Posted September 3, 201014 yr Ranked using 2009 estimates: 1. Columbus 769,360 (increase) 2. Cleveland 431,363 (decrease) 3. Cincinnati 333,013 (decrease) 4. Toledo 316,238 (decrease) 5. Akron 207,216 (decrease) 6. Dayton 153,857 (decrease) 7. Canton 78,379 (decrease) 8. Parma 77,274 (decrease) 9. Youngstown 72,433 (decrease) 10. Lorain 70,263 (increase) 11. Hamilton 62,746 (increase) 12. Springfield 62,056 (decrease) 13. Elyria 54,969 (decrease) 14. Kettering 53,460 (decrease) 15. Mentor 51,894 (increase) 16. Middletown 51,601 (increase) 17. Cuyahoga Falls 51,095 (increase) 18. Lakewood 50,251 (decrease)
September 3, 201014 yr Is this new or the same data that was posted in June? These figures were released in July, I believe. I don't know what numbers you are referring to.
September 3, 201014 yr What is the source? I would have thought Cbus would be higher,Cleveland and Akron to be lower, and didnt expect canton to be around 80K.
September 3, 201014 yr They were posted in the Ohio 2010 census thread in June I think. The data comes from the US Census but these are only estimates still based on the 2000 census. The 2010 Census information for cities will roll out April 2011. I also never realized that Toledo had that kind of population, less then 20k separates them from cincy?
September 3, 201014 yr ^yeah, toledo is columbus-esque in that it captured a lot of the surrounding suburban townships
September 3, 201014 yr Not really... the City of Toledo only takes up 80.6 square miles- I wouldn't call it Columbus-esque until we multiply that number by around 3.
September 3, 201014 yr ^Cleveland did it, it was just a lot earlier. The Ohio City neighborhood used to be a city, for instance.
September 3, 201014 yr "On the bright side, Cincinnati's decrease was only 323 people." Thomas, you sure do like to put a positive spin on things. :-)
September 4, 201014 yr How about: on the bright side, these estimates probably have a margin of error larger than %0.09 ... so Cincinnati very well may have gained residents.
September 4, 201014 yr cle: yeah and west park, collinwood, nottingham, miles heights (the list goes on) all used to be separate municipalities that cle annexed. tol: what i was trying to say was that tol has more people in the city limits than it would seem (smaller metro than cincy) because more people in the metro live in the city limits, percentage-wise, than cincy or cle, in part due to the annex area. there is farmland in tol city limits (annex area). is there any in cols? i don't think there is in cle.
September 4, 201014 yr Cleveland, Cincinnati, & Toledo are almost identical in land area at ~80 square miles. There is no farmland in Cleveland city limits, don't know of any in Cincinnati, and surprised to hear that there is in Toledo. Columbus is 210 square miles, there is farmland within city limits.
September 4, 201014 yr The inner-city population of Columbus is pretty hard to track since info is usually out of date and you have to look by neighborhood or zipcode to avoid including sprawl. Linden alone has been losing a huge number of residents, over 4,000 from 1990-2000 and who knows how many more in the past ten years, while other neighborhoods are seeing more residents move in. I remember seeing both the Hilltop and Franklinton see a slight increase.
September 4, 201014 yr "On the bright side, Cincinnati's decrease was only 323 people." Thomas, you sure do like to put a positive spin on things. :-) How about: on the bright side, these estimates probably have a margin of error larger than %0.09 ... so Cincinnati very well may have gained residents. Exactly.
September 5, 201014 yr ^So is that huge farm field behind the Mickey D's at Hill and Reynolds not in the city limits?
September 7, 201014 yr checking the lucas county auditor's site, the farms i was thinking of at hill & reynolds and hill & byrne have different owners at the moment. a lot of the open space by hill & reynolds is owned by the metroparks.
September 7, 201014 yr i don't think there is in cle. What about the 1 acre farm over by E. 72nd or the new one by Riverview? :)
September 10, 201014 yr I was looking at Metro Population figures based on 2009 estimates and calculated that if current growth rates remain the same The Cleveland and Columbus metro areas will be almost the same with Cleveland at 2,040,000 and Columbus at 2,013,000. I didn't know Columbus' growth rate has been almost 12% for this decade.
September 10, 201014 yr Revised estimates are out for 2009 Cincinnati's population inches higher Cincinnati's population inched higher in 2009, according to the latest Census Bureau population report. The Queen City added 158 residents between 2008 and last year and increased by 1,731 residents since the start of the millennium, according to revised population estimates released Friday by the government. Cincinnati ranks as the 57th largest city of 19,507 places in the report. That is down two spots from 2008's ranking of No. 55. Read more: Cincinnati's population inches higher - Business Courier of Cincinnati “All truly great thoughts are conceived while walking.” -Friedrich Nietzsche
September 11, 201014 yr ^--- Be cautious about the revised census numbers, because the 2000 Census numbers were apparently too low. Thus, the 2009 estimate was higher than the 2000 Census, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Cincinnati is gaining population.
September 11, 201014 yr Does anyone think the census will ever categorize metro regions by actual municipality/township/etc, versus county? Clearly all of the cities of northern Summit County are suburbs of Cleveland, however due to metro regions being split at county lines, they get lumped with Akron. For the life of me, I've never quite grasped how Sagamore Hills and Northfield, a mere 5.5 miles from the city limits of Cleveland could be considered part of the Akron metro area. From the list above, it's amazing how many of those cities are around NE OH, and how only 4 suburbs make the list, 3 of which are in NE OH. Really shows how annexation never unfolded here after WWI.
September 20, 201014 yr Keep in mind that population loss isn't totally bad. If families move out to the burbs, and most with means do (in Ohio), in search of newer housing with modern floor plans, decent schools, and are replaced by wealthier or younger singles and double income no kid couples, the demand for services decrease (schools, etc) and overall income and tax base increase but population will ultimately decrease...it's not necessarily a negative. It's adapting to the new (or since 1950) reality of city living.
September 20, 201014 yr Keep in mind that population loss isn't totally bad. If families move out to the burbs, and most with means do (in Ohio), in search of newer housing with modern floor plans, decent schools, and are replaced by wealthier or younger singles and double income no kid couples, the demand for services decrease (schools, etc) and overall income and tax base increase but population will ultimately decrease...it's not necessarily a negative. It's adapting to the new (or since 1950) reality of city living. Except that that doesn't happen. People with moderate incomes and children leave the city and aren't replaced by enough wealthy people to offset the lost tax revenues. Meanwhile the city is left with the pensions and infrastructure to support of a much larger city. Losing half of your population is indicative of troubling systemic maladies.
September 20, 201014 yr When do the numbers come back for the 2010 Census? I'm really curious to see these results.
September 20, 201014 yr ^By law, the President will have them on his desk by Dec. 31, and the states will have their redistricting data by March. I assume the numbers will be publicly available sometime around then.
September 20, 201014 yr An article in the Plain Dealer from march 12th this year has people estimating Clevelands population around 325,000 to 330,000. That just seems plain stupid. That would be a loss of 32% of the population which would be the largest in our history. Idk I just dont see that outcome. http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/03/as_the_2010_census_begins_the.html
September 20, 201014 yr ^I'm guessing that the loss won't be that drastic, but I won't be surprised if the final count has us in the 300,000's. Parts of neighborhoods on the east side which formerly held large populations have been completely devastated by the foreclosure crisis (St. Clair-Superior, Hough, Slavic Village, Glenville, Fairfax, Mt Pleasant). Sure- the families have to live somewhere, which would explain the increase in African American families in east side inner ring suburbs such as Euclid, Cleveland Heights, Garfield Heights, etc. There's no need to live in a run down neighborhood with board ups every other house when there's decent housing available a few miles away in a different municipality. Problem is that many of the east side inner-ring suburbs have also had their share of foreclosures and loss. Euclid had over 1700 between 2006 and 2008, which was the highest amount of foreclosures outside of Slavic Village in Cuyahoga County within the same time period. Truth is the region really got screwed this last decade, much more so than others.
September 20, 201014 yr The Census doesn't even have us in the 300,000's and their methodology is notorious for undercounting older cities.
September 20, 201014 yr Cleveland will not drop under 400k. If anything it will rise as gas becomes more expensive.
September 20, 201014 yr I posted this in the other thread on the census: Looking at the population estimates for areas around northeast Ohio, Cleveland doesn't look so bad. A sampling of population LOSS as a % from 2000 to 2009 Census estimates: 11.3% Lakewood 11.1% University Heights 11.1% Fairview Park 10.9% Shaker Heights 10.8% Euclid 10.2% Lyndhurst 10.0% Chagrin Falls 10.0% Bay Village 9.8% Cleveland The 2009 census estimates have Cleveland in the 420-430k range. If the number were to show up below 400,000 or even in the 300-325,000 range as some have suggested, it would mean a huge change in regional population. As indicated above, the drain in population from the city proper is no worse off than many of the suburbs with excellent schools and affluent residents. If Cleveland were to drop into the 300k's, where did they go? Clearly not the suburbs, or if they did go to the suburbs, twice as many suburbanites have left their respective communities out of the region. It's easy to look at Cleveland and say "OMG, they've lost 50,000 people in the past 10 years." But, in reality that % loss is no worse than Lakewood, Shaker, or Bay Village. Population loss is a huge problem for the Cleveland MSA. If it were only as simple as people leaving the central city for the burbs, we'd still have a stable regional population, but unfortunately that's not the case ... especially when cities like Westlake and Strongsville, perceived as growing suburbs have collectively shed ~4% of their population as well. Yes, it's true that some of the farthest suburbs in Lorain County have grown by 5-6k in the past 10 years, these increases are a drop in the bucket on the regional scale of population decline.
September 20, 201014 yr The question is how can Cleveland fix this downwards trend. The fact is that people move out of cities and neighborhoods and are willing to drive farther to work all to live in a safe clean new environment. They fill up new residential neighborhoods in the middle of nowhere to accommodate this goal not because of the cities amenities or location. Cleveland needs to join the game and get large new build residential neighborhoods. Most of us on here appreciate the old housing stock Cleveland has to offer and would prefer people to move into them and fix them up but that is just not realistic. The truth is that only a small group of people want to do that. Most people want to live in new houses in new clean neighborhoods. If cleveland wants an sudden growth in population then it needs new houses. Its as simple as that.
September 20, 201014 yr The question is how can Cleveland fix this downwards trend. The fact is that people move out of cities and neighborhoods and are willing to drive farther to work all to live in a safe clean new environment. They fill up new residential neighborhoods in the middle of nowhere to accommodate this goal not because of the cities amenities or location. Cleveland needs to join the game and get large new build residential neighborhoods. Most of us on here appreciate the old housing stock Cleveland has to offer and would prefer people to move into them and fix them up but that is just not realistic. The truth is that only a small group of people want to do that. Most people want to live in new houses in new clean neighborhoods. If cleveland wants an sudden growth in population then it needs new houses. Its as simple as that. Yeah, so we can end up like the "new" cities in the South and the West with an over abundance of stock/developments, lots of which is in foreclosure (Ex. W Atlanta - Downtown residencies where only one unit out of 74 has closed or pick one of numerous "developments" in Nevada, Pheonix or Southern/Middle Cali). Not to mention, the credit markets have not opened up. As the Mayor would say, "this is magic wand" wishing. What people "want" and can "afford" are two different things. Which is why you find new yet often cheap and substandard housing in the 'burbs. It's not necessarily what people "want" but what they can afford.
September 20, 201014 yr ^^while it'd be nice to have lots of residential development (tho to be fair, there is some), the timing isn't exactly great. not much you can do about that. when (if?) the economy turns around and it's easier to get financing, I imagine you'll see quite a bit of development going on. hopefully by that point the major Cleveland projects (FEB phase 1, MM/CC, casino, uptown, etc) will be close to completion.
September 20, 201014 yr The question is how can Cleveland fix this downwards trend. The fact is that people move out of cities and neighborhoods and are willing to drive farther to work all to live in a safe clean new environment. They fill up new residential neighborhoods in the middle of nowhere to accommodate this goal not because of the cities amenities or location. Cleveland needs to join the game and get large new build residential neighborhoods. Most of us on here appreciate the old housing stock Cleveland has to offer and would prefer people to move into them and fix them up but that is just not realistic. The truth is that only a small group of people want to do that. Most people want to live in new houses in new clean neighborhoods. If cleveland wants an sudden growth in population then it needs new houses. Its as simple as that. Yeah, so we can end up like the "new" cities in the South and the West with an over abundance of stock/developments, lots of which is in foreclosure (Ex. W Atlanta - Downtown residencies where only one unit out of 74 has closed or pick one of numerous "developments" in Nevada, Pheonix or Southern/Middle Cali). Not to mention, the credit markets have not opened up. As the Mayor would say, "this is magic wand" wishing. What people "want" and can "afford" are two different things. Which is why you find new yet often cheap and substandard housing in the 'burbs. It's not necessarily what people "want" but what they can afford. There has also been a lot of people who move to $300,000 homes in the middle of nowhere. The neighborhoods can still be dense but they have to be new. Like in Tremont for instance by literary rd or at beacon place, but on a larger scale. Im just saying if Cleveland wants to bring back residences it will need to offer houses and neighborhoods that compete with the suburbs. And i'm not saying to do it right now cause I understand we are in a recession, but it is something that needs to be considered in the future.
September 20, 201014 yr The question is how can Cleveland fix this downwards trend. The fact is that people move out of cities and neighborhoods and are willing to drive farther to work all to live in a safe clean new environment. They fill up new residential neighborhoods in the middle of nowhere to accommodate this goal not because of the cities amenities or location. Cleveland needs to join the game and get large new build residential neighborhoods. Most of us on here appreciate the old housing stock Cleveland has to offer and would prefer people to move into them and fix them up but that is just not realistic. The truth is that only a small group of people want to do that. Most people want to live in new houses in new clean neighborhoods. If cleveland wants an sudden growth in population then it needs new houses. Its as simple as that. Yeah, so we can end up like the "new" cities in the South and the West with an over abundance of stock/developments, lots of which is in foreclosure (Ex. W Atlanta - Downtown residencies where only one unit out of 74 has closed or pick one of numerous "developments" in Nevada, Pheonix or Southern/Middle Cali). Not to mention, the credit markets have not opened up. As the Mayor would say, "this is magic wand" wishing. What people "want" and can "afford" are two different things. Which is why you find new yet often cheap and substandard housing in the 'burbs. It's not necessarily what people "want" but what they can afford. There has also been a lot of people who move to $300,000 homes in the middle of nowhere. The neighborhoods can still be dense but they have to be new. Like in Tremont for instance by literary rd or at beacon place, but on a larger scale. Im just saying if Cleveland wants to bring back residences it will need to offer houses and neighborhoods that compete with the suburbs. And i'm not saying to do it right now cause I understand we are in a recession, but it is something that needs to be considered in the future. what makes you think it has not been discussed or (early/preliminary) planning is not in progress? Both banks of the flats have discussion plans on the board. Euclid between east 9 and 14 The Warehouse District parking lot conversions AsiaTown There are already new homes in the Southern Part of the Quadrangle CSU is expanding it's campus with mixed income developments The Avenue district There are project in the works and some awaiting the proper financing to get the ball rolling. Tremont is in the
September 20, 201014 yr The City of Cleveland offers so many neighborhoods that look exactly like those in the suburbs. There is a housing stock/style for anyone's taste in the city ... and at bottom basement prices. The Mill Creek Development off Turney Rd in Cleveland offers suburban style homes constructed in the late 90s that you'd see way out in Strongsville, but for $79,900. Many of the neighborhoods off the Jennings in the South Hills offer very nice middle class homes, big yards, and mature trees. Most of the streets north of Kamm's Corners offer the same housing stock as Rocky River, Fairview, and North Olmsted. A lot of Shaker Heights style homes spill into Cleveland near Shaker Square. All of the streets in the W 140s and W 150s have nicer housing stock than Parma. Cleveland has a ton of nice neighborhoods left (outside the more familiar Edgewater, Tremont, and Ohio City) it's just that these neighborhoods are not destinations and are not visible from major thoroughfares. You'd be surprised how nice some neighborhoods get to the east or west of 117th, but to the passer by, you'd never notice. It's not really a question of how Cleveland can fix the downward trend. It's how can the region fix the downward trend. When as a region we will start to gain population? Once that happens, it's a matter of getting people to the core.
September 21, 201014 yr To be honest, the easiest way to get population up and to improve our perception in ratings, stats, crime, etc, is to just annex a suburb or two. I often ask myself that if just Fairview Park, Lakewood, Cleveland Heights, and Shaker were incorporated into Cleveland in the 30s, would Cleveland and those cities have had the same collective drop in population? Perhaps annexation into the City of Cleveland isn't palatable for a lot of suburbanites which is understandable from a school district perspective (which there are workarounds). However, I often wonder why suburbs don't merge together. Do we really need to have a Parma and Parma Heights? Does University Heights need to be different from Cleveland Heights? Can't Westlake, Rocky River, and Bay Village be their own suburb? With federal dollars available to cities at certain population levels, it makes sense to double/triple up a lot of our redundant suburbs, but would that ever happen? You tell me.
September 21, 201014 yr The question is how can Cleveland fix this downwards trend. The fact is that people move out of cities and neighborhoods and are willing to drive farther to work all to live in a safe clean new environment. They fill up new residential neighborhoods in the middle of nowhere to accommodate this goal not because of the cities amenities or location. Cleveland needs to join the game and get large new build residential neighborhoods. Most of us on here appreciate the old housing stock Cleveland has to offer and would prefer people to move into them and fix them up but that is just not realistic. The truth is that only a small group of people want to do that. Most people want to live in new houses in new clean neighborhoods. If cleveland wants an sudden growth in population then it needs new houses. Its as simple as that. Yeah, so we can end up like the "new" cities in the South and the West with an over abundance of stock/developments, lots of which is in foreclosure (Ex. W Atlanta - Downtown residencies where only one unit out of 74 has closed or pick one of numerous "developments" in Nevada, Pheonix or Southern/Middle Cali). Not to mention, the credit markets have not opened up. As the Mayor would say, "this is magic wand" wishing. What people "want" and can "afford" are two different things. Which is why you find new yet often cheap and substandard housing in the 'burbs. It's not necessarily what people "want" but what they can afford. There has also been a lot of people who move to $300,000 homes in the middle of nowhere. The neighborhoods can still be dense but they have to be new. Like in Tremont for instance by literary rd or at beacon place, but on a larger scale. Im just saying if Cleveland wants to bring back residences it will need to offer houses and neighborhoods that compete with the suburbs. And i'm not saying to do it right now cause I understand we are in a recession, but it is something that needs to be considered in the future. what makes you think it has not been discussed or (early/preliminary) planning is not in progress? Both banks of the flats have discussion plans on the board. Euclid between east 9 and 14 The Warehouse District parking lot conversions AsiaTown There are already new homes in the Southern Part of the Quadrangle CSU is expanding it's campus with mixed income developments The Avenue district There are project in the works and some awaiting the proper financing to get the ball rolling. Tremont is in the I dont understand your argument because at first you basically said it was stupid to build new neighborhoods and you mention cities that obviously have over saturated the market with houses which cleveland has clearly not done, and im not saying to do it at that scale. Secondly when I said its something that should be considered in the future you freak out and say it already is even though you called it stupid. And almost all of your examples of projects in the city are apartments and condos. I was speaking more in term of large residential neighborhoods consisting of houses. A city needs apartments and condos but it also needs houses.
September 21, 201014 yr The City of Cleveland offers so many neighborhoods that look exactly like those in the suburbs. There is a housing stock/style for anyone's taste in the city ... and at bottom basement prices. The Mill Creek Development off Turney Rd in Cleveland offers suburban style homes constructed in the late 90s that you'd see way out in Strongsville, but for $79,900. Many of the neighborhoods off the Jennings in the South Hills offer very nice middle class homes, big yards, and mature trees. Most of the streets north of Kamm's Corners offer the same housing stock as Rocky River, Fairview, and North Olmsted. A lot of Shaker Heights style homes spill into Cleveland near Shaker Square. All of the streets in the W 140s and W 150s have nicer housing stock than Parma. Cleveland has a ton of nice neighborhoods left (outside the more familiar Edgewater, Tremont, and Ohio City) it's just that these neighborhoods are not destinations and are not visible from major thoroughfares. You'd be surprised how nice some neighborhoods get to the east or west of 117th, but to the passer by, you'd never notice. It's not really a question of how Cleveland can fix the downward trend. It's how can the region fix the downward trend. When as a region we will start to gain population? Once that happens, it's a matter of getting people to the core. You might be right about some of those areas, but the Mill Creek development is in Garfield Heights, not exactly a suburb on the rise (quite the opposite), so of course homes are only 79k there. As far as fixing the downward trend for the region, I have no idea. It's obvious why people are leaving areas that have issues with education, crime, and poverty. Those areas account for absolutely huge parts of the city itself, which is a serious problem. But why are they leaving the nicer suburbs outside of Cleveland too? If nicer places like Lakewood, Shaker Heights, Fairview Park, Beachwood (and the list goes on...) can't even keep people.....then how in the world can you turn an entire region around?
September 21, 201014 yr The City of Cleveland offers so many neighborhoods that look exactly like those in the suburbs. There is a housing stock/style for anyone's taste in the city ... and at bottom basement prices. The Mill Creek Development off Turney Rd in Cleveland offers suburban style homes constructed in the late 90s that you'd see way out in Strongsville, but for $79,900. Many of the neighborhoods off the Jennings in the South Hills offer very nice middle class homes, big yards, and mature trees. Most of the streets north of Kamm's Corners offer the same housing stock as Rocky River, Fairview, and North Olmsted. A lot of Shaker Heights style homes spill into Cleveland near Shaker Square. All of the streets in the W 140s and W 150s have nicer housing stock than Parma. Cleveland has a ton of nice neighborhoods left (outside the more familiar Edgewater, Tremont, and Ohio City) it's just that these neighborhoods are not destinations and are not visible from major thoroughfares. You'd be surprised how nice some neighborhoods get to the east or west of 117th, but to the passer by, you'd never notice. It's not really a question of how Cleveland can fix the downward trend. It's how can the region fix the downward trend. When as a region we will start to gain population? Once that happens, it's a matter of getting people to the core. You might be right about some of those areas, but the Mill Creek development is in Garfield Heights, not exactly a suburb on the rise (quite the opposite), so of course homes are only 79k there. As far as fixing the downward trend for the region, I have no idea. It's obvious why people are leaving areas that have issues with education, crime, and poverty. Those areas account for absolutely huge parts of the city itself, which is a serious problem. But why are they leaving the nicer suburbs outside of Cleveland too? If nicer places like Lakewood, Shaker Heights, Fairview Park, Beachwood (and the list goes on...) can't even keep people.....then how in the world can you turn an entire region around? For the education, crime, and poverty issues, building new large neighborhoods of houses can help. If you have an area full of $200,000 to $300,000 homes then that helps the poverty issue in that area. It also affects the crime levels because higher incomes often lead to lower crime. Schools is an issue that needs to be addressed in a different mannor though.
September 21, 201014 yr Sorry but Mill Creek is within the city of Cleveland: http://www.millcreekcleveland.com/index.html http://www.millcreekcleveland.com/history.html
September 21, 201014 yr The City of Cleveland offers so many neighborhoods that look exactly like those in the suburbs. There is a housing stock/style for anyone's taste in the city ... and at bottom basement prices. The Mill Creek Development off Turney Rd in Cleveland offers suburban style homes constructed in the late 90s that you'd see way out in Strongsville, but for $79,900. Many of the neighborhoods off the Jennings in the South Hills offer very nice middle class homes, big yards, and mature trees. Most of the streets north of Kamm's Corners offer the same housing stock as Rocky River, Fairview, and North Olmsted. A lot of Shaker Heights style homes spill into Cleveland near Shaker Square. All of the streets in the W 140s and W 150s have nicer housing stock than Parma. Cleveland has a ton of nice neighborhoods left (outside the more familiar Edgewater, Tremont, and Ohio City) it's just that these neighborhoods are not destinations and are not visible from major thoroughfares. You'd be surprised how nice some neighborhoods get to the east or west of 117th, but to the passer by, you'd never notice. It's not really a question of how Cleveland can fix the downward trend. It's how can the region fix the downward trend. When as a region we will start to gain population? Once that happens, it's a matter of getting people to the core. You might be right about some of those areas, but the Mill Creek development is in Garfield Heights, not exactly a suburb on the rise (quite the opposite), so of course homes are only 79k there. As far as fixing the downward trend for the region, I have no idea. It's obvious why people are leaving areas that have issues with education, crime, and poverty. Those areas account for absolutely huge parts of the city itself, which is a serious problem. But why are they leaving the nicer suburbs outside of Cleveland too? If nicer places like Lakewood, Shaker Heights, Fairview Park, Beachwood (and the list goes on...) can't even keep people.....then how in the world can you turn an entire region around? Mill Creek is in Cleveland. But with regards to the region. I think looking at population loss across different cities tells the story. It's not really about schools and crime. People are fleeing at the same rate regardless of their municipality. I think a lot has to do with weather. In this day and age, with a national and global society, people can choose where they want to live. And since 90% of American's don't like cold and snow, they choose to live in/move to warmer climates. There is no city or region with a larger population than Cleveland that gets more snow than we do. That says a lot. Buffalo, which as a region is much smaller than Cleveland gets a little more snow than we do, and guess what, they are suffering just as great losses as we are. It's comparatively easy to fix crime and schools and build infrastructure to attract new people, but it's hard to change their perceptions of cold and snow.
September 21, 201014 yr The City of Cleveland offers so many neighborhoods that look exactly like those in the suburbs. There is a housing stock/style for anyone's taste in the city ... and at bottom basement prices. The Mill Creek Development off Turney Rd in Cleveland offers suburban style homes constructed in the late 90s that you'd see way out in Strongsville, but for $79,900. Many of the neighborhoods off the Jennings in the South Hills offer very nice middle class homes, big yards, and mature trees. Most of the streets north of Kamm's Corners offer the same housing stock as Rocky River, Fairview, and North Olmsted. A lot of Shaker Heights style homes spill into Cleveland near Shaker Square. All of the streets in the W 140s and W 150s have nicer housing stock than Parma. Cleveland has a ton of nice neighborhoods left (outside the more familiar Edgewater, Tremont, and Ohio City) it's just that these neighborhoods are not destinations and are not visible from major thoroughfares. You'd be surprised how nice some neighborhoods get to the east or west of 117th, but to the passer by, you'd never notice. It's not really a question of how Cleveland can fix the downward trend. It's how can the region fix the downward trend. When as a region we will start to gain population? Once that happens, it's a matter of getting people to the core. You might be right about some of those areas, but the Mill Creek development is in Garfield Heights, not exactly a suburb on the rise (quite the opposite), so of course homes are only 79k there. As far as fixing the downward trend for the region, I have no idea. It's obvious why people are leaving areas that have issues with education, crime, and poverty. Those areas account for absolutely huge parts of the city itself, which is a serious problem. But why are they leaving the nicer suburbs outside of Cleveland too? If nicer places like Lakewood, Shaker Heights, Fairview Park, Beachwood (and the list goes on...) can't even keep people.....then how in the world can you turn an entire region around? For the education, crime, and poverty issues, building new large neighborhoods of houses can help. If you have an area full of $200,000 to $300,000 homes then that helps the poverty issue in that area. It also affects the crime levels because higher incomes often lead to lower crime. Schools is an issue that needs to be addressed in a different mannor though. And where do those people come from? I don't think someone is going to leave RR/Lakewood/whatever other nice suburb and go to an inferior one just because the inferior one has new housing. Sorry but Mill Creek is within the city of Cleveland: http://www.millcreekcleveland.com/index.html http://www.millcreekcleveland.com/history.html Garfield Heights is in Cleveland. And apparently Mill Creek is just above Garfield Heights. Point still stands though, it's surrounded by bad areas whereas the city he compared it to - Strongsville - is not.
September 21, 201014 yr There are still millions of people who will stay in this region and buy new houses in suburbs or even further out. It would be smart for Cleveland and Cuyahoga County to try to get those residents instead of lets say Lake or Geauga county.
September 21, 201014 yr The City of Cleveland offers so many neighborhoods that look exactly like those in the suburbs. There is a housing stock/style for anyone's taste in the city ... and at bottom basement prices. The Mill Creek Development off Turney Rd in Cleveland offers suburban style homes constructed in the late 90s that you'd see way out in Strongsville, but for $79,900. Many of the neighborhoods off the Jennings in the South Hills offer very nice middle class homes, big yards, and mature trees. Most of the streets north of Kamm's Corners offer the same housing stock as Rocky River, Fairview, and North Olmsted. A lot of Shaker Heights style homes spill into Cleveland near Shaker Square. All of the streets in the W 140s and W 150s have nicer housing stock than Parma. Cleveland has a ton of nice neighborhoods left (outside the more familiar Edgewater, Tremont, and Ohio City) it's just that these neighborhoods are not destinations and are not visible from major thoroughfares. You'd be surprised how nice some neighborhoods get to the east or west of 117th, but to the passer by, you'd never notice. It's not really a question of how Cleveland can fix the downward trend. It's how can the region fix the downward trend. When as a region we will start to gain population? Once that happens, it's a matter of getting people to the core. You might be right about some of those areas, but the Mill Creek development is in Garfield Heights, not exactly a suburb on the rise (quite the opposite), so of course homes are only 79k there. As far as fixing the downward trend for the region, I have no idea. It's obvious why people are leaving areas that have issues with education, crime, and poverty. Those areas account for absolutely huge parts of the city itself, which is a serious problem. But why are they leaving the nicer suburbs outside of Cleveland too? If nicer places like Lakewood, Shaker Heights, Fairview Park, Beachwood (and the list goes on...) can't even keep people.....then how in the world can you turn an entire region around? Mill Creek is in Cleveland. But with regards to the region. I think looking at population loss across different cities tells the story. It's not really about schools and crime. People are fleeing at the same rate regardless of their municipality. I think a lot has to do with weather. In this day and age, with a national and global society, people can choose where they want to live. And since 90% of American's don't like cold and snow, they choose to live in/move to warmer climates. There is no city or region with a larger population than Cleveland that gets more snow than we do. That says a lot. Buffalo, which as a region is much smaller than Cleveland gets a little more snow than we do, and guess what, they are suffering just as great losses as we are. It's comparatively easy to fix crime and schools and build infrastructure to attract new people, but it's hard to change their perceptions of cold and snow. It's right above Garfield Heights. I wasn't exactly sure of GH's borders, but still, its surrounded by undesirable areas whereas Strongsville is not. The weather certainly doesn't help, but the population is still increasing in metro areas with similar weather. The MSAs of Chicago, Minneapolis, and even Milwaukee increased in population from 2000 to 2009. Granted, the weather isn't as bad in those cities, but they don't exactly have Los Angeles-esque weather either. They still manage to attract people though. So what's stopping Cleveland from being more like them and less like Buffalo?
September 21, 201014 yr The City of Cleveland offers so many neighborhoods that look exactly like those in the suburbs. There is a housing stock/style for anyone's taste in the city ... and at bottom basement prices. The Mill Creek Development off Turney Rd in Cleveland offers suburban style homes constructed in the late 90s that you'd see way out in Strongsville, but for $79,900. Many of the neighborhoods off the Jennings in the South Hills offer very nice middle class homes, big yards, and mature trees. Most of the streets north of Kamm's Corners offer the same housing stock as Rocky River, Fairview, and North Olmsted. A lot of Shaker Heights style homes spill into Cleveland near Shaker Square. All of the streets in the W 140s and W 150s have nicer housing stock than Parma. Cleveland has a ton of nice neighborhoods left (outside the more familiar Edgewater, Tremont, and Ohio City) it's just that these neighborhoods are not destinations and are not visible from major thoroughfares. You'd be surprised how nice some neighborhoods get to the east or west of 117th, but to the passer by, you'd never notice. It's not really a question of how Cleveland can fix the downward trend. It's how can the region fix the downward trend. When as a region we will start to gain population? Once that happens, it's a matter of getting people to the core. You might be right about some of those areas, but the Mill Creek development is in Garfield Heights, not exactly a suburb on the rise (quite the opposite), so of course homes are only 79k there. As far as fixing the downward trend for the region, I have no idea. It's obvious why people are leaving areas that have issues with education, crime, and poverty. Those areas account for absolutely huge parts of the city itself, which is a serious problem. But why are they leaving the nicer suburbs outside of Cleveland too? If nicer places like Lakewood, Shaker Heights, Fairview Park, Beachwood (and the list goes on...) can't even keep people.....then how in the world can you turn an entire region around? Mill Creek is in Cleveland. But with regards to the region. I think looking at population loss across different cities tells the story. It's not really about schools and crime. People are fleeing at the same rate regardless of their municipality. I think a lot has to do with weather. In this day and age, with a national and global society, people can choose where they want to live. And since 90% of American's don't like cold and snow, they choose to live in/move to warmer climates. There is no city or region with a larger population than Cleveland that gets more snow than we do. That says a lot. Buffalo, which as a region is much smaller than Cleveland gets a little more snow than we do, and guess what, they are suffering just as great losses as we are. It's comparatively easy to fix crime and schools and build infrastructure to attract new people, but it's hard to change their perceptions of cold and snow. It's right above Garfield Heights. I wasn't exactly sure of GH's borders, but still, its surrounded by undesirable areas whereas Strongsville is not. The weather certainly doesn't help, but the population is still increasing in metro areas with similar weather. The MSAs of Chicago, Minneapolis, and even Milwaukee increased in population from 2000 to 2009. Granted, the weather isn't as bad in those cities, but they don't exactly have Los Angeles-esque weather either. They still manage to attract people though. So what's stopping Cleveland from being more like them and less like Buffalo? Snow. Snow. Snow. Chicago, Minneapolis, and Milwaukee get a fraction of what we get. Hopkins, on the west side, which is our official reporting site, actually gets one of the lowest amounts of snow in the county, which is still 63 inches, a far cry above the 40 or so Chicago/Milwaukee get, and 45 or so for Minneapolis. Of course, much of Cuyahoga County gets much more snow than that, and 100,000s get well over 100 inches of snow (same with Buffalo). And considering our snow is lake effect, it provides for a lot of cloudy days, and lots of days with annoying small snowfalls that still need to be driven in and still need to be shoveled out from. Minneapolis winters are cold, but they have the advantage of having cold + sunny days. We have not as cold, but still cold, and cloudy days.
September 21, 201014 yr The question is how can Cleveland fix this downwards trend. The fact is that people move out of cities and neighborhoods and are willing to drive farther to work all to live in a safe clean new environment. They fill up new residential neighborhoods in the middle of nowhere to accommodate this goal not because of the cities amenities or location. Cleveland needs to join the game and get large new build residential neighborhoods. Most of us on here appreciate the old housing stock Cleveland has to offer and would prefer people to move into them and fix them up but that is just not realistic. The truth is that only a small group of people want to do that. Most people want to live in new houses in new clean neighborhoods. If cleveland wants an sudden growth in population then it needs new houses. Its as simple as that. Yeah, so we can end up like the "new" cities in the South and the West with an over abundance of stock/developments, lots of which is in foreclosure (Ex. W Atlanta - Downtown residencies where only one unit out of 74 has closed or pick one of numerous "developments" in Nevada, Pheonix or Southern/Middle Cali). Not to mention, the credit markets have not opened up. As the Mayor would say, "this is magic wand" wishing. What people "want" and can "afford" are two different things. Which is why you find new yet often cheap and substandard housing in the 'burbs. It's not necessarily what people "want" but what they can afford. There has also been a lot of people who move to $300,000 homes in the middle of nowhere. The neighborhoods can still be dense but they have to be new. Like in Tremont for instance by literary rd or at beacon place, but on a larger scale. Im just saying if Cleveland wants to bring back residences it will need to offer houses and neighborhoods that compete with the suburbs. And i'm not saying to do it right now cause I understand we are in a recession, but it is something that needs to be considered in the future. what makes you think it has not been discussed or (early/preliminary) planning is not in progress? Both banks of the flats have discussion plans on the board. Euclid between east 9 and 14 The Warehouse District parking lot conversions AsiaTown There are already new homes in the Southern Part of the Quadrangle CSU is expanding it's campus with mixed income developments The Avenue district There are project in the works and some awaiting the proper financing to get the ball rolling. Tremont is in the I dont understand your argument because at first you basically said it was stupid to build new neighborhoods and you mention cities that obviously have over saturated the market with houses which cleveland has clearly not done, and im not saying to do it at that scale. Secondly when I said its something that should be considered in the future you freak out and say it already is even though you called it stupid. And almost all of your examples of projects in the city are apartments and condos. I was speaking more in term of large residential neighborhoods consisting of houses. A city needs apartments and condos but it also needs houses. Like Battery Park or Arbor Place?
September 21, 201014 yr It's right above Garfield Heights. I wasn't exactly sure of GH's borders, but still, its surrounded by undesirable areas whereas Strongsville is not. The weather certainly doesn't help, but the population is still increasing in metro areas with similar weather. The MSAs of Chicago, Minneapolis, and even Milwaukee increased in population from 2000 to 2009. Granted, the weather isn't as bad in those cities, but they don't exactly have Los Angeles-esque weather either. They still manage to attract people though. So what's stopping Cleveland from being more like them and less like Buffalo? It surround by undesirable areas? MSA of Chicago increased? The weather in Cleveland is worse than MINNEAPOLIS OR MILWAUKEE??? Are you kidding me? :wtf: :wtf: :wtf:
Create an account or sign in to comment