DM4, I'm not sure I follow your post.  I can't find the negative for the city in that post, but you are implying that there is one?  I expect to see rents in the center-city area rise as more amenities come on line to feed the continued population growth.  Simple as that.  What needs to occur throughout that process is a few different pricepoints feeding a few different demographics.  I think Cleveland's mix of developers for the past several years has been great at doing that in the city. 

gotribe[/member] I was basically saying that currently anybody who wants to live in an updated apartment with a modern kitchen, air conditioning, and w/d in unit is stuck looking at downtown or accepting smaller space and higher price in University Circle. This helps boost the downtown apartment market. If things change though and Little Italy, Cleveland Heights, Shaker Heights, Ohio City, Tremont, and Detroit Shoreway get a lot more modern/updated properties with all of those amenities, many people will probably begin to look at neighborhoods instead of downtown.

 

 

One can easily get a really nice apartment downtown for a cheap price. Trying to find that same apartment in the other neighborhoods listed is very tough.

One can easily get a really nice apartment downtown for a cheap price. Trying to find that same apartment in the other neighborhoods listed is very tough.

 

^Which downtown apartments do you consider "really nice", and what is your definition of "cheap"?

^^To answer your question with a question, "Why are all these modern updated units Downtown if that's not where people actually want to live?"

^^ East 4th, 1717 East 9th, Bingham, Residences at Hanna, etc.    Cheap is relative to price per square foot, but I would say around $1000.

 

^ I mentioned that in my first post... "Downtown has the advantage of old office buildings to convert as well as historic tax credits."

 

These other neighborhoods don't have that advantage and require new build construction. Look at University Circle. All new apartments have been new construction. And look at the prices for Uptown, Hazel8, 118 Flats, 118 Square. WAY higher than downtown. The 9 will probably be the only place with similar pricing.

 

If people didn't want to live in them, they wouldn't have converted them.

^ Never said nobody wanted to live downtown. And anyone who wants to live in the city AND have a fully updated unit(at a decent price) is pretty much forced to choose downtown. Do you honestly not see any connection?

^ Never said nobody wanted to live downtown. And anyone who wants to live in the city AND have a fully updated unit(at a decent price) is pretty much forced to choose downtown. Do you honestly not see any connection?

 

I think that's about to change in a big way with Intesa (rental) and One University Circle (for sale). Because this market hasn't been served in UC (as DM4 noted), projects like have been tough to bring to market. There just aren't a lot of old office buildings for conversion, so that means new construction. And we know how hard that it is to build. But once they get built, I suspect it will open the doors to copycats, as W28th suggested.

I'm not sure where you're going with this, then.  Assuming your premises are correct, and I doubt they are, then what's your prediction?  That people some people will choose to move to apartments in other neighborhoods if they are built?  So what?

^ Never said nobody wanted to live downtown. And anyone who wants to live in the city AND have a fully updated unit(at a decent price) is pretty much forced to choose downtown. Do you honestly not see any connection?

 

I think that's about to change in a big way with Intesa (rental) and One University Circle (for sale). Because this market hasn't been served in UC (as DM4 noted), projects like have been tough to bring to market. There just aren't a lot of old office buildings for conversion, so that means new construction. And we know how hard that it is to build. But once they get built, I suspect it will open the doors to copycats, as W28th suggested.

 

Those will be huge projects. One University Circle is rental though I thought. Both with be very pricy for square footage though. BTW not sure if this has been posted or not, but Uptown West is 100% leased. (Phase 3???)

 

 

Also I love the smaller scale apartments going up in University Circle. Theyve been kind of quiet, but Hazel8, 118 Flats, and 118 Flats-Square have been great projects and I think the area will see more of them. The Woodhill Supply site could be next!

 

I would also look out for a couple other sites within the next couple of years  :wink:

Uptown West is 100% leased. (Phase 3???)

 

That is considered Phase 2.  Phase 3, if it ever gets built, will be on the grassy strip between Uptown Phase 1 (south side of Euclid) and MOCA.

^ I know, I was just throwing it out there that Phase 3 could happen next, and soon.

I see what you're saying, but I disagree. I personally am moving out of downtown to the near west side to SAVE money on rent. I have noticed that newer updated conversions in Gordon Square, OHC, Tremont, etc are fetching about the same rents as downtown. However, the units that you are talking about (less updates/ no washer or dryer) are significantly cheaper. This is how it should be and how it is panning out across cleveland. People rent downtown for a couple years, decide they want a cheaper but still urban nabe, move to said nabe, gentrify, becomes pricey, move to another up and coming nabe, repeat.

I see what you're saying, but I disagree. I personally am moving out of downtown to the near west side to SAVE money on rent. I have noticed that newer updated conversions in Gordon Square, OHC, Tremont, etc are fetching about the same rents as downtown. However, the units that you are talking about (less updates/ no washer or dryer) are significantly cheaper. This is how it should be and how it is panning out across cleveland. People rent downtown for a couple years, decide they want a cheaper but still urban nabe, move to said nabe, gentrify, becomes pricey, move to another up and coming nabe, repeat.

 

LOCUSTS!! ;)

I guess we'll see soon if the downtown momentum can keep up with suburban competition.I guess we'll see soon if the downtown momentum can keep up with suburban competition. There's a new product being built out in the burbs that will offer all the modern amenities that will be There's a new product being built out in the burbs that will offer all the modern amenities that will be in competition somewhat with downtown downtown. The new complex at Green and sugar and comes to mind. in competition somewhat with downtown. The new complex at Green and sugar and comes to mind.

I guess we'll see soon if the downtown momentum can keep up with suburban competition.I guess we'll see soon if the downtown momentum can keep up with suburban competition. There's a new product being built out in the burbs that will offer all the modern amenities that will be There's a new product being built out in the burbs that will offer all the modern amenities that will be in competition somewhat with downtown downtown. The new complex at Green and sugar and comes to mind. in competition somewhat with downtown. The new complex at Green and sugar and comes to mind.

 

Am I having a stroke?:-o

Mov2Ohio may have been.

Lol. I used talk to text from my phone and it typed sentences multiple times, then wouldn't let me delete anything, so I gave up trying.

Multi-family market slowing down? Not a chance

Posted By Dan Rafter On July 30, 2014 @ 2:04 pm | No Comments

 

village at mission farmsDowntown Minneapolis. St. Louis. Indianapolis. Downtown Chicago. Ann Arbor, and not just for student housing. The list of Midwest markets in which apartment rents are soaring, vacancies are plummeting and new multi-family buildings are rising is a long one.

 

And Sue Blumberg, senior vice president and managing director with the Chicago office of NorthMarq Capital, says that multi-family’s hot streak isn’t about to end soon.

 

“When will investor demand for multi-family cool off? When will the construction of new apartment buildings slow? When — not if, but when — interest rates start to hopefully gradually increase,” Blumberg said. “Only then will it taper off. And it looks like that won’t happen for three to five years.”

 

....That said, Blumberg thinks that most markets — and most in the Midwest — are still underserved when it comes to multi-family units. Demand continues for new apartment buildings, and once these buildings open, tenants continue to flock to them, she said.

 

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.rejournals.com/2014/07/30/multi-family-market-slowing-down-not-a-chance/

Associated Bank’s Hanson: Young people continue to fuel the multi-family market

August 01, 2014  |  Dan Rafter  |  PRINT ARTICLE  |  EMAIL THIS ARTICLE

 

Younger consumers are choosing to rent in downtown Minneapolis, Chicago, Cleveland or Detroit. They’re not making the trek to the suburbs of these communities to buy their starter homes. What is behind this trend?

 

Breck Hanson, executive vice president and head of commercial real estate in the Chicago office of Associated Bank, says that several factors are making multi-family more attractive to young people.

 

“I don’t know if we’ll ever, at least in the future, experience again the single-family-home craze that we saw in the late 1990s and early 2000s,” Hanson said. “The family unit has changed. People are having children later. People are less certain about the stability of their jobs. The appreciation of homes has either declined or slowed considerably. All of this has combined to make apartment living a more attractive option for people.”

 

- See more at: http://www.rejournals.com/2014/08/01/associated-banks-hanson-young-people-continue-to-fuel-the-multi-family-market/#sthash.uVOw7bpe.dpuf

DowntownCLE ‏@DowntownCLE  15m

Our Q2 market update highlights Downtown’s forward momentum & showcases one of its most exciting quarters in memory

http://www.downtowncleveland.com/media/221278/Q2-2014-DCA.pdf

^ Wow, we're back up to a 98.3% occupancy rate.

Downtown Cleveland's residential population reaches all-time high in second quarter

By SCOTT SUTTELL

Originally Published: August 04, 2014 2:38 PM  Modified: August 04, 2014 3:16 PM

 

Downtown Cleveland’s residential population reached an all-time high of 12,500 people in the second quarter, according to the latest market update from Downtown Cleveland Alliance.

 

DCA’s quarterly report quantifies downtown business development through major investments of all types, as well as advances in the office, housing, retail and transportation markets.

 

The new report called the April-to-June period “one of (downtown’s) most exciting quarters in memory,” based on residential and investment data, as well as two big announcements that technically came in July: the awarding to Cleveland of the 2016 Republican National Convention, and LeBron James’ announcement that he’s returning to the Cleveland Cavaliers.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20140804/FREE/140809946/downtown-cleveland-s-residential-population-reaches-all-time-high-in

Downtown Cleveland's residential population reaches all-time high in second quarter

By SCOTT SUTTELL

Originally Published: August 04, 2014 2:38 PM  Modified: August 04, 2014 3:16 PM

 

Downtown Cleveland’s residential population reached an all-time high of 12,500 people in the second quarter, according to the latest market update from Downtown Cleveland Alliance.

 

DCA’s quarterly report quantifies downtown business development through major investments of all types, as well as advances in the office, housing, retail and transportation markets.

 

The new report called the April-to-June period “one of (downtown’s) most exciting quarters in memory,” based on residential and investment data, as well as two big announcements that technically came in July: the awarding to Cleveland of the 2016 Republican National Convention, and LeBron James’ announcement that he’s returning to the Cleveland Cavaliers.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20140804/FREE/140809946/downtown-cleveland-s-residential-population-reaches-all-time-high-in

It seems like we have been floating around that number for a while now, I've even heard 14,000 but if the DCA reports 12,500 that must be the most accurate number. Great news either way!

I'd go with the 12,500 number as well. 14,000 would be all of the projects that were announced through last year. With the new ones proposed/announced this year, it should push over 15,000 by 2016.

What was the numerical population loss number for Cleveland between 2013 and 2014. I know it has been slowing. If downtown keeps going the way it has it may be the neighborhood that begins a reverse of the sixtyyears of decline.

What was the numerical population loss number for Cleveland between 2013 and 2014. I know it has been slowing. If downtown keeps going the way it has it may be the neighborhood that begins a reverse of the sixtyyears of decline.

 

And not just Downtown...the whole near westside is seeing a spike....Ohio City, Tremont, Duck Island, Hingetown, Detroit-Shoreway, Gordon Square, eta.  We're talking a few thousand new housing units across all these areas.

 

Plus University Circle continues to throw up 100's of new housing units.  Slavic Village added a decent amount as well, correct?  Should help post 2010 census numbers there.

Downtown and the near-west side can't reverse the slide but it can slow it. Downtown has more residents (12.5K) than Ohio City (9,150) and Tremont (8,000). Those are pretty small numbers -- so even a huge percentage increase in population in those areas makes a small dent citywide. For example, a 50% growth in downtown's population adds 6,250 residents. That's would make a huge difference downtown. But citywide, it would only slow the 7,000-per-year population loss of the 21st century.

 

From 2000 to 2012, Cleveland's population lost 85,000 residents (from 476,000  to 391,000). That's the 7,000 residents per year loss. So we'd have to build an entirely new Tremont every year just to make a tiny reversal in the loss from other parts of the city.

I thought I heard somewhere that the near west neighborhoods actually declined in population because low income families were being replaced by households with only 1 or 2 residents. Population declined, but wealth and the overall condition of the property and neighborhood improved.

 

Downtown and University Circle's growth isn't from single family houses, so people didn't need to leave in order for newer residents to move in.

 

 

Edit: Also KJP, only a fraction of those 17,000 living in Ohio City and Tremont are newer, wealthier residents. I would imagine over the next decade or so more of those lower income houses continue to get renovated and sold off to yp or empty nesters. This will probably further decline the population of those neighborhoods but again, the overall health of the neighborhood would drastically improve. It will be hard to reverse the decline as our "growing" neighborhoods will most likely continue to decline in overall population.

^and next door to University Circle in tiny Little Italy there are plans for new buildings totaling over 125 units.

Downtown and the near-west side can't reverse the slide but it can slow it and possibly stop it. Downtown has more residents (12.5K) than Ohio City (9,150) and Tremont (8,000)

 

From 2000 to 2012, Cleveland's population lost 85,000 residents (from 476,000  to 391,000). That's more than 7,000 residents per year. So we'd have to build an entirely new Tremont every year just to make a tiny reversal in the loss from other parts of the city.

Using new developments, housing rehabs/infill and knowledge of the city, my current estimation for 2020 is around 370,000-377,000. I continue to update my spreadsheet as new info/developments comes available, but unfortunately, I don't feel like the slide on the east side will be stopping anytime soon unless something drastic happens.

There are still so many areas in the City proper which are emptying out (which probably is better for the City as a whole, long term so that new housing stock can eventually replace outdated and dilapidated units) way faster than Downtown and other similar neighborhoods can grow.

There are still so many areas in the City proper which are emptying out (which probably is better for the City as a whole, long term so that new housing stock can eventually replace outdated and dilapidated units) way faster than Downtown and other similar neighborhoods can grow.

 

But I guess what is left on the east side that continues to empty out at the same rate?  We gotta be getting to a point the bleed is slower simply because there's no one left to bleed.

It's definitely slower.  But what we are talking about is a reversal.  The east side should slow down quite a bit.  It's the west side which still has plenty of bleeding left IMO. 

It's definitely slower.  But what we are talking about is a reversal.  The east side should slow down quite a bit.  It's the west side which still has plenty of bleeding left IMO. 

 

Except new immigrant populations are choosing the west side for their housing. Anyway.....

 

Cleveland has lost 5,300 residents since 2010. That's a lot slower than the 8,000-per-year loss rate of the prior decade, but similar to the 3,000-per-year loss rate of the 1990s. And to get us back to the point of this thread, many many housing units are needed to offset losses in northeastern and southeastern part of Cleveland. So many are needed that every Class C office building would have to be converted to housing and some new high-rises apartment towers downtown would have to be built.

Cleveland won't grow in overall population until there is a staregy to also repopulate east side neighborhoods.  Cleveland is a segragated city and this will make it extremely difficult to grow though gentrification like Harlem has done.  Other than University Circle, I don't see a consorted focus to develop neighborhoods like Ohio City, Tremont east etc. I'm not talking about rebuilding low income housing by ccc but walkable urban neighborhoods to attract young professionals like whats happening on the west side of town.

It's definitely slower.  But what we are talking about is a reversal.  The east side should slow down quite a bit.  It's the west side which still has plenty of bleeding left IMO. 

 

I have to disagree with this statement.  The house next to mine (Gordon Sq area) went on sale two Thursdays ago.  I had no less than 20 people, a lot of families BTW, drive by and ask questions about the house, neighborhood, etc.  It sold in four days.  Where on the eastside are 100 yr old houses being sold for 200k in less than a week? 

Please re-read my post.  I wasn't in any way saying the east side is more appealing to buyers than the west side.  I know what kind of sh!tstorm that would set off.  I was simply saying that the bleeding (which is UNQUESTIONABLY) happening and has happened on the east side should "slow down."  Not disappear.  Not stop.  Slow down..... like when you decrease your car's speed from 60 to 35 getting off a highway onto a city street.

 

The comment about the westside was merely a prediction.  The hotter neighborhoods like D-S, Edgewater, etc. will hopefully continue to boom.  But there are still blocks upon blocks of the exact same housing stock which we have seen disappear on the eastside.  Houses, especially wood-frame houses, typically have a life-span of less than 100 years.  Many beautiful homes are lost each year, not due to the fact no one would want them in habitable condition, but because the foundation has sunk, or water damage is too much to overcome, or a number of other reasons.  Neighborhood don't just disappear overnight.  It didn't happen on the older east-side and it won't happen that way on the not as old west-side.

^I am pretty sure that the Eastside and Westside don't have any appreciable difference in age of housing stock, and if your basic idea held, then we'd be talking about how hopeless things looked for Ohio City, Detroit-Shoreway and Tremont, as they have a good chunk of the oldest housing stock left in the city.  For the clearest example, East Cleveland is the same age as Lakewood.  I think the reason for the two sides of the City's divergent fortunes has more to do with racial segregation than age of housing stock.

How 'bout that downtown population....

They're not still counting prisoners (as residents) at the Justice Center, are they?

Please re-read my post.  I wasn't in any way saying the east side is more appealing to buyers than the west side.  I know what kind of sh!tstorm that would set off.  I was simply saying that the bleeding (which is UNQUESTIONABLY) happening and has happened on the east side should "slow down."  Not disappear.  Not stop.  Slow down..... like when you decrease your car's speed from 60 to 35 getting off a highway onto a city street.

 

The comment about the westside was merely a prediction.  The hotter neighborhoods like D-S, Edgewater, etc. will hopefully continue to boom.  But there are still blocks upon blocks of the exact same housing stock which we have seen disappear on the eastside.  Houses, especially wood-frame houses, typically have a life-span of less than 100 years.  Many beautiful homes are lost each year, not due to the fact no one would want them in habitable condition, but because the foundation has sunk, or water damage is too much to overcome, or a number of other reasons.  Neighborhood don't just disappear overnight.  It didn't happen on the older east-side and it won't happen that way on the not as old west-side.

 

I agree 100%. Nobody is saying there aren't pockets of growth (which are still population decline) but just because people are moving into Tremont and Ohio City doesn't mean the entire west side is growing! I could say people are moving into University Circle, so clearly Glenville, Hough, and East Cleveland are going to explode.  There are a lot of west side areas, where the housing stock is bad, the block aren't walkable, and there aren't really any reasons for that area to rebound.

 

This isnt an east vs west thing. Its reality.  Every single census tract on the west side lost population between 2000 and 2010 besides for two near the airport. One gained 0.8% and the other gained 11.9% which is good. I wouldn't doubt that income declined though. Detroit Shoreway north of Detroit lost nearly 20% of its population in one census tract and 15% in the other. South of Detroit it was around 20% for most census tracts. Ohio City south of Lorain lost 24%, 20%,  and 23.5%. The heart of tremont lost 10%. Clark Fulton had large declines, up to 26.5% population decline. The east side clearly declined faster, but that doesn't mean that the west side is not also declining at an alarming rate and that if the East side was a different city, Cleveland would be booming.

The East Side population plummeted 22.3 percent between 2000 and 2010 while the West Side dropped by 9.5 percent. While many black East Siders no doubt fled the city altogether, a sizable number ended up on the West Side, which has a reputation for having better schools and more stable neighborhoods.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/03/clevelands_shifting_population.html

The more attractive the core (downtown and innering neighborhoods) become, the more attractive adjacent neighborhoods become as cost to live in the core climbs.  My point is that is happening on the west side and not on the east side with the exception of UC. There needs to be a consorted effort to do this east as well. 

The east side of the river does not really have adjacent neighborhoods like OC and Tremont.  (Whether Tremont is 'west-side' is another debate).  And if you know the history of the area, you'd know that OC is westside as much as downtown is eastside.  Is the Campus District east side?  As far as spillover from the downtown momentum, I think the entire area between 55th and downtown is ripe for reinvestment.  Its location is ideal and the area is as close to a blank palette as you are going to find in an already built-out city.  If those grand schemes for moving the shoreway a bit south ever come to fruition and the closing bell finally sounds on Burke, watch out..... that area could boom in a Toronto-esque fashion.  Wishful thinking, I know

I would also include the development of the Asiatown area, which has a number of large old warehouses which are being landmarked for purposes of nabbing rehab tax credits. So I expect the population of that area to grow more quickly in the coming years. And I'm also pleased with the reconstruction of the Cedar Estates area into a mixed-income neighborhood with retail and health care services built on the sidewalk. The Arbor Park development is also one of the largest developments in the city (it covers twice the land area of Battery Park and is at least as dense) but we as a community rarely discuss or tout it. All of these help make downtown less of an island in sea of parking lots or abandoned lots and thus more vibrant and connected.

^ Battery Park is high end market rate housing while Arbor Park is largely public housing, with the rest low rent housing. There is also a crime problem in Arbor Park and it is located in a neighborhood mostly made up public housing. Central as a whole has a serious crime issue as well. I don't think they really compare so its understandable that Battery Park is talked about while Arbor Park is not.  Plus central/arbor park is extremely cut off from downtown.

 

The biggest thing downtown needs is for the area north of CSU and east of East 13th to develop.

They're still people. And the development is a great improvement over what was there before.

^ Not saying they aren't people, but when was the last time you heard of a people bragging about the new public housing development with crime issues? Im just saying its understandable that we don't hear much about it. If any public housing could even come close to Battery Park, it would probably be Tremont Point since its more mixed if I recall correctly and is integrated into an actual quality neighborhood. Still, there is a huge difference between market rate and public housing developments.

I think Arbor Park is a big improvement over what was there before and thus helps improve the improve the strength of downtown. The redeveloped Cedar Estates (575 units, or almost twice as big as Arbor Park!!), will further increase the population and purchasing power of near-downtown neighborhoods.