stock in Lakewood with alternating streets between single family and multi family homes. I feel as if the streets that are mostly owner occupied are much more stable, W 103rd, which is in my opinion the nicest middle class street in Cleveland, is leaps and bounds different than W 106th which is mostly renters. The transient nature of renting causes homes to quickly fall apart as renters tend to not take care of something as well as if it was theirs, especially if they plan on living there for a year and moving on. In my opinion keeping the Edgewater/Clifton/Cudell area from falling into disrepair rests on preventing any more homes from turning into rental properties and converting existing rental homes into owner occupied units. Would be interesting to see how many more rental units appeared versus owner occupied in the past 10 years. I think this is something that the census records, but not sure if it's out for 2010 yet.

I've always said gentrification is population dropper. Take a street that had working class whites with 2-4 kids per each family, and now replace that household with middle to upper income whites who are most likely: childless young professional couples or singles. It's easy to see how fixed up neighborhoods easily lose population because household size is decreasing. This is also a concern for those interested in density. A lot of Cleveland is 1940-1960 single family housing stock on smaller lots, but still for all intents and purposes suburbia with a city of Cleveland name. While of course still denser than most suburbs, as these households shrank from 5-6 people down to 1 or 2 we now have a problem where the only way to build density is for people to start filling up their house. Even for areas that are traditionally dense and urban, the shrinking household size plays a crucial role because you almost have to build twice as dense just to achieve the same density that the area might have had in 1950. Think of all the singles living in/desiring their own 1,000 sq foot loft apartment.

I think its important to look at every census tract in the rust belt that grew and try to figure out what the primary reason was. From there try to apply that knowledge to other tracts. Conversely, understanding why some tracts lost 15%+ is just as important to mitigate future declines.

Looking at the census tracts for Pittsburgh, their downtown lost as well as the gentrifying Mexican War Streets neighborhood. Their neighborhood gains all came from Shadyside, Squirrel Hill, Southside Flats, and all the areas encompassing their colleges and universities from Duquesne to CMU. It's tough to say that there were missed opportunities to create dense walkable communities. There's definitely been progress made here in Cleveland considering the economic pitfalls of late. But the problem is that much of the city proper of Cleveland was never walkable to begin with, which makes it that much harder than trying to do infill on Euclid or the near west side. In a metro region with negative growth, it's that much harder to focus on dense walkable environments because what is the actual goal? If a city's goal is to not lose any more population, than working on creating great dense walkable environments is not the solution. Sure you can have a goal for downtown to grow 10k by the next census, 2k in the Flats, 3k in Ohio City, 2k in Tremont, 1K in DS, 2k in UC. While this would be incredible for the city to grow 20k new residents in these areas, as long as Hough, Glenville, Collinwood, Mt Pleasant, Corlett, and so on continue to hemorrhage residents by the tens of thousands the city still shrinks and puts a huge burden on the city and in turn inhibits the growth elsewhere. It's a difficult predicament. Cleveland definitely needs dense urban walkable areas to attract new residents, but at the same time needs to put a ton of effort into making Hough, Glenville, Collinwood, Mt Pleasant, Corlett and so on safe, desirable places that people want to live in. There's no doubt in my mind that Cleveland will shrink in the next census. The areas that are targeted for growth make up such a small fraction of the city of Cleveland that even if they do explode in population over the next 10 years they will be more than offset by the continued hemorrhaging of population elsewhere in the city, from which I have read no real plan at addressing. I suppose Cleveland could really embrace the shrinking cities model by getting people to leave their city proper residence for a denser city proper residence. However, how viable is this, both economically and politically by local leadership?

http://www.coolcleveland.com/blog/2011/07/sweet-spot-opens-in-lakewood-serving-gelato/ Another frozen dessert place on the west side, by my count this is at least the fifth in the past year in the area. The article says first gelateria, but Rosso in Rocky River, another gelateria on the same road, opened last fall. The two are maybe 3/4 mile apart. I wish them luck, but I can't help but feel the dessert market is getting oversaturated quickly.

I could see that being the case, but why change the name of the neighborhood in Cleveland that's one of the nicest in the city and replace it with a name that's not well known and associated with a mediocre housing stock? It should ne the reverse, give the neighborhood that's a bit fallen down the same name as a prominent neighborhood. While we are at it, might as well start referring to Edgewater Park as Clifton-Cuddel Park.

Utterly ridiculous. Why in the world would they get rid of the Edgewater name? They just put up new signs too. It's not like residents are going to start saying, I live in Clifton-Cuddel. No one ever uses the Cuddle name. South Brooklyn? Aerotropolis? No Kamms Corners? WTF?

I've been in Ohio 4 years but because I had a newer vehicle, this was the first year that my car was up for an E-Check. While I think it's good that we have a program in place, I couldn't help but think what an absurd waste of emissions the actually test is, and that the test really needs to target the vehicles that are prone to emissions problems. I drove 25 minutes to the nearest testing station on a very cold winter Saturday day. Of course being the weekend there were at least 40 cars in line waiting to be checked. There are giant signs saying do not turn off car engine, and being nearly zero degrees outside, it's not like anyone would want to just turn off their car. So, I sat in line, my car idling for almost 40 minutes with the other 40 cars. They "check" my car, and 2 minutes later I drive 25 minutes back home. In essence that test for me, and for hundreds of thousands in Northeast Ohio creates a HUGE amount of unnecessary emissions each year. I don't know what the pass/fail rate is, but it just seems like it's an almost zero sum game, with the test itself being a large source of pollution. I think they could almost push the age of the car limit to 6 or 7 years to reduce a lot of this unnecessary testing.

The good ole population paradox. The earth can't really sustain any more added people, but yet it seems so many places are vying to add new residents. The economy seems to run on growth = success, but there aren't enough resources on this planet to sustain it much longer. Cleveland.com had a nice table the other day that shows projected population growth to 2050. That table should be very alarming to anyone. Makes you almost feel glad to live in a region/state with decline/slow growth. http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2011/06/india_to_replace_china_as_worl.html Look at Nigeria and Ethopia! Think of the strain on food production/oil consumption this will have. I can only imagine the types of wars and conflicts that would arise from such a population explosion. It just seems inevitable that with a finite number of resources and exponential population growth that the quality of life for the average world person would be hard to increase. Sure, there will be millions of people who will find themselves into a middle class, but millions more finding themselves in poverty. Where exactly is the happy medium in this scenario? What is the world carrying capacity for humans? Even here in Ohio what is the ideal population and age stratification?

I wouldn't mind some clarification on these numbers. We all know that many of the urban ohio areas and some surrounding suburbs lost population ... and a lot of it. Is this just taking into effect the raw hard numbers? If a county lost 100,000 people in a decade, I'd expect most age demographics to lose people in absolute numbers. What would be a bit more interesting to see is the % of that city's population that was under 18 in 2000 and then the % under 18 in 2010. It's definitely possible, especially in the rust belt to lose 1000s of people of an age group, but they might be growing as a % of the population as they are not leaving/dying as fast as another group.

Good point about Zurich. It also has to do with how close said city is to "other big cities" and if said city is the biggest in its political division, e.g. county, region, state, part of country, or in this case country. With the case of Zurich, it's the biggest in the country and also, by European standards, a distance away from another city of its size (e.g. Stuttgart, which is much bigger than Zurich, but doesn't feel "big" because you've got Berlin, Munich, and Frankfurt that oust it). Imagine if you just picked up the Dayton metro area and plopped it in Eastern Montana. It would be considered a big city because there's nothing else for hundreds and hundreds of miles. Just like Fargo is a commonly known place in the US, but yet has only a population of 100K. And then on the flip, most people in the US have never heard of Elizabeth, NJ, a much larger city of 125,000 because it's overshadowed by its proximity to NYC. So I guess, it's all relative!

I think it's the opposite. In my opinion Cleveland feels like a huge city when you walk up East 6th between Euclid and Superior. The tall old brick buildings and narrow street that slightly curves makes you feel like you are in an urban mecca, especially with the small eateries lining the street. I wish all streets downtown were like that, truly my favorite spot downtown. Then there's East 9th and Lakeside. Stand at this intersection flanked by several tall skyscrapers that are set far back from the road and it just doesn't feel like a "big city."

Cleveland.com had a nice graphic showing the cost/tax data: http://media.cleveland.com/cuyahoga-county-road-to-reform/photo/26cgregional2jpg-05cd36efc47b605d.jpg Clearly shows how each municipality has a distinct property tax/income tax structure. I wonder if the taxes would go down to the Woodmere level across the board (which is the only municipality of the 4 that gives a complete income tax credit), if not Woodmere residents, who have household incomes a fraction of the other 3, could wind up paying higher taxes at the expense of the wealthier suburb's tax reductions. The other 3 suburbs have an average credit of about .8%, considering the average household incomes of nearly 200K, that's a savings per household of $1,600 per year ... if the new suburb gave a full income tax credit. The question is how likely would that be and if it's feasible? I think the residents of Woodmere would most likely be the deciding factor for the merger if/when it goes to an election, because they currently pay the least amount of taxes of the 4. This will definitely be interesting to watch this play out over the next year or two!

^ Odd. Those lampposts were installed last fall, I swear they just took them down in the past week or two, perhaps Restoration Hardware has a 270 day return policy. They were really nice looking lampposts too, it'll be interesting to see what the "correct" ones look like.

Whatever happened to the pedestrian tunnels? Last year they installed these really nice white lampposts at the tunnel just past the Clifton/Lake entrance and it looked like all the pavement was set and all that was needed was a little grass landscaping. It now appears that the lampposts have been removed recently and I've seen little if any work on this tunnel for most the spring.

^ ^ I understand where you are coming from. Cheap is a relative term. I know what I spent out of pocket last year for my personal vehicle expenses and it was a drop in the bucket. But, yes that calculator shows some of the externalities, even though I disagree with a lot of the calculations ... 11.9 cents per mile for travel time? PSHAW, that's pure pleasure. I was just trying to gauge whether there's a difference between total miles driven versus the types of trips taken? Someone who takes a round trip from Cleveland to Indianapolis will log about 680 miles over a weekend. Is that impact the same as a suburbanite who logs 680 miles by making 34 shopping trips at Walmart, driving across the street to another store, etc for a total of 20 miles each time? Or to put it in other terms. Sometimes driving is the most fuel efficient way to travel / get a task done. If you are trying to get to a remote area of the country, driving is probably the most fuel efficient way to go. You could fly and rent a car, but you'd probably do more harm. You could take a train or bus to the nearest major city, but then you'd have to hire a taxi to get you to your final spot which isn't any better. Or lets say you need to get a few items at the store: You could drive to a walmart You could walk to a walgreens You could take a bus to the store You could bike in this case driving isn't the best option. So the question is, is total mileage the best gauge of externalities? If two people put the same amount of miles on their car, but one does so in a way that is the worst choice and the other does so in a way where driving was the best choice, should they pay the same?

This is a very interesting thread and has provoked a bit of questions in my head about how we think about transit in the US. I live less than 5 miles from work. I occasionally take public transit depending on weather and mood, and last year I probably drove at most 1,750 miles commuting between home and work and home. But here's the thing I'm embarrassed to admit, I drove 16,000 miles last year. Yep, that means commuting to and from work only made up about 10% of my yearly driving. The problem with the automobile is that it has given so many Americans the freedom to move/travel/explore the world - incredibly cheaply. Since the interstate highway system has been built and a car in everyone's driveway, we've grown accustomed to this freedom. In 1920 an average family wouldn't just say, "hey, let's go to Columbus for the weekend and site see." But today, it's commonplace for so many people every weekend to take day trips that are 100s of miles from home to see a play, ball game, hike, go to a beach, museum, see grandma, etc. The United States is huge, and well, people want to go out and see it. And for the most part, the only way to do that is through the automobile. The title of this thread "rethinking transport in the USA" really got me to think. How do you remove the automobile out of the equation and still let people explore on their own? I look at my own personal situation. Is there ever going to be some way to get me from Cleveland, Ohio to the Poconos to go on a hiking trip without getting in the car? If I want to go have an afternoon in Amish Country, how will I ever do that without my car? I want to go to Mackinac Island for the weekend, how do I do that without my car? The automobile really "drives" the American economy. When a person gets in a car, they're likely to be spending money. Removing people from the car takes a huge chunk out of the economy, especially the travel and tourism industry. I guess my point is that while we try to rethink transport, we have to think about why people are getting in their car and where they are going outside of commuting. If a person still needs to own a car to do all their fun stuff on the weekends, it's much harder for them to leave it in the garage during the workweek. How do you get people to all the places in the US without a car? Before the car people DIDN'T need to visit every place in the US. But, today, the car has given the expectation and created the demand and pleasure of being able to visit every place in the US. A whole economy has been built up around this which is why it's so difficult to replace car with some other feasible mode of transit because it was never needed in the past. Maybe I'm the exception to the rule, but I have no problem paying more for gas or more taxes to drive. I admit my car is my biggest form of entertainment, and I would cut many other expenses before I give up my hobby of road tripping.

Unfortunately Slavic Village sits at the fringe of the most blighted part of Cleveland, which has been encroaching closer each year. Geographically speaking it's isolated today from the new job centers of Cleveland. Downtown just isn't convenient to get to along Broadway and 77 backs up past Fleet frequently. If you ever drive down Union, Harvard, and Miles nearby, it makes you wonder if these neighborhoods can ever be restored to the way they once were. If you start taking inventory of every street in Cleveland based on blight level, there's a telling story about the future population and why we dropped so much in the last census. It's too easy for many here to live in a world where all we see are the few trendy neighborhoods and a downtown that's going through a billion dollars of reinvestment ... these crown jewel neighborhoods make up such a small part of the whole of Cleveland. Slavic Village is a perfect example of a neighborhood that has great urban fabric, but at the moment there just isn't enough gentrification demand in the city to do much about it. What is great about this neighborhood is that it's very active. When the pope was beatified a few weeks ago, there was a parade. I've been to St. Stan's a few times and it's always been packed. The Red Chimney is always busy when I've been and the other Polish restaurants and bakeries have great patronage as well. New eastern European immigrants to Cleveland might find that this neighborhood gives them the sense of community that they are looking for in a new country. I think that new immigration could keep this neighborhood going for a bit longer, even if it doesn't mean a full blown gentrification. Which is the other point to make. Not every neighborhood in Cleveland can be or will be gentrified and figuring out solutions for the residents of these neighborhoods to have healthy, safe, and vibrant communities without yuppies moving in is another critical point in "saving Cleveland."

In a nutshell, "no". I think Cleveland is now a city with less than 400k people and we already have a number of neighborhoods where development and seeds are being focused. Cleveland doesn't have the resources to nurture these areas as it is, they have to do it on their own and some are thriving, some are struggling. People might tell you that Slavic Village is on the priority list for the city, but it's not from what I've seen. It's sad, but true. Detroit Shoreway/Ohio City/Tremont/Downtown/UC/LI are really the only areas of the city where the seeds are being nurtured to their full extent. Sadly, these neighborhoods probably make up 10-20% of Cleveland's total population. The resources just aren't there for the rest of the city. As these neighborhoods continue to blossom there will inevitably be spillovers into the neighboring areas. However Slavic Village's isolation from any one of these seeds is too far to benefit from spillover. It will take a lot of local citizen activism and neighborhood pride to maintain what they have, but a drive down many of the streets tells the story of how quickly things are slipping away. I think there's great architecture and great spaces in Slavic Village that maybe in 10-20 years it could be the next Tremont, but how far will it slip before there's enough demand to fully gentrify it remains to be seen.