My question really is where were they all living before downtown and near west side neighborhoods became popular residential areas. They - think 20 and early 30 somethings - had to live somewhere. Those somewheres will have to take a hit with these influxes

 

I would think most are:

• New to the Region
  
• First time renters
  
• Living with a room mate elsewhere - but first time to be a single occupant renter
  
• Living with parents/Living with someone elsewhere in the region
  

 

Nice to hear that people want to live downtown and that most buildings have waiting lists.

 

My question really is where were they all living before downtown and near west side neighborhoods became popular residential areas. They - think 20 and early 30 somethings - had to live somewhere. Those somewheres will have to take a hit with these influxes

 

I think you're right that much of this population lived in rental housing in Lakewood and the Heights before Downtown/Tremont/Ohio City came on big.  But I don't think it's quite the zero sum game you make it out to be; I'd bet this population has grown significantly as age of first marriage/child birth has increased substantially and more people live openly gay.

Keep in mind that these are mostly not people who are moving from a place they owned or rented in CH or LW.  These are a lot of people who are just now cutting the chord.  I suppose the question is then, in the absence of this urban movement, where WOULD they have lived.  Well.... the people that were living in CH and LW obviously already did like a walkable environment and short commute.  I think the point is that there are now MORE young people who enjoy those same characteristics.  Therefore, a good chunk might very well be people in eras past that would have rented an apartment in Mayfield Heights or Beachwood..... or, as I said above, bought a McMansion when interest arms and the such were still widespread.

I'll share my mom and Dad's living arrangements, both of which were YPs in the early to mid 1980s. My Mom lived in a 20 story apartment building overlooking Forest Hills Park in East Cleveland. My dad lived in Richmond Park Apartments in Richmond Heights, before buying a house on the far South East side of Cleveland. Both lived there until jointly buying a house in Cleveland Heights. Most of their friends stayed on the far east side of Cleveland proper and suburbs like CH, EC, SH, WH.

I believe downtown and Lakewood/CH draw largely from the same market.  Urban living is urban living, and if that's what you want, those are your 3 choices in Greater Cleveland.  The only distinction for downtown is that its prices are so much higher, so it gets the higher end of that market while Lakewood and CH serve everybody else.

I see living in Lakewood or Cleveland Heights as a compromise between living in/near downtown and living in the outer suburbs. You get a little bit of benefit of each without going "all in" for either downtown or outer suburban living.

I'm with you KJP...downtown is not for everyone and the other neighborhoods provide what downtown never can and vice versa.

It's interesting that Univ. Circle (MRN notably) is charging per/sq ft. apt. rates significantly higher than downtown even though downtown's strong popularity and demand (96-98% occupancy) is obviously strong as opposed to Univ. Circle's promising though largely untapped new apt. market.  Is it due to the fact Uptown is new contruction as opposed to downtown's largely retrofits? ... or is it something else?

I'm just guessing here, but I would think that housing demand in/near University Circle is even stronger than downtown's. But downtown always seems to get the headlines.

I believe downtown and Lakewood/CH draw largely from the same market.  Urban living is urban living, and if that's what you want, those are your 3 choices in Greater Cleveland. 

How are those your only 3 choices?

^^^The proximity of a premier private University drives apartment rates significantly higher.  Search for apartments near any major University and you'll find inflated apartment rates.  I don't think CSU has enough residential demand or student family wealth (no offense, my wife goes to CSU!) to have the same impact on downtown rates although my guess is that CSU inflates rates slightly at the Chesterfield and Reserve Square.

I believe downtown and Lakewood/CH draw largely from the same market.  Urban living is urban living, and if that's what you want, those are your 3 choices in Greater Cleveland. 

How are those your only 3 choices?

 

High density, lots of apartments and walkable retail.  Outside those 3 areas, Cleveland's neighborhoods today aren't all that different from what you'd find in your typical midwestern county seat.  Maybe a few more duplexes.  But the housing is overwhelmingly detached and the retail is overwhelmingly located in plazas, to the extent that there's retail at all.  And that's the pre-war neighborhoods... what's left of them.  Cleveland's post-war areas weren't even really designed to resemble big-city living. 

There are obviously other Cleveland neighborhoods that offer the same degree of retail service and walkability at similar densities to Cleveland Heights and Lakewood, and at greater densities than downtown.  And I think it is a genuine concern to the viability of the rental markets in surrounding west side neighborhoods that currently the biggest advantage they have over downtown apartments is access to convenience retail.  If downtown population reaches a critical mass that allows for expansion of a number of neighborhood amenities (besides gay bars), it isn't outside the realm of possibility that it will put real pressure on surrounding submarkets absent regional population gain.

I believe downtown and Lakewood/CH draw largely from the same market.  Urban living is urban living, and if that's what you want, those are your 3 choices in Greater Cleveland. 

How are those your only 3 choices?

 

High density, lots of apartments and walkable retail.  Outside those 3 areas, Cleveland's neighborhoods today aren't all that different from what you'd find in your typical midwestern county seat.  Maybe a few more duplexes.  But the housing is overwhelmingly detached and the retail is overwhelmingly located in plazas, to the extent that there's retail at all.  And that's the pre-war neighborhoods... what's left of them.  Cleveland's post-war areas weren't even really designed to resemble big-city living. 

 

Huhh  Humm. 

 

 

 

I believe downtown and Lakewood/CH draw largely from the same market.  Urban living is urban living, and if that's what you want, those are your 3 choices in Greater Cleveland.  The only distinction for downtown is that its prices are so much higher, so it gets the higher end of that market while Lakewood and CH serve everybody else.

 

Yo may be correct, but you are ignoring the factor that the 'market' for urban living amongst the millenials is much, much larger than it has been for recent generations.

^^^The proximity of a premier private University drives apartment rates significantly higher.  Search for apartments near any major University and you'll find inflated apartment rates.  I don't think CSU has enough residential demand or student family wealth (no offense, my wife goes to CSU!) to have the same impact on downtown rates although my guess is that CSU inflates rates slightly at the Chesterfield and Reserve Square.

 

It's hard to find any vacancies around CSU. You definitely do not get what you py for either (1900 Euclid - Chesterfield - University Studios), CSU DEFINITELY needs more housing around it, there's a high demand, but low supply. Thankfully the North Campus project is happening.

 

Also, I personally feel that University Circle does not have as much to offer as Downtown, honestly. UC is new, but there is more DT, especially bing developed.

I believe downtown and Lakewood/CH draw largely from the same market.  Urban living is urban living, and if that's what you want, those are your 3 choices in Greater Cleveland.  The only distinction for downtown is that its prices are so much higher, so it gets the higher end of that market while Lakewood and CH serve everybody else.

 

Yo may be correct, but you are ignoring the factor that the 'market' for urban living amongst the millenials is much, much larger than it has been for recent generations.

 

Or those of us in our 40s with a lot of disposable income, who don't want to live in the 'burbs or have a backyard!

Exactly what MTS said!

I believe downtown and Lakewood/CH draw largely from the same market.  Urban living is urban living, and if that's what you want, those are your 3 choices in Greater Cleveland.  The only distinction for downtown is that its prices are so much higher, so it gets the higher end of that market while Lakewood and CH serve everybody else.

 

Yo may be correct, but you are ignoring the factor that the 'market' for urban living amongst the millenials is much, much larger than it has been for recent generations.

 

I also think it ignores the fact that many people that live in the suburbs would like to live in urban areas  but are scared to because they don't personally know anyone else who does, or fell like there needs to be a critical mass of people in a given neighborhood before they'd move there.  Kind of a chicken-and-egg problem.  It could reach a tipping point where "urban living" isn't looked at as being so radical or risky or however people that are afraid to come downtown think of it and then there would be an explosion of demand.  That is what happened in Manhattan.

I believe downtown and Lakewood/CH draw largely from the same market.  Urban living is urban living, and if that's what you want, those are your 3 choices in Greater Cleveland.  The only distinction for downtown is that its prices are so much higher, so it gets the higher end of that market while Lakewood and CH serve everybody else.

 

Yo may be correct, but you are ignoring the factor that the 'market' for urban living amongst the millenials is much, much larger than it has been for recent generations.

 

I also think it ignores the fact that many people that live in the suburbs would like to live in urban areas  but are scared to because they don't personally know anyone else who does, or fell like there needs to be a critical mass of people in a given neighborhood before they'd move there.  Kind of a chicken-and-egg problem.  It could reach a tipping point where "urban living" isn't looked at as being so radical or risky or however people that are afraid to come downtown think of it and then there would be an explosion of demand.  That is what happened in Manhattan.

 

Manhattan?  I slightly disagree.  You cannot compare manhattan living/real estate to any other city in the US.  You cannot.

 

Yes there are places that are reinvigorated, but Manhattan (New York City to outsiders) has always been a place where people want to live.  Now if you said Waterfront Brooklyn or Queens.  Or N New Jersey Cities like Jersey City, Weehawken or Hobokern, Edgewater.

 

I don't like comparing Cleveland to other cities, but this transformation in my opinion, is very similar to what has taken place in center city Philadelphia (Washington Sq., Rittenhouse Sq. & Convention Ctr. and area that is north of the Vine and Spring) and in Washington, DC (the area bordered by L/M street going north to U and 17 to 7 sts; the area East of S. Capitol street near the Navy yard) and the associated development in those cities, namely convention centers, brought new hotels, restaurants and jobs for those that lived in those neighborhoods.  Those who owned in those areas started to upgrade and maintain their homes.  I'm a bit older than the majority of forum members so I can say I know/remember what those areas looked like 20/25 years ago.  Much has happened in those neighborhoods in the last two decades, but I see the same type of development happening in Cleveland.  The missing link for downtown residents is a rail transportation system, something that Philly and DC have.

Manhattan?  I slightly disagree.  You cannot compare manhattan living/real estate to any other city in the US.  You cannot.

 

Yes there are places that are reinvigorated, but Manhattan (New York City to outsiders) has always been a place where people want to live.  Now if you said Waterfront Brooklyn or Queens.  Or N New Jersey Cities like Jersey City, Weehawken or Hobokern, Edgewater.

 

I don't like comparing Cleveland to other cities, but this transformation in my opinion, is very similar to what has taken place in center city Philadelphia (Washington Sq., Rittenhouse Sq. & Convention Ctr. and area that is north of the Vine and Spring) and in Washington, DC (the area bordered by L/M street going north to U and 17 to 7 sts; the area East of S. Capitol street near the Navy yard) and the associated development in those cities, namely convention centers, brought new hotels, restaurants and jobs for those that lived in those neighborhoods.  Those who owned in those areas started to upgrade and maintain their homes.  I'm a bit older than the majority of forum members so I can say I know/remember what those areas looked like 20/25 years ago.  Much has happened in those neighborhoods in the last two decades, but I see the same type of development happening in Cleveland.  The missing link for downtown residents is a rail transportation system, something that Philly and DC have.

 

I don't disagree that there are other cities, but Manhattan is just what came to my mind.  I didn't mean all of Manhattan, but parts of it.  I know of many areas which were deemed very seedy not too long ago which are right up there with some of the most desirable areas now as far as demand.

 

I do agree that your DC example is probably better, and I don't know enough about Philadelphia to have compared anything to it.

 

By the way, I wasn't comparing the cities themselves to Cleveland, just the patterns of development and human behavior, which I don't think will vary that much from city to city.

I believe downtown and Lakewood/CH draw largely from the same market.  Urban living is urban living, and if that's what you want, those are your 3 choices in Greater Cleveland.  The only distinction for downtown is that its prices are so much higher, so it gets the higher end of that market while Lakewood and CH serve everybody else.

Yo may be correct, but you are ignoring the factor that the 'market' for urban living amongst the millenials is much, much larger than it has been for recent generations.

 

I also think it ignores the fact that many people that live in the suburbs would like to live in urban areas  but are scared to because they don't personally know anyone else who does, or fell like there needs to be a critical mass of people in a given neighborhood before they'd move there.  Kind of a chicken-and-egg problem.  It could reach a tipping point where "urban living" isn't looked at as being so radical or risky or however people that are afraid to come downtown think of it and then there would be an explosion of demand.  That is what happened in Manhattan.

 

Manhattan?  I slightly disagree.  You cannot compare manhattan living/real estate to any other city in the US.  You cannot.

 

Yes there are places that are reinvigorated, but Manhattan (New York City to outsiders) has always been a place where people want to live.  Now if you said Waterfront Brooklyn or Queens.  Or N New Jersey Cities like Jersey City, Weehawken or Hobokern, Edgewater.

 

I don't like comparing Cleveland to other cities, but this transformation in my opinion, is very similar to what has taken place in center city Philadelphia (Washington Sq., Rittenhouse Sq. & Convention Ctr. and area that is north of the Vine and Spring) and in Washington, DC (the area bordered by L/M street going north to U and 17 to 7 sts; the area East of S. Capitol street near the Navy yard) and the associated development in those cities, namely convention centers, brought new hotels, restaurants and jobs for those that lived in those neighborhoods.  Those who owned in those areas started to upgrade and maintain their homes.  I'm a bit older than the majority of forum members so I can say I know/remember what those areas looked like 20/25 years ago.  Much has happened in those neighborhoods in the last two decades, but I see the same type of development happening in Cleveland.  The missing link for downtown residents is a rail transportation system, something that Philly and DC have.

 

while I agree you can't really compare Manhattan to any other place in the country, there are parts of it where nobody wanted to live for decades, especially in the 70's. The East Village/Alphabet City has gotten disgustingly gentrified, while 30 years ago it was considered a drug-infested, abandonded no-man's-land where no one wanted to live ("radical and risky"), especially by yuppie wannabes (and their suburban parents) who have driven up rents to stratospheric, unaffordable levels. Before that, no one really wanted to live on the Upper West Side ages ago either, except on Central Park West and parts of Riverside Drive (probably the building of Lincoln Center helped revive the area). But not to worry, Manhattan has now successfully become one giant playground and mall for self-entitled, self-important clones of each other whose greatest cultural contribution is going from one club with overpriced drinks and "hip" clothing boutique to the next. Isn't urban revitalization a great thing?  :-)

^You sure it's not carpet-baggers from Painseville, Lorain and Shaker Hts soaking up the finite housing supply that's been making Manhattan rents go up ;)

 

Seriously though, if there's any Manhattan analogy that works best, I think it's the financial district.  In Downtown Cleveland, it's not gentrification; we're literally building a residential culture and infrastructure from scratch.  And unlike NY or Philly, zero-grass urban living has been completely dead for the middle class in the entire metro area for more than a generation, or even longer.  I agree with MTS that comparing what's happening to other cities isn't really all that useful, but I think the closest comparisons are actually sun belt cities which are similarly adding dense downtown units as an entirely new lifestyle choice after never really having them before, or not at all recently.

^Frankly, that's a good point. As much as it pains me to say, places like Orlando, Charlotte, even Jacksonville have the type of new construction high-rise condos/apartments that we still dream about for downtown Cleveland.

^who is doing the dreaming?  It is my impression that Clevelander's, for what ever reason, are not that big into high rise living.  Obviously if there was the demand like there apparently is in the cities you mention, some smart developer would take advatage of it.

^I think he's referring to us/downtown supporters doing the dreaming, not prospective renters or buyers.  But to your point, demand is just a function of price; I'd bet the demand for new-build high rises in Cleveland is at least as high as it is for the kinds of downtown rental housing we have now; it's just that current market rents can only support office building conversions, which are substantially cheaper to produce per sf (especially when historic tax credits are involved).  East Ohio gas, for instance, will be high rise, if that project makes it.  I agree that the situation's a little different for for-sale housing though.  People here seem much more willing to pay for townhouses.

^ Correct. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that most of us on here would be consumed with glee if, for example, they announced a residential tower for the garage on Euclid.

 

I don't know, however, that I buy the argument that Clevelanders don't want to live in high rises. Orlando is sprawl and low-rise condo-tastic, but still has some impressive towers downtown. And while I get the economics involved in such, I almost feel like there is some x-factor (likely, image or perception of our city) also keeping these projects from being proposed. A corollary to the absence of certain retailers from our market, as discussed in another thread.

^Our low rents are probably the biggest issue.  There may also be a thin market issue though.  We don't have all that many comps for lenders to look at, but Uptown and 668 may help in that regard.

 

How many residential high rises are being build these days in Orlando?  Honest question, I have no idea.  I would have thought most of the recent high rise residential construction built in the sun belt last decade was for-sale, and was obviously part and parcel of the bubble (which by definition has no good logic).

 

There is a boom now in new rental building construction though in much of the country.  Would be interesting to see what the offering rents are for projects being built in places like Atlanta, or in Texas, where I would think rents aren't all that much higher than Cleveland.  Though maybe their construction costs are lower?

This is obviously not a perfect tool, but HUD determines market rents for administrating the section 8 program: http://www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/fmr/fmrs/FY2012_code/select_Geography.odn

The FMRs for Dallas, for example, are about 1.5x the rate for Cleveland.

^Frankly, that's a good point. As much as it pains me to say, places like Orlando, Charlotte, even Jacksonville have the type of new construction high-rise condos/apartments that we still dream about for downtown Cleveland.

 

I drove by that new high rise (probably around 40 stories of residential units) in Charlotte late last summer at night and there were five lights on.

With this surge in downtown residencies but stagnant/decreasing population metro size - and the young professional work force has to be lower now than 10, 20, 30 years ago -I'm wondering where these workers' counterparts lived back in those eras. Where would new Jones Day and National City associates live before downtown's residential resurgence? I'm guessing Cleve Hts and Lakewood mostly - should those areas be nervous now that there's a smaller influx of young professionals?

 

I've been thinking about this a lot. Fascinating urban nerdery! :) It's kind of the opposite of our Cleveland Neighborhoods in 2016 thread ... What neighborhoods are most at threat for a backslide.

 

My guess is that if we don't see population gains in the under-40 market in the next decade, you're right. I'd be most worried if I was a rental property owner in the Heights or Lakewood ... Or potentially edge city neighborhoods like Old Brooklyn, West Park or Edgewater/Cudell. At the same time, I'm still hearing about plenty of people moving out of the city to Lakewood. I've also seen 20-somethings moving from places like Asiatown, Tremont and Shaker Square moving to Cleveland Heights and buying a house, courtesy of the city getting hit relatively hard by the foreclosure crisis. The opening of ownership opportunities for younger people in the inner ring is one thing that may stabilize these cities, although not necessarily the rental properties. I also think that as rents rise in places like downtown, Ohio City and University Circle, we'll see people self-selecting into cheaper rental markets; the big question for me is whether those rental markets will be places like Asiatown or Slavic Village or whether they'll be places like Cedar Fairmount and the Gold Coast.

I think Heights and Lakewood have different concerns.  Heights is probably not as relilant on "young professionals" as Lakewood is.  Heights thrives more off of college and grad students, and young families who don't really qualify as "yuppies".  Teachers, artists, service sector workers.  The build-out also is different.  The only thing separating some of Lakewoods residential streets from what would be seen in some of the area's worst neighborhoods are the actual residents.  Lots of stick-built up-down doubles which don't have the same use that they did 50 years ago.  Plus, the nicer residential neighborhoods are far fewer I believe.  The threat to Heights comes moreso from its proximity to East Cleveland.

 

All that said, I still don't think downtown is a viable threat to either City.  They will stand or fall on their own.

With this surge in downtown residencies but stagnant/decreasing population metro size - and the young professional work force has to be lower now than 10, 20, 30 years ago -I'm wondering where these workers' counterparts lived back in those eras. Where would new Jones Day and National City associates live before downtown's residential resurgence? I'm guessing Cleve Hts and Lakewood mostly - should those areas be nervous now that there's a smaller influx of young professionals?

 

I've been thinking about this a lot. Fascinating urban nerdery! :) It's kind of the opposite of our Cleveland Neighborhoods in 2016 thread ... What neighborhoods are most at threat for a backslide.

 

My guess is that if we don't see population gains in the under-40 market in the next decade, you're right. I'd be most worried if I was a rental property owner in the Heights or Lakewood ... Or potentially edge city neighborhoods like Old Brooklyn, West Park or Edgewater/Cudell. At the same time, I'm still hearing about plenty of people moving out of the city to Lakewood. I've also seen 20-somethings moving from places like Asiatown, Tremont and Shaker Square moving to Cleveland Heights and buying a house, courtesy of the city getting hit relatively hard by the foreclosure crisis. The opening of ownership opportunities for younger people in the inner ring is one thing that may stabilize these cities, although not necessarily the rental properties. I also think that as rents rise in places like downtown, Ohio City and University Circle, we'll see people self-selecting into cheaper rental markets; the big question for me is whether those rental markets will be places like Asiatown or Slavic Village or whether they'll be places like Cedar Fairmount and the Gold Coast.

 

Ive been doing alot of work in this area, and as I keep mentioning, pretty much all of the previously stable parts of the city or Cleveland (such as old brooklyn, west park and Edgewater/Cudell have been in decline and seen subsequent increases in crime.  Same with Lakewood and Cleveland Heights as a whole, but because both of these areas still have more expensive and desirable housing, it has been somewhat confined to certain areas of those cities.  It does tend to go hand in hand with the changing demographics that these areas have been seen. 

Also for the most part these areas have seen a big increase in rental housing, in part due to middle class or even elderly residents wanting to get out and not being able to get their investment out of the property, but also due to the foreclosure crisis, where properties may have been bought up just for rental purposes, and often section 8, just to reap some kind of return. 

 

So without a big improvement in the local economy, several quarters of job gains, and a change in the perception of these areas, any improvement in one area only seems to result in the tradeoff of a decline in another.  That's why I have been so adamant about maintaining the stable areas (and at least making an effort to stabilize/prevent further flight) because under the circumstances of no/negative population growth and general cheap housing in the region, it would tak along time for those areas to come back.  Same with Cleve Hts and Lkwd..  Schools and crime have to be kept in check top prevent a mass exodus. 

 

Tom Bier at Cleveland State has done alot of work in this area and has predicted most of what has already happened.  His latest report predicts more of the same and not very good predictions for Cuyahoga County if massive amounts of redevelopment doesn't take place in the meantime. 

 

Other studies have noted a bright side with all the interest in downtown living, and radiating interest in surrounding areas, but its really only a drop in the bucket, and typically limited to childless people.     

 

     

One other thing that's interesting about locational decisions for transplants is the huge role employers and schools have played in steering people toward living in particular areas. When I moved to Cleveland with a friend in 2002, the only information we got from Case's medical school (his reason for moving) was listings from Shaker Square and Shaker Heights ... not even anything in Cleveland Heights and definitely nothing in Little Italy, University Circle, downtown, Near West, etc. Moving from out of state, not knowing the city well at all and only having a few days to look at apartments, we didn't even consider anywhere outside of the Square or along Van Aken. My guess is a lot of young relocaters who've ended up in Middleburg Heights or Westlake or whatnot have been steered there by an employer or a school.

 

A lot has changed since 2002. I think there's been a huge shift toward wanting to live somewhere denser and more urban among young people, both generally and particularly among the sort of young people we're increasingly attracting (medical community, arts community, etc.). It seems like a lot of people are being more active in finding a neighborhood that matches their specific preferences, and the Internet has come a long way in supporting people's searches ... as evidenced by the number of relocation advice requests we get on here :) Finally, as people in positions of authority become more "urban friendly", I'd expect that we'll see more people finding their way to our city neighborhoods.

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

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

 

I think you've touched on something important on your point about perception. The "elephant in the room" in all of these islands of redevelopment is the perceived "danger" of the surrounding areas.  To me it will be really interesting to see how much and for how long these negative perceptions will be a limit potential.

 

 

But SurfOhio, whether perception or reality, even you have mentioned that many of these areas are still to rough aorund the edges for you, and have stated your displeasure of the amount of crime that certain areas (or certain concert clubs), have seen in the not so distant past, so in many cases there really is crime occuring that is creating the negative perception.   

It will take a long time for downtown to ever hurt Cleveland heights or other neighborhood or cities in my opinion. Remember we aren't even at 10,000 yet, and have a while until we get there. And I also think they are different markets. If you want more greenspace(backyard), big trees, and a neighborhood feel, you will most likely choose Cleveland Heights over Downtown. And with University Circle right there, I would expect the demand for living in Little Italy and Cleveland Heights(West of Coventry Rd), to continue to grow. I can easily see University Heights and the eastern and northern parts of Cleveland Heights to start/continue to slip.

 

Lakewood I think is more at risk or losing out, not to downtown, but neighborhoods such as Ohio City, Tremont, and Detroit Shoreway(if improvement continues). This is because I think alot of people who want to live in an urban environment, but dont want to live by crime and bad schools choose Lakewood. But if these Cleveland Neighborhoods continue to improve and crime decreases, I can see these people moving to live closer to downtown, and be in a growing neighborhood instead of a declining one.

 

The difference is that Little Italy and Cleveland Heights(West of Coventry Rd.) are nearby a large employment center, and one that is well paid. Its also near a huge cultural center in University Circle, and Little Italy is a cultural center in itself in my opinion. Also almost forgot to mention its right by a University(Case Western), which will always drive demand. These CH houses are large and grand, and really the only livable area around that employment and cultural center(University Circle). Lakewood on the other hand has to compete with closer neighborhoods to its employment center(downtown), such as Tremont, Ohio City, and Detroit Shoreway as mentioned earlier. It will be interesting to see how things play out.

 

Shaker Heights is interesting. Its still close to University Circle so that helps. But I think the thing that helps most is its extremely large houses on the North Side. If you are rich as hell, want a big house, and want to be close to work, this is basically your only true choice to choose from. The south side of Shaker Heights has no advantage so I believe the slip we have already seen will continue with little hope for improvement in my opinion.

Right! In most other cities...people are looking at those more  "dangerous" neighborhoods as cheap alternatives to the hip neighborhoods, but still located closely.  I think things will look very different in a few years.  Ohio City and Tremont are mostly renovated and will continue to spill over into other areas.  Downtown will have a lot more mid-upper income renters within a couple years.  Exciting times here in Cleveland!!

It will take a long time for downtown to ever hurt Cleveland heights or other neighborhood or cities in my opinion. Remember we aren't even at 10,000 yet, and have a while until we get there. And I also think they are different markets. If you want more greenspace(backyard), big trees, and a neighborhood feel, you will most likely choose Cleveland Heights over Downtown. And with University Circle right there, I would expect the demand for living in Little Italy and Cleveland Heights(West of Coventry Rd), to continue to grow. I can easily see University Heights and the eastern and northern parts of Cleveland Heights to start/continue to slip.

 

Lakewood I think is more at risk or losing out, not to downtown, but neighborhoods such as Ohio City, Tremont, and Detroit Shoreway(if improvement continues). This is because I think alot of people who want to live in an urban environment, but dont want to live by crime and bad schools choose Lakewood. But if these Cleveland Neighborhoods continue to improve and crime decreases, I can see these people moving to live closer to downtown, and be in a growing neighborhood instead of a declining one.

 

The difference is that Little Italy and Cleveland Heights(West of Coventry Rd.) are nearby a large employment center, and one that is well paid. Its also near a huge cultural center in University Circle, and Little Italy is a cultural center in itself in my opinion. These houses are large and grand, and really the only livable area around that employment and cultural center(University Circle). Lakewood on the other hand has to compete with closer neighborhoods to its employment center(downtown), such as Tremont, Ohio City, and Detroit Shoreway as mentioned earlier. It will be interesting to see how things play out.

 

Shaker Heights is interesting. Its still close to University Circle so that helps. But I think the thing that helps most is its extremely large houses on the North Side. If you are rich as hell, want a big house, and want to be close to work, this is basically your only true choice to choose from. The south side of Shaker Heights has no advantage so I believe the slip we have already seen will continue with little hope for improvement in my opinion.

 

Cleve, I think you are right on with your assesments. 

 

We have/had been looking to return to the area, but frankly have been having a hard time in diciding where we would/could live there without the fear of things around us decling further.  Its just that we have been in DC for long enough that we have been through the bad here, back when many of the neighborhoods mentioned above seemed like much nicer more liveable areas, but then experienced the positive transition and incredible transformation that has occured in DC, the likes that Cleveland could never see, it is a bit hard to decide whether we are willing to buy a really nice house in the HTS there and live well, but in what would be an "island" in a sense, or stay in DC where things keep getting better and more functional, but more expensive all the same, where we  could never aford to live like we could there. 

 

Frankly, we have been through so much bad in DC, through the transition that I dont know that we want to experience all those things again.  So with all the unknowns for the inner rings there concern us a bit.  We are not the young chickens we were back then.   

But SurfOhio, whether perception or reality, even you have mentioned that many of these areas are still to rough aorund the edges for you, and have stated your displeasure of the amount of crime that certain areas (or certain concert clubs), have seen in the not so distant past, so in many cases there really is crime occuring that is creating the negative perception.   

 

Hey there willyboy. I think what you're referring to is when i said the Flats were still "too rough around the edges" for me to live there. When I wrote that I strictly meant "rough" in the sense as in "really ugly" looking.

 

As for the crime, I know it happens but I'm personally not dissuaded from going to any of our cool neighborhoods because of it. I'm frequently at Beachland (collinwood), Happy Dog (detroit-shoreway), Tremont, Downtown or Steve's Lunch (ghost town looking area of Lorain) at 3am. Overall I feel pretty safe.

 

So I guess I was talking more about outsiders (visitors, non-local investors, suburb-types, etc.) and their perceptions rather than my own.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shaker Heights is interesting. Its still close to University Circle so that helps. But I think the thing that helps most is its extremely large houses on the North Side. If you are rich as hell, want a big house, and want to be close to work, this is basically your only true choice to choose from. The south side of Shaker Heights has no advantage so I believe the slip we have already seen will continue with little hope for improvement in my opinion.

Shaker has the rapid. That is its big advantage and will be what keeps it from becoming like the neighborhoods south of it.

But SurfOhio, whether perception or reality, even you have mentioned that many of these areas are still to rough aorund the edges for you, and have stated your displeasure of the amount of crime that certain areas (or certain concert clubs), have seen in the not so distant past, so in many cases there really is crime occuring that is creating the negative perception.   

 

Hey there willyboy. I think what you're referring to is when i said the Flats were still "too rough around the edges" for me to live there. When I wrote that I strictly meant "rough" in the sense as in "really ugly" looking.

 

As for the crime, I know it happens but I'm personally not dissuaded from going to any of our cool neighborhoods because of it. I'm frequently at Beachland (collinwood), Happy Dog (detroit-shoreway), Tremont, Downtown or Steve's Lunch (ghost town looking area of Lorain) at 3am. Overall I feel pretty safe.

 

So I guess I was talking more about outsiders (visitors, non-local investors, suburb-types, etc.) and their perceptions rather than my own.

 

 

I think you had mentioned recently with Battery Park, but in regard to the clubs, I thought you mentioned no longer frequenting the concert club near w116 and Detroit because it had become so dangerous with robberies etc..

 

But SurfOhio, whether perception or reality, even you have mentioned that many of these areas are still to rough aorund the edges for you, and have stated your displeasure of the amount of crime that certain areas (or certain concert clubs), have seen in the not so distant past, so in many cases there really is crime occuring that is creating the negative perception.   

 

Hey there willyboy. I think what you're referring to is when i said the Flats were still "too rough around the edges" for me to live there. When I wrote that I strictly meant "rough" in the sense as in "really ugly" looking.

 

As for the crime, I know it happens but I'm personally not dissuaded from going to any of our cool neighborhoods because of it. I'm frequently at Beachland (collinwood), Happy Dog (detroit-shoreway), Tremont, Downtown or Steve's Lunch (ghost town looking area of Lorain) at 3am. Overall I feel pretty safe.

 

So I guess I was talking more about outsiders (visitors, non-local investors, suburb-types, etc.) and their perceptions rather than my own.

 

 

I think you had mentioned recently with Battery Park, but in regard to the clubs, I thought you mentioned no longer frequenting the concert club near w116 and Detroit because it had become so dangerous with robberies etc..

 

 

Oh yeah, not Battery Park though- but there were two bad incidents on Detroit (w58 and w116) and you're right, in both cases I waited a few weeks before going back...but I still go. They're my favorite places.  At night I generally will not park or venture south of Detroit Ave at either venue. Sketchy.

Funny how we keep wanting to make homes and neighborhoods attractive for households with children, yet only one-fourth of households have children!

Mods, is there a better place for the inner ring suburbs convo? Wasn't sure ... Closest thing I found was this: http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,26624.msg601242.html#msg601242

 

I ask because I just ran across this article about inner ring suburbs looking to Neighborhood Progress to potentially provide services (with a focus on how the foreclosure crisis is impacting Shaker) ... Which I think speaks to the increasing competitive advantages falling on the city proper, or at least to Cleveland's far more comprehensive community development infrastructure.

 

Cleveland agency may help fix Shaker Heights homes

Saturday, March 24, 2012

By Thomas Jewell, Sun News

 

SHAKER HEIGHTS Neighborhood Progress Inc., for 20 years a stalwart in rebuilding and revitalizing Cleveland neighborhoods, could be making its first foray into the inner-ring suburbs.

 

This could help in dealing with continued fallout from the mortgage crisis in communities like Shaker and Cleveland Heights, where NPI President and CEO Joel Ratner said there are hundreds of abandoned homes.

 

“We’ve been talking to local officials, and we’ve applied for a $1 million grant from the U.S. Treasury Department, which could put us into the inner ring suburbs for the first time,” Ratner said at a March 18 community forum at First Unitarian Church of Cleveland on Shaker Boulevard ...

 

... More at http://www.cleveland.com/shaker-heights/index.ssf/2012/03/cleveland_agency_may_help_fix.html

Is there a First Suburbs or Inner Ring Suburbs thread somewhere?

With this surge in downtown residencies but stagnant/decreasing population metro size - and the young professional work force has to be lower now than 10, 20, 30 years ago -I'm wondering where these workers' counterparts lived back in those eras. Where would new Jones Day and National City associates live before downtown's residential resurgence? I'm guessing Cleve Hts and Lakewood mostly - should those areas be nervous now that there's a smaller influx of young professionals?

 

I've been thinking about this a lot. Fascinating urban nerdery! :) It's kind of the opposite of our Cleveland Neighborhoods in 2016 thread ... What neighborhoods are most at threat for a backslide.

 

My guess is that if we don't see population gains in the under-40 market in the next decade, you're right. I'd be most worried if I was a rental property owner in the Heights or Lakewood ... Or potentially edge city neighborhoods like Old Brooklyn, West Park or Edgewater/Cudell. At the same time, I'm still hearing about plenty of people moving out of the city to Lakewood. I've also seen 20-somethings moving from places like Asiatown, Tremont and Shaker Square moving to Cleveland Heights and buying a house, courtesy of the city getting hit relatively hard by the foreclosure crisis. The opening of ownership opportunities for younger people in the inner ring is one thing that may stabilize these cities, although not necessarily the rental properties. I also think that as rents rise in places like downtown, Ohio City and University Circle, we'll see people self-selecting into cheaper rental markets; the big question for me is whether those rental markets will be places like Asiatown or Slavic Village or whether they'll be places like Cedar Fairmount and the Gold Coast.

 

Ive been doing alot of work in this area, and as I keep mentioning, pretty much all of the previously stable parts of the city or Cleveland (such as old brooklyn, west park and Edgewater/Cudell have been in decline and seen subsequent increases in crime.  Same with Lakewood and Cleveland Heights as a whole, but because both of these areas still have more expensive and desirable housing, it has been somewhat confined to certain areas of those cities.  It does tend to go hand in hand with the changing demographics that these areas have been seen. 

Also for the most part these areas have seen a big increase in rental housing, in part due to middle class or even elderly residents wanting to get out and not being able to get their investment out of the property, but also due to the foreclosure crisis, where properties may have been bought up just for rental purposes, and often section 8, just to reap some kind of return. 

 

So without a big improvement in the local economy, several quarters of job gains, and a change in the perception of these areas, any improvement in one area only seems to result in the tradeoff of a decline in another.  That's why I have been so adamant about maintaining the stable areas (and at least making an effort to stabilize/prevent further flight) because under the circumstances of no/negative population growth and general cheap housing in the region, it would tak along time for those areas to come back.  Same with Cleve Hts and Lkwd..  Schools and crime have to be kept in check top prevent a mass exodus. 

 

Tom Bier at Cleveland State has done alot of work in this area and has predicted most of what has already happened.  His latest report predicts more of the same and not very good predictions for Cuyahoga County if massive amounts of redevelopment doesn't take place in the meantime. 

 

Other studies have noted a bright side with all the interest in downtown living, and radiating interest in surrounding areas, but its really only a drop in the bucket, and typically limited to childless people.         

 

I can't help but think that the increase in downtown living is just robbing Peter to pay Paul. It's really hard to shore up areas when you have a net county population loss of 100,000+ in the past ten years. There are only a certain % of people who desire to live in an urban environment, and whether they choose to move into a 6 unit apartment building in the Detroit Shoreway in 5 years or a proposed new residential tower on the lakefront, it has huge implications on the vibrancy of Cleveland neighborhoods down the line.

 

I sometimes cringe at the progression downtown has made. We used to have the Galleria and an upscale Tower City Center roughly 2 decades ago, with a handful of department stores going a little farther back. Historically, retail in downtown Cleveland did great without many residents living there (1950s anyone?) We traded retail for residents over that time. I might get my head bit off for this, but oh well, I really wish all of the residential development that occurred in downtown over the past 10 years did not get built, but actually got scattered among all of our Cleveland neighborhoods instead. The whole "downtown" model is based upon vibrant residential neighborhoods feeding a central commercial core. When your residential neighborhoods are no longer thriving, your downtown suffers. The solution is not to inject a few apartment buildings into the central core to increase the vibrancy of downtown, but rather to make sure the city neighborhoods are still thriving so there is a need for the residents to conduct commerce in the core. That's why I cringe when I read about the potential for a 100 unit conversion to a building downtown. That 100 unit conversion would have a much better impact IMO if it were in the Detroit Shoreway, Edgewater/Cudell, University Circle, etc as it would revitalize those neighborhoods but still feed into Downtown's commerce. When you put that residential into downtown, only downtown gains but Cleveland's residential neighborhoods do not. Call me an urban purist, but I would much rather strengthen downtown's commercial value over its residential value, and focus on residential revitalization where its needed most, in the neighborhoods.

 

But it really is a chicken/egg question and what you truly believe. Maybe some think injecting a lot of money into the downtown will feed into the neighborhoods. Some believe that injecting a lot of money into the neighborhoods feeds downtown. I, personally, just don't see how another 5-10K residents in converted office towers downtown over the next 5-10 years benefits Collinwood or West Park, but I definitely can see how another 5-10K jobs in renovated office towers would help those neighborhoods.

 

Alternatively, we could inject retail back into downtown and make all of those neighborhoods more marketable in one stroke.  This seems to have worked well in a lot of places.  The neighborhoods were designed around downtown retail and they cannot function properly without it.

First off residents aren't taking the place of retail, they are helping create it.

 

These obsolete office buildings are being converted into residential, saving them from demolition, or a slow decay caused by vacancy. Its not like we are preventing companies from moving downtown because we'd rather have residential. Building owners can make more money with offices than with apartments/condos.

 

Buildings like the Bingham dont exist in other neighborhoods and serve great as residential. If not it would most likely have been demolished.

 

Downtown living is 100% different than neighborhood living(Ohio City, Tremont, etc.) There are ton of people who live downtown but would never consider Ohio City or etc. And visa-versa, there are many who love living in a neighborhood but would never live downtown.

 

Downtown can draw people in from other parts of the country. I know several people from out of state who moved here. They chose downtown. If downtown wasn't an option, they were going to choose a far out suburb such as mentor.

 

Residential can help add a 24/7 activity to downtown that is harder to maintain with no residential population. Look at Chicago north of the river compared to the loop. The loop is dead after 5, while north of the river is hoppin.

 

Also it is much harder for a developer to get control of 100 houses in a neighborhood than it is to buy a large downtown building that can be converted into 100 units.