8ShadesofGray

Herzlich Willkommen in Ohio. Ich kann nicht Cincinnati erklaeren, weil ich in Cleveland wohne, aber ich hoffe dass deine Zeit hier dir gefaellt.

I'm not sure that they were given special incentives beyond what any business would be to either move into the city or to retain workforce numbers in the city. If you visit the city's Department of Economic Development (http://www.city.cleveland.oh.us/CityofCleveland/Home/Government/CityAgencies/EconomicDevelopment/Brownfield), you can see that the city offers a variety of standardized incentives, including low-interest loans, forgivable loans and grants to expand and retain number of employees, to reclaim vacant property, to reclaim brownfields, to invest within the Design District, etc. All of these incentives are scalable based on the degree which a particular company advances a particular objective ... typically the number of full-time equivalent jobs they agree to add or retain within the city. I have not seen anything to indicate that this company was provided any incentives beyond those typically given to a business that is locating or expanding in Cleveland. Moreover, I think you would have to be using a pretty liberal definition of "poaching" here unless we knew for certain that a) the city actively promoted these incentives to this company and b) that the incentive package was beyond what is typically provided by Mayfield Heights and comparable municipalities.

Okay, agreeing to disagree on a LOT of elements of gentrification. Regarding your statement above, however ... That seems to accept a given that no regional market is providing artists with a compelling enough package to move. Assuming that the majority of artists want to have an ownership opportunity (and our survey suggested that, among 470 respondents nationwide, 91% would prefer to own their living space and 74% would prefer to own their arts-related workspace), and assuming that the city of Columbus (as well as all Columbus neighborhoods) provided no assistance to artists to purchase their spaces, then at least a portion of Columbus's artist population might be drawn to live in another city altogether. Again with our survey, of 316 respondents living outside of greater Cleveland, 21% expressed willingness to relocate to Cleveland for access to affordable space. This might not seem like an overwhelming amount, but that means that more than 60 artists, just from this small survey set, would be willing to relocate to a city with a somewhat negative or indifferent brand image nationwide, often despite the fact that they have no connection to the city. About 11% (about 35) expressed strong willingness. Of 13 different factors that might influence their decision (including access to grant money, assistance in selling their work, low-cost health insurance, etc.), space was identified as the primary factor that would lead them to move to Cleveland (it would be a prime factor for 51% of respondents). My point being ... if we hold all things constant, and artists continue to move around within Columbus, I can to a degree understand your point. But if all things are NOT constant, and a city like Pittsburgh or Cleveland or Cincy offered artists a more compelling reason to become residents and facilitated ownership, Columbus would lose the population in general. I think this is already happening to a degree. As was discussed on CU recently, Cleveland is in the process of giving away $800,000 in fellowships to artists, is exploring ways to get artists ownership opportunities and gives them access to low-cost health insurance and business training. Columbus unfortunately has had to suspend their $25,000 fellowship program and lacks a lot of artist support programs. Given the significant potential for out-migration of this population, it seems like it might be a safer bet for Columbus to encourage an ownership stake in the community.

I'm curious as to what people think of one particular population that seems to get particularly squeezed in gentrification ... artists. Deservedly or not, these individuals are increasingly linked to gentrification. They are sometimes distrusted by existing residents, seen as a harbinger of displacement and rising expenses to come (Brooklyn pops to mind). At the same time, surveying that my organization has done suggests that they are particularly engaged in neighborhood improvement ... leading education projects with neighborhood children, creating public art and beautification campaigns, renovating dilapidated spaces, opening small galleries and performance spaces, etc. But they often don't get to enjoy the fruits of their labors. Because they are overwhelmingly a low-income population and a sizable proportion are renters, they are often displaced by influxes of mid- to high-income influxes. So the more successful they are in actively helping to improve neighborhoods, the more likely market rates will rise and they will have to leave. I'm just wondering what perspectives people have on this sub-section of the population as relates to gentrification ... or any low- to mid-income sub-section that's actively involved in neighborhood revitalization. I actually think a lot of us might fit in this category. Should they enjoy any particular protections for their efforts? If a CDC or city recruits them as a revitalization strategy, do they owe them any long-term commitments?

Haha. No, income isn't everything. Agreed. Are San Francisco's pricey neighborhoods teetering on the edge? No. But a local economy that is building exclusively for one particular income range is dangerous in the same way that overreliance on one particular industry, whether that industry be manufacturing or biotech, is. You cannot always predict the trends before they happen, and diversifying economic mix, whether it be mix of widgets or mix of residents, decreases the risk of a sudden, cataclysmic economic decline (or, for that matter a sudden, cataclysmic economic advancement in a neighborhood, one that prevents careful planning and strategy on land use, etc. See Fairfax aka the neighborhood the Cleveland Clinic ate for one example).

Again, I know it is largely not a problem in Ohio cities, at least not in the near future, but allowing market pressures to solely dictate the direction of urban centers can in fact mean pushing everyone out but the wealthy few. According to a presentation from Strategic Economics, in the Bay Area, the percentage of Bay Area residents who can afford a median-value home has sunk from 27% in 1999 to 12% in 2005. 21% of residents commute more than 45 minutes to work, the second-highest concentration of long-distance commuters in the country. That represents a huge shift of the population to the periphery of the region and forcing lower-income and middle-income residents to pay a substantially larger portion of their income on transportation. Is that going to happen in Ohio? Again, not likely. But displacement of residents does have some negative impacts even at the neighborhood level (I'm modifying this list from Economic Strategies because I like what they have to say :)). - Displacement can lower health and education outcomes for low-income residents, presumably because it pushes them into equally dire economic situations, crime, etc. without the social capital (churches, neighbors, schools, etc.) that they had accumulated in their previous neighborhood. From a macroeconomic standpoint, it is not unthinkable that lower social and economic outcomes could in turn lead to greater reliance on social services or spikes in crime, costs that get born by taxpayers of the city (unless they're gentrified beyond municipal borders, and then these costs just get shifted to someone else). - In addition to their social networks being interrupted, low-income residents can lose access to an important network of social and workforce services that are typically co-located near city centers. If an individual is having to take a 30-minute bus ride to a workforce agency that used to be right down the street, the likelihood that they attend is going to go down dramatically. At a macro level, if enough people are shifted away from social service centers and employment centers, our already meager success rates for transitioning people out of poverty goes down. - Economic stratification of neighborhoods also increases the risk of "downward spiral" of the area. Because migration and mobility become much more possible as one's financial means increase, I would question whether higher-income residents would increase the likelihood of neighborhood stability more than their lower-income predecessors. http://communityinnovation.berkeley.edu/presentations/GCC-Dena-Belzer.pdf

I think part of the philosophical differences being brought up in this thread have to do with outcome. Granted, a "$250,000 price of admission" is rare in Ohio, but if we're talking more generally, certainly there are large swaths of Chicago, NYC, LA, Boston, San Fran, etc. where it indeed is the case. Even assuming that the median income of a neighborhood is $75,000, which I do think is attainable in a number of Ohio neighborhoods, I feel that I have a far less vested interest in seeing that neighborhood succeed, as I'm not going to be able to enjoy it's success, or at least not as a resident. You can make a strong argument that the additional tax revenue will benefit the city, but unless that funding is directly being put into services or programs that advance the existing residential population, I again don't really care. While I think it's healthy for people to be migrating back into the city, a neighborhood (even a small one) that caters exclusively or nearly exclusively to in-migrants seems less desirable than one that gives benefit to people who were actively transforming the neighborhood or even those who simply endured low quality of life there and still remained. As for renters not being vested in their neighborhood, I (and I think many of us forumers) are not financially in a position to own right now, or prefer renting to owning, and yet I think we prove that we're passionate defenders of our cities and neighborhoods and are incredibly vested in their success. I guess I just define success a little differently than you :)

I'm not trying to indicate that reinvestment in a neighborhood is bad. What I am suggesting is that: a. Even on the political level, gentrification trends are so nuanced that any response has to be done at the municipal level, where the local context can be taken into account. Cincy's response to gentrification (or even what it defines as gentrification) is going to be radically different than San Francisco's. b. If done strategically, reinvestment can occur without drastic displacement. There are all sorts of methods for ensuring that existing residents remain (permanently affordable units through a land trust, CDC ownership of affordable units, wealth-building programs, homeownership assistance for existing residents, etc.), even as real estate pressures step up. Neighborhoods that do this early can ensure that the neighborhood ultimately is a healthy mix of incomes. At least for Ohio, given the sheer amount of available land within our big cities' footprints, there is no reason that we have to choose between the wealthy and the poor ... both can have a place. c. From a philosophical standpoint, I guess I have a problem with the notion that the primary determinant as to whether someone can enjoy the revitalization of an area is their income, rather than their longevity of residency or existing investment in the neighborhood (even as a renter). Would a neighborhood look better if only people at or above $250,000 a year could afford it than if the median income was $75,000 or $50,000 or $10,000. Probably. But I also wonder if we're too concentrated on the outcome for the physical environment, rather than for the residents themselves.

I think it's fascinating. Without focusing on the particular quality of the art, I think without a doubt that it is drawing attention to the city's severe economic problems and abandonment ... and pointing out that people are still there and still investing in the neighborhood, even if it might be investment that you don't personally like. All I know is that Heidelberg gets an insane amount of buzz among the arts crowd, so if it drives visitors there and provokes thought, more power to it. Detroit really seems to be developing an interesting niche in "statement art" and "statement artists". In addition to Heidelberg and "Disneyland", check out the Power House (http://powerhouseproject.com/blog/) and the Unreal Estate Agency (http://detroitunrealestateagency.blogspot.com/).

That's exactly my point. It is incredibly difficult to talk about gentrification coast to coast or throughout the developed world. And I think we miss a lot in the nuance. Recognizing in this discussion that not all poor people behave alike, not all rich people behave alike and not all gentrification processes and timelines unfold the same would strengthen it IMHO. So, for instance, I think talking about what gentrification constitutes in Ohio cities or deindustrializing cities or slow market cities is largely different than what it means in Boston or San Francisco. The level of economic stratification that occur, the distance that people are displaced and the speed with which it occurs varies so drastically between a Buffalo and a NYC that it's almost impossible to have a high-end philosophical debate about how gentrification is playing out in the U.S. Regardless, though, it would be great if anyone has any interesting models that they could share regarding how cities are addressing gentrification proactively and with positive outcomes.

Nice to see the results of this analysis, and I love CEOs for Cities, but their sample set of cities seems a bit objectionable. There is only one city in the Midwest (Chicago), none in the Northeast, 3 in the Southeast/Mid-Atlantic and 10 (!) on the West Coast / Southwest. It seems to me that skewing so much to the West (with 5 of the 15 cities inexplicably in California) would impact the results quite a bit. As for walkscore, 77 for Asiatown, 89 for the Quadrangle, 82 for Gordon Square and 69 for Cedar Fairmount. The White House scores a 97, the Crawford Ranch a 0 :)

If you activated it when you purchased, the date and time of expiration should be on the back of the pass. If that's the case, you don't have to swipe it anywhere except at Tower City ... other Red Line stops and the Health Line stops, you just carry it and have it ready in case someone wants to inspect it. I agree that the system is a bit cumbersome, but once you get the hang of it, the timing seems to be about equal with buying cards the old way, and the trip itself seems to be a couple mins. shorter now, as we're not having to wait for lines of people to punch their cards getting on the train.

Ugh. It turns my stomach when we talk about gentrification ... so many overarching generalizations, people! :) Anyway, it might be worthwhile to identify any innovative strategies we've heard for addressing these class issues. Who's doing something cool to prevent displacement? Who's doing something to acclimate the middle class and upper class into presently low-income neighborhoods while causing the least disruption to current residents? That kinda thing. One fascinating methodology that's starting up is the Environmental Simulation Center's Human Development Overlay District: http://www.hdod.org/national/home/tabid/894/default.aspx?returnurl=%2fcommunity_of_learning%2fhome.aspx.

Agreed. And it would be rather silly even if you could do it. I guess I was surprised walking by it to see the coloring be so strong ... actually very similar to Gospel Press color or Tower Press's.

I don't think it's been mentioned yet as a "best practice" on here, but I certainly hope the Port Authority will be looking to Hamburg's HafenCity as inspiration. The scope of this project is similarly mind-boggling, with what is likely to be multi-decade phasing (although they're a couple of decades ahead of us), so it seems an appropriate case study. Beyond that, from what little I saw of this neighborhood and the bordering neighborhood of Speicherstadt, this is one of the most breathtaking built environments I've ever seen. A photo from Speicherstadt and its converted warehouse buildings lying directly on canals off the harbor and a photo of the HafenCity development, in the context of the neighborhoods to the south.

That makes my heart ache :(

It's weird, I'm kinda inclined to agree. Typically, I would be all about cleaning up the facade, and I'm sure it will look great when it's done. But I do kind of perversely like the current color more than the clean area. Maybe it's done in its entirety it'll be a different story.

If you look at the presentation (available at the bottom of page 14 of this thread), the Port Authority makes a couple of references to relatively dense mid-rise neighborhoods as models, including Old Town Alexandria and the harbor neighborhoods in Baltimore. The massings for the first phase also appear to be relatively dense, although how it is actually implemented is another question. I think the early attention to greenspace and access to the lake is partially shaped by the Port's desire to see something going up within the project footprint as soon as possible (within the next 3 to 5 years), and it's likely that that kind of greenspace planning is what they can start on now, rather than trying to line up tenants, etc. Plus, I'm sure having greenspace and water elements, etc. in place will make it a more desirable sell to prospective tenants as the project were to go forward.

Did the image get removed? :(

The program that was mentioned upthread is Exhibit: Cleveland, but it appears that their website is no longer active, and I don't see anything more up-to-date than their Twitter account, where the last posting was about a year ago. I don't know what happened there, but it's probably worth checking out. If they're still active, collaboration probably makes sense, since they've already built program infrastructure and contacts downtown, etc. If they're not still active, it probably makes sense to find out why ... what problems they encountered, what you should avoid. If you're interested in tracking them down, you might be able to request contact info from the Civic Innovation Lab, who provided them with seed funding.

This is really a heartbreaking demolition. Always loved that building, and as they peeled the building back and revealed new intricacies of the facade, you couldn't help but wish it was a renovation and not a demolition :(

Jeffrey A. Rich, President Ohio Citizens for the Arts August Newsletter There were no lazy days of summer this year, and I doubt there will be in the future as arts advocates work to educate, engage, and influence policy. Ohio Citizens for the Arts (this includes thousands of arts advocates statewide) spent the better part of the summer working to support public funding for the arts at the state and national levels. The drastic cuts to the state of Ohio's budget which included a 47% cut to the Ohio Arts Council is a solid message about our work in the future - we must find new ways of doing business, new and innovative partnerships, and rethink our strategies for action and advocacy ... ... More at http://www.ohiocitizensforthearts.org

Such a great site! And even within that thread, the general tenor seemed to be pretty reasonable and very thoughtful. I am rather jealous b/c I can't think of a single equivalent in Cleveland (not anything at that depth anyway). And as someone who's heavily involved with our county's Creative Workforce Fellowship, it was really interesting to see what people were saying about it down there. Keep up the good work! Now we just need a forum that can galvanize the artist community statewide so we can address the OAC implosion! :)

Yay! I loved that article (although you were sadly absent!). I rode by the building the other day ... wow. What an amazing space. You guys are fighting the good fight for real.

CSU is definitely abuzz ... these are looking great, the Student Center is flying up and the Education Building is looking tremendous. Definitely worth a walkthrough. Great job CSU!