8ShadesofGray

On the neighborhood front, here are the differences between 1990 and 2010 (same methodology as above ... just looking back to 1990 instead of stopping at 2008). First number in parentheses is their rank among the 36 neighborhoods (lower number = lower crime rate). Second number in parentheses is their rank in 1990. Third number is the percentage change in crime rates between 1990 and 2010. Just as a note, this is a very loooong time period ... Many of these neighborhoods have had pronounced change, either positive or negative, just in the last few years; I'd recommend cross-referencing with the 2008-2010 data above. "Safe" Neighborhood, Getting Safer Kamms Corners (1) (1), -15.3% Buckeye-Shaker (6) (15), -9.4% "Unsafe" Neighborhood, Getting Safer Downtown (36) (36), -72.0% Ohio City (28) (32), -25.8% Central (31) (33), -25.8% Goodrich-Kirtland Park (35) (34), -21.2% Previously "Unsafe" Neighborhood, Now "Safe" Industrial Valley (16) (35), -66.0% University (9) (28), -36.0% Tremont (15) (25), -15.5% "Unsafe" Neighborhood, Staying the Same Fairfax (32) (31), 0.0% "Safe" Neighborhood, Getting Less Safe Old Brooklyn (3) (2), 39.1% Mt. Pleasant (17) (14), 34.5% Union-Miles (18) (16), 27.6% Corlett (14) (9), 26.7% Puritas-Longmead (4) (4), 26.6% Lee-Miles (5) (5), 25.3% North Collinwood (10) (7), 22.6% Brooklyn Centre (13) (10), 21.2% Jefferson (7) (6), 15.9% Euclid-Green (12) (11), 12.9% Riverside (2) (3), 6.9% West Boulevard (8 ) (8 ), 6.4% Edgewater (11) (17), 1.4% "Unsafe" Neighborhood, Getting Less Safe North Broadway (33) (26), 34.4% South Collinwood (29) (21), 34.3% Glenville (27) (20), 25.8% Cudell (24) (19), 25.4% St. Clair-Superior (30) (27), 16.7% Woodland Hills (23) (23), 10.9% Stockyards (21) (22), 13.9% Hough (26) (29), 11.3% Kinsman (34) (30), 8.7% Detroit-Shoreway (22) (24), 7.3% Previously "Safe" Neighborhood, Now "Unsafe" Forest Hills (20) (13), 43.0% South Broadway (19) (12), 41.4% Clark-Fulton (25) (18), 34.8%

Hey all, I posted 2008 - 2010 numbers above ... Had an opportunity to look at a broader range, from 1990 - 2010; here's some high-end findings: - In the past 20 years, crime rates were the highest in 2001. There's been a pretty steady decline in crime rates since then ... Crime rates were 10.0% lower in 2010 than they were in 2001. - In fact, crime rates as of 2010 (15,776 crimes per 100,000 residents) are about the same they were in 1990. In the past 20-year span, 2010 ranked the sixth "safest" year, after 2009 (15,758), 1990 (15,689), 1992 (15,381), 1994 (15,177) and 1993 (15,069). - The fact that we've been shrinking in population during the same time period reduces the visibility of the fact that total crimes committed have decreased pretty remarkably over 20 years. In 2010, a total of 62,602 crimes were reported in the city of Cleveland. Compare that with 79,331 crimes reported in 1990 ... arguably one of the other "safe" years in Cleveland. That's a 21.1% decline in total crimes between 1990 and 2010 ... Unfortunately, we had a similiar percentage decline in population, so our per capita crime rates look about the same.

Overall, I think Phase 2 is looking decent, although I do share some of the reservations about having bars and restaurants separated by relatively large expanses ... Particularly in a city that seems incredibly reluctant to walk from block to block in dense areas, let alone sparse areas. My biggest concern, though, is the pretty substantial surface parking separating Phase 1 from Phase 2. It just seems like a tremendous dead space that reduces the likelihood that people in one set of buildings will access amenities in the other set. All things being equal, I think you would have a lot more sense of energy had they placed the apartments over retail/restaurants/structured parking (in rendering as a later phase) and left the large "beach" section opposite the river ... Then place more mixed use where the beach is in later phases.

There are actually a smattering of vacant storefronts in the blocks around League Park that could feasibly be restored if there was market demand and community will power to do so ... And I think a rehabilitated park and historic structures would at least marginally increase residential rehabs in the surrounding blocks. Even if it fails to generate any development investment around it, though, I can't see it failing as a park, and this is a neighborhood that could almost certainly use more community gathering space and greenspace.

^^ It might be a little chicken-and-egg here. I'm all for stabilizing surrounding housing and creating building blocks for supporting a big cultural amenity, but I think there's plenty of examples of places where the cultural amenity has served as the cornerstone for private market interest in surrounding housing. It's hard for me to imagine the uptick of people moving to Detroit Shoreway without Cleveland Public Theatre there when it was still really rough ... Or Tremont without the artists buying up derelict houses for $5,000 or $10,000 for gallery conversions ... Or North Collinwood's vacancy rates dropping without the Beachland and the other hipster businesses that followed. All of these were cultural amenities that opened in places where people thought, I don't know how sustainable that is, but became destinations in their own right and catalyzed revitalization around them.

^ Makes sense to me ... particularly opposite previous thoughts about significantly altering the tower or doing demo/new construction, the more recent demolition of historic buildings for the valet center and the proposed parking conversion of the lower floors of May.

Wow, that is not a user-friendly tabulation of scores! If I'm reading correctly, it looks like it was removed following scoring due to project cost concerns. Otherwise, it looks like it scored pretty well. I know some people will be excited, but I'm sad to see that this project did not go through.

Incredibly fast ... It looks like they've already moved on to capping the fourth floor at Chester and 21st today!

:o

Assuming this is being funded through competitive grants, ward funds, etc. in a way that's not drawing resources away from other revitalization efforts, I don't see how you could oppose it. While there may be a lot of urban ills nearby, there's been a great deal of in-fill in the neighborhood, and smaller projects like Chateau Hough (urban vineyard a couple blocks away) are already starting to change perceptions about the neighborhood. That, together with proximity to the Cleveland Clinic, University Circle destinations and the slow build-out happening in Midtown seems reason enough to be investing in Hough ... even if this wasn't an incredibly important cultural amenity in its own right, which it is.

FWIW, I've worked directly next door to a permanent supportive housing building run by the same people for the past 7 years. It's a well-maintained property, residents are quiet and I haven't heard of a single incidence of crime committed in the neighborhood by anyone living there. Honestly, if I hadn't seen it on a map of their properties, I wouldn't even know that the tenants being served were the chronically homeless. Based on that experience, I think some of the anxiety about this project will dissipate if it's ultimately built. If anything, I think this type of facility makes a place feel safer, not less safe, because it reduces the volume of homeless people living on the street or overcrowding our shelters. And the renderings to date really do look like an incredible improvement for a property that hasn't contributed much to the street in quite a long time. I know we'll all approach this from different angles, but I'd be a yay vote for this project.

I think one interesting question for our film festival is just what the capacity is to grow much bigger. Having seen what a madhouse it becomes down there, and how hard the largely volunteer staff works on behalf of the event is, I don't question that there's additional audience out there ... but wow, I can't imagine Tower City accommodating it, let alone individual theaters that are more often than not packed to the gills. With record attendances every single year lately, I have to imagine organizers are thinking about how you accommodate a bigger audience by lengthening the festival or adding more screenings around town (with the logistical issues of getting out-of-towners there). And then there's always the elephant in the room of the casino and what it might do to Forest City's tenant strategy. I can't even imagine what the film festival would be like if Tower City Cinema wasn't in play!

I consider myself fairly liberal and pretty pro-union. I absolutely believe in unions' rights to voice their opinions, to assemble, etc. I just don't understand their suggestion that local hiring should be on par with city rules, when city funds were not used.

Berlinale is the other "marquee" festival that I think of ... 300,000 tickets sold to 965 screenings of 385 films (including 100 short films) on approximately 50 screens. Yeah, I'd say Cleveland's 85,000 and 320 films is doing pretty freaking great given the difference in exposure, cache and budget ($25.5 million versus $1.7 million ... although, to be fair, Berlinale does a lot more ancillary programming, not to mention a much more substantial industry element, including more than 15,000 industry professionals and nearly 4,000 journalists).

I'm almost positive that Steelyard falls into the Tremont SPA. Clark-Fulton is a little to the west ... roughly bound by Clark, Scranton, I-71 and W. 49th Street. Stockyards is the next SPA to the west of that ... roughly Clark to I-71, W. 49th to W. 73rd / Ridge Road.

One more way to look at the data, and then I swear I'll stop :) - Considers neighborhoods "safe" when they're one of the 18 in the city with the lowest crime rates, as of 2010. - Considers neighborhoods "unsafe" when they're one of the 18 with the highest crime rates. - Considers neighborhoods getting safer when the crime rate decreased from 2008 to 2010. - Considers neighborhoods getting less safe when the crime rate increased from 2008 to 2010. - Considers neighborhoods staying the same when the crime rate stayed about the same between 2008 and 2010. "Safe" Neighborhood, Getting Safer Buckeye-Shaker (6), -11.7% Industrial Valley (16), -10.2% North Collinwood (10), -8.9% University (9), -8.1% Riverside (2), -7.2% Jefferson (7), -6.8% West Boulevard (8 ), -3.9% Union-Miles (18), -1.5% "Unsafe" Neighborhood, Getting Safer Downtown (36), -23.0% Goodrich-Kirtland (aka Asiatown) (35), -15.1% South Collinwood (29), -11.0% Forest Hills (20), -9.4% North Broadway (33), -7.4% Glenville (27), -7.0% Cudell (24), -6.4% Kinsman (34), -6.2% Ohio City (28), -6.1% South Broadway (19), -5.0% St. Clair Superior (30), -4.4% Detroit Shoreway (22), -2.9% Woodland Hills (23), -2.3% "Safe" Neighborhood, Staying the Same Corlett (14), -0.1% Brooklyn Centre (13), 0.0% Puritas-Longmead (4), 0.1% "Unsafe" Neighborhood, Staying the Same Hough (26), 0.0% "Safe" Neighborhood, Getting Less Safe Old Brooklyn (3), 26.4% Lee-Miles (5), 7.9% Edgewater (11), 4.7% Kamms Corners (1), 4.6% Mt. Pleasant (17), 4.3% Tremont (15), 4.1% Euclid-Green (12), 1.8% "Unsafe" Neighborhood, Getting Less Safe Fairfax (32), 15.1% Central (31), 14.1% Clark-Fulton (25), 8.4% Stockyards (21), 1.1%

What the hell? Here's the full ranking :) Difference in Crime Rates in Cleveland Neighborhoods, 2008 - 2010 *Numbers in parentheses are where they rank in terms of total crimes per capita; lower the number, the lower the crime rate in relationship to other Cleveland neighborhoods. Drops in Crime Downtown (36), -23.0% Goodrich-Kirtland (aka Asiatown) (35), -15.1% Buckeye-Shaker (6), -11.7% South Collinwood (29), -11.0% Industrial Valley (16), -10.2% Forest Hills (20), -9.4% North Collinwood (10), -8.9% University (9), -8.1% North Broadway (33), -7.4% Riverside (2), -7.2% Glenville (27), -7.0% Jefferson (7), -6.8% Cudell (24), -6.4% Kinsman (34), -6.2% Ohio City (28), -6.1% South Broadway (19), -5.0% St. Clair Superior (30), -4.4% West Boulevard (8 ), -3.9% Detroit Shoreway (22), -2.9% Woodland Hills (23), -2.3% Union-Miles (18), -1.5% CITY AS A WHOLE, -1.2% No Real Change in Crime Corlett (14), -0.1% Brooklyn Centre (13), 0.0% Hough (26), 0.0% Puritas-Longmead (4), 0.1% Increases in Crime Stockyards (21), 1.1% Euclid-Green (12), 1.8% Tremont (15), 4.1% Mt. Pleasant (17), 4.3% Kamms Corners (1), 4.6% Edgewater (11), 4.7% Lee-Miles (5), 7.9% Clark-Fulton (25), 8.4% Central (31), 14.1% Fairfax (32), 15.1% Old Brooklyn (3), 26.4%

At least as far as reported crime, it looks like crime rates are staying at about the same level, maybe some moderate decreases, actually. I did a basic analysis a couple months back through NEOCANDO on total crime rates in the city of Cleveland between 2008 and 2010 (most recent years available; keep in mind that this includes everything from murder, rape and arson down to drunk and disorderly, vandalism, etc.). 2008, Total Crimes: 65,958 2009, Total Crimes: 63,816 2010, Total Crimes: 62,602 2008, Crimes per 100,000 residents: 15,964.9 2009, Crimes per 100,000 residents: 15,757.56 2010, Crimes per 100,000 residents: 15,775.56 Of course, rates are not universal across the city. Some places are showing marked decreases. Cleveland's "most dangerous neighborhood", Downtown (not really ... the per capita numbers are wildly inflated because they're based solely on number of residents, not workers, visitors, etc.) saw a 23.0% drop in crime rates between 2008 and 2010 (that's pretty staggering!). Asiatown, with the second highest crime rate (again, largely due to only counting residents and not thousands of workers), saw a 15.1% drop in crime over the same two years. Buckeye-Shaker (6th lowest crime rate) saw an 11.7% drop. Old Brooklyn saw a dramatic increase in crime rates, 26.4% over those two years. This is BY FAR the biggest neighborhood-level spike, but it's still undoubtedly a very safe neighborhood. As of 2010, it had the 3rd lowest crime rate of Cleveland's 36 neighborhoods. Even with that big uptick in reported crimes, Old Brooklyn logged 9,384.86 crimes per 100,000 residents; for comparison's sake, Ohio City's rate was 19,910.98, more than twice as high ... and after a 6.1% decrease in crime rates between 2008 and 2010. Also high on the "spike list" ... Fairfax (5th highest crime rate) saw a 15.1% increase in crime rates. Central (6th highest crime rate) saw a 14.1% increase. All in all, though, it looks like crime numbers look like they haven't changed all that much, at least as of 2010. Will have to see if this trend remains true in 2011 and 2012. And if I was DCA, I'd be selling the hell out of the crime rate drop downtown :)

Really liked Hodge's. Beautiful build-out and the food was very good. Drinks were STOUT ... I got a little drunk off of a cosmo. Haha. I was a fan of Zinc, but I think Hodge's is using the space more effectively, and it was pretty packed last night ...

My guess (my hope) is that population would stabilize or that net out-migration would at least slow considerably. But regardless of whether we're growing, shrinking or staying the same, I'd be surprised if the list of places people are most inclined to move to within the city changes much. Depending on what happens with UCI's current strategy, you might also see some promise in Glenville, Fairfax and maybe Hough, but I'd say the best places to target money so population DOES stabilize are downtown, University Circle, Near West and Near East.

Anyone take Urban Spatial Structures at Levin? I remember one particular model about housing redevelopment that argued that starting rehab where the fetching price is the highest provides the greatest return for a local economy. The idea is that someone moves into the new unit from one that's slightly less nice, and then someone moves into that unit from one that's slightly less nice than that one, down the line, until you hit the unit that no one wants to live in. So someone moves from Willoughby into a new one downtown, someone from Euclid moves to Willoughby, someone from Glenville moves to Euclid, someone from Central moves to Glenville ... And then the unit in Central probably unfortunately gets demolished. So theoretically, you've improved the living situation of multiple people. If you start with the rehab in Glenville, and the same buyer from Central moves in, the house in Central probably still gets demolished, but you haven't triggered the additional perceives "moves up" for the individuals at the top of the list. Just a model but I think an interesting one. Based on census numbers (assuming migration is the same in the next decade as it was the last), the model would suggest the best places to spend dollars on living space are downtown, University Circle, and to a lesser degree the Near West and Near East neighborhoods and then some "edge" neighborhoods like Kamm's and Riverside. Regardless, if we're continuing to construct and rehab living space in a region with stagnant population and a county with shrinking population, there are definitely going to be new pockets of vacancy. I think that's largely going to be a result of where people find value in living, which IMHO spells continued trouble for some of Cleveland's eastern and southwestern neighborhoods. I'd reiterate, though, that the inner ring suburbs should be worried, too. The fact of the matter is that regardless of where individuals are choosing to locate, the central city just has more robust infrastructure to address issues like vacancy, as evidenced by NPI starting to do work in the heights. Through the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, 16 Cleveland neighborhoods have stepped up demolition of severely distressed property but have also leveraged a lot of resources toward rehab of 1- and 2-family houses. Plus, they've developed 5-10 year plans for how they reposition vacancy as an opportunity for revitalization and community asset building. There's also been a sizable but quiet foreclosure prevention campaign that's targeting at-risk owners before actions are actually filed. To the best of my knowledge, there are only 4 Neighborhood Stabilization areas outside of the city proper, and their infrastructure in these suburbs is considerable smaller.

Mods, is there a better place for the inner ring suburbs convo? Wasn't sure ... Closest thing I found was this: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,26624.msg601242.html#msg601242 I ask because I just ran across this article about inner ring suburbs looking to Neighborhood Progress to potentially provide services (with a focus on how the foreclosure crisis is impacting Shaker) ... Which I think speaks to the increasing competitive advantages falling on the city proper, or at least to Cleveland's far more comprehensive community development infrastructure. Cleveland agency may help fix Shaker Heights homes Saturday, March 24, 2012 By Thomas Jewell, Sun News SHAKER HEIGHTS Neighborhood Progress Inc., for 20 years a stalwart in rebuilding and revitalizing Cleveland neighborhoods, could be making its first foray into the inner-ring suburbs. This could help in dealing with continued fallout from the mortgage crisis in communities like Shaker and Cleveland Heights, where NPI President and CEO Joel Ratner said there are hundreds of abandoned homes. “We’ve been talking to local officials, and we’ve applied for a $1 million grant from the U.S. Treasury Department, which could put us into the inner ring suburbs for the first time,” Ratner said at a March 18 community forum at First Unitarian Church of Cleveland on Shaker Boulevard ... ... More at http://www.cleveland.com/shaker-heights/index.ssf/2012/03/cleveland_agency_may_help_fix.html

^ http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20120402/W25THGALLERY/120329830/1237/W25thGallery

^^ Couldn't agree more. The more I've worked around the community development world, though, the more I've come to believe that so much of neighborhood stabilization is creating a sense of positive momentum ... or at least mitigating perceptions of negative momentum. The perceived turn-around of places like the Near West Side and University Circle haven't taken all that long in the grand scheme of things. The biggest impediment to private investment in an area seems to me to be the perception that it won't work or that there's not enough other positive activity to benefit that investment. And despite some great successes in places like North Collinwood, you really have to break through the barrier of long-term negative perceptions before it takes hold in a meaningful way ... I can't tell you how many times I hear people describe Collinwood as dangerous, even though it has significantly lower crime rates than the Near West neighborhoods or downtown. All that to say, for neighborhoods like Edgewater, the best way to shore up neighborhoods is to string together some visible "wins" so that people don't think that the neighborhood is stagnating, or worse yet, declining. Once you go on the "undesirable/scary" list, it can be really hard to climb back, regardless of investment or on-the-ground conditions improving (Slavic Village or Brooklyn Center come to mind).

One other thing that's interesting about locational decisions for transplants is the huge role employers and schools have played in steering people toward living in particular areas. When I moved to Cleveland with a friend in 2002, the only information we got from Case's medical school (his reason for moving) was listings from Shaker Square and Shaker Heights ... not even anything in Cleveland Heights and definitely nothing in Little Italy, University Circle, downtown, Near West, etc. Moving from out of state, not knowing the city well at all and only having a few days to look at apartments, we didn't even consider anywhere outside of the Square or along Van Aken. My guess is a lot of young relocaters who've ended up in Middleburg Heights or Westlake or whatnot have been steered there by an employer or a school. A lot has changed since 2002. I think there's been a huge shift toward wanting to live somewhere denser and more urban among young people, both generally and particularly among the sort of young people we're increasingly attracting (medical community, arts community, etc.). It seems like a lot of people are being more active in finding a neighborhood that matches their specific preferences, and the Internet has come a long way in supporting people's searches ... as evidenced by the number of relocation advice requests we get on here :) Finally, as people in positions of authority become more "urban friendly", I'd expect that we'll see more people finding their way to our city neighborhoods.