ClevelandOhio -- I agree that we should really just focus on things that make us better and let the city show itself as a great place.  But I will say this (having a background in marketing) as annoying as it is?  That "catch phrase" and easily identifiable quality makes a big difference in encouraging people to buy a product (move to a city).

 

About 30% "Cleveland Rocks" is what I get from people when they hear where I'm from (sometimes phrased as a question).

 

The other 70% is either something about our sports teams (Lebron centric these days, though sympathy is better than the other options), or it's "Didn't your river catch on fire?"

 

 

Amazing that decades later "Burning River" is still considered a reason Cleveland is unattractive.  Burns me up....

 

 

But in the world of competing for new young urban residents we can't afford to be a "hidden gem" or a great place to live, who cares what others say!  We've gotta market ourselves, and do with clear and concise thoughts.

 

Watch one of those ADD Positively Cleveland videos and you'll see why people don't "get it".  Flashes of random cultural festivals, the zoo, skyscrapers and people drinking and eating doesn't scream "Cleveland" it screams "generic environment".  We simply need something that is 100% OURS. 

 

Big Ben, the Washington Monument, the Eiffel Tower, Space Needle, (Boston) Charles River, Manhattan Island, St Louis Gateway Arch, Golden Gate Bridge... etc. etc. just iconic things that people know.  The Terminal Tower isn't too well known outside of Ohio, I'm not sure why that is, but again -- we've been saddled with "Drew Carey" and a burning river....

 

^ "Cleveland Rocks" is probably only because of the Drew Carey Show. Burning River is annoying as hell, from my understanding, it has caught on fire several times before that, and the one that got national attention wasn't that big and didn't do much damage. Also other cities have caught on fire, it wasn't that unusual as it would be today. Also Time Magazine are the ones who blew it out of proportion, so fuck them!

 

I say we build a Observation Wheel, like a ferris wheel. I bet that could draw some people here. :P

Completely agree with Burnham_2011 about the marketing approach.  Also about the music angle.  Apart from HoB, our major venues are a good ways out from downtown.  Smaller ones are scattered around in a way that allows no synergy.  There's no Austin or Beale St equivalent here.

 

 

The lake and the river are our two biggest, relatively 'untapped' assets.  I was encouraged to hear Kasich point this out the other day.  Personally, I think the potential for lakefront development is a little overblown (and, for lack of a better term, far-sighted) and the potential for riverfront development is understated.

 

But the most discouraging thing to me about oft-cited Cleveland development vision is that we have to realize that sparsely filling in long, thin stretches over time (see Euclid Avenue) is not where our efforts should be focused.  Rather, we need to focus (not saying ignore other areas) on allowing/facilitating natural outgrowth from areas which have real (not artificial) momentum (see downtown, UC, Ohio City, Tremont, D-S).

Completely agree with Burnham_2011 about the marketing approach.  Also about the music angle.  Apart from HoB, our major venues are a good ways out from downtown.  Smaller ones are scattered around in a way that allows no synergy.  There's no Austin or Beale St equivalent here.

 

Exactly my thoughts. The East bank had the most potential to be that area, but it was mainly very small bars and dance clubs. The other thing that holds our music scene back is the lack of a large college campus, like Austin or Athens Ga.

 

 

Synergy is the key word.

 

To go off of what Hts121 said, we do need to focus on what has the current momentum.  We need the area surrounded by Prospect/Ontario/Euclid/9th to become fully saturated with development.  Gateway/Casino, Playhouse Square, and the WHD are all areas that, with policies to attract more people, will benefit and create a positive feedback loop.

 

But the synergies between a residence, retail, park, office, street car, urban furniture, clean sidewalks, business friendly policies, young crowds -- that is where the city takes off and shines.

 

Things don't happen in a city by mistake, restaurants without people close (or don't open), stores without clients don't exist, and apartments without residents never get built.  It's the chicken and the egg.

As mentioned above, this area, if filled with street level retail, and new apartments and offices would be many times more valuable than a new development in midtown or a new tower on public square.  (though I'd like those too).

 

 

The blue are surface parking lots, the roads are highlighted in green, and the facades of the buildings are simply highlighted to show how dense and continuous this area is.  No one should be building a Stark like development until these blocks are more saturated. 

 

**Has anyone heard of any vacancy numbers for these areas?  What are the 2nd , 3rd, 4th .... floors of the taller ones filled with?

 

 

Nice work Burnham. That lot across from E 4th is the epi-center of devolpment. I think you hit the nail on the head, at our current size this area has the most potential. And it is the perfect location for it's sucess to expand outward down the Euclid corridor and toward the WH district, FEB and Lakefront.

 

Can I ask what everbody thinks that Cleveland's population ceiling is in 40-50 years given our fixed sized and the current household size trends? Is it double the current? 800K? 1M? I mean we reached a million in the time of huge household sizes, basically over double of what we have today. So for us to reach  1M again means that we would need to see a dramatic growth in housing units. Or do we go for a dense residential component to downtown and basically keep the single home neighborhoods the samedensity (which is still dense by todays standards) and end up around 550k  - 600k?

 

 

 

Without annexing any of the inner-ring, I highly doubt any significant population increase.  But I do expect a better, more productive population than what we have today.

 

That said, I do expect that some of the inner ring will indeed be merged with the City in the coming years.  Cities like Garfield Hts, Brook Park, East Cleveland, maybe even Parma, etc. are going to find it very tough to maintain their independence given rising costs of governing (which mirrors the rising cost of living, if not more) and a general unwillingness from the taxpayers to increase revenue to reflect these rising costs.

Hts -  I think you're bring a little too conservative (negative?) on the point.  Areas like Shaker, Parma, Pepper Pike etc. are not going to see growth over the next 40 years.  Most people who grew up in the 'burbs don't want that for their 20s and even 30s.  The trend that brought people into the inner ring and then spread further out over the last 45 years or so is fading.  People are, sadly, moving away from Cleveland and Detroit etc. and going to new younger cities, but if Cleveland can do the things it needs to to retain young people I see no reason why the downtown can't grow itself without annexing new areas.

 

The WHD alone, could house another 10,000 people easily considering all that open space.  If those blocks were developed with dense apartments, and if the avenue district were built up (and out) and if buildings along 9th and 12th were re-purposed to include residencies there is no reason to believe that we couldn't add another 50,000 people to the areas bounded by the lake, I-90 and the River.

 

I think CBC was asking more about a max potential, which assumes first that the city has become attractive to new residents.  There is so much space between W9th and E26th and from Lakeside to Carnegie -- that if people were clamoring to live downtown and the City Council rezoned areas from light industrial (geez....) to mixed use residential, I believe the downtown alone would sustain large populations.

 

Areas like Ohio City, Tremont, Hough, and Central could stay as lower density residential areas and still hold thousands more Clevelanders. 

 

University Circle and the broader area near E118, and of course Little Italy could all be a site of infill and development.

 

In short, assuming (that's the point) that Cleveland became a mecca for former suburbanites and new talent, the major Downtown, Uptown and Euclid Corridor areas could be host to hundreds of thousands more, and Cleveland could easily be a city of 1 Million without annexing a single square foot.

I would like to see CSU house 20,000 students on campus. Euclid Avenue and Prospect filled in with more residences as well as the warehouse district.

Given that most cities that are growing are doing it by annexing land, I was just wondering what our limit was without annexing, we have a reference point of 1M people but that was under far different circumstances and much of that dense housing has been razed.  My feeling is that given our physical size, 600k would be very very sucessful.

600k sounds reasonable. I dont see people choosing to live in doubles or even 3 families to a home. A large downtown population would nice to have and something that we did not have in the past. That could be an additional 60k that never existed there.

Hts -  I think you're bring a little too conservative (negative?) on the point. 

 

I prefer to think of it as being pragmatic.  But it is nothing more than my opinion and you are certainly entitled to yours.

 

 

Areas like Shaker, Parma, Pepper Pike etc. are not going to see growth over the next 40 years.  Most people who grew up in the 'burbs don't want that for their 20s and even 30s.  The trend that brought people into the inner ring and then spread further out over the last 45 years or so is fading. 

 

People are, sadly, moving away from Cleveland and Detroit etc. and going to new younger cities, but if Cleveland can do the things it needs to to retain young people I see no reason why the downtown can't grow itself without annexing new areas.

 

Which "new" cities are you referring to.  Because I think many of the cities you are thinking of are as old or older than Cleveland.  The difference is that they are at different points in cycle, if you know what I mean.  But these cycles are slow.  Much slower than anyone who wants to see a 180 within the next few decades would like to believe.

 

The WHD alone, could house another 10,000 people easily considering all that open space.  If those blocks were developed with dense apartments, and if the avenue district were built up (and out) and if buildings along 9th and 12th were re-purposed to include residencies there is no reason to believe that we couldn't add another 50,000 people to the areas bounded by the lake, I-90 and the River.

 

I think CBC was asking more about a max potential, which assumes first that the city has become attractive to new residents.  There is so much space between W9th and E26th and from Lakeside to Carnegie -- that if people were clamoring to live downtown and the City Council rezoned areas from light industrial (geez....) to mixed use residential, I believe the downtown alone would sustain large populations.

 

Areas like Ohio City, Tremont, Hough, and Central could stay as lower density residential areas and still hold thousands more Clevelanders. 

 

University Circle and the broader area near E118, and of course Little Italy could all be a site of infill and development.

 

In short, assuming (that's the point) that Cleveland became a mecca for former suburbanites and new talent, the major Downtown, Uptown and Euclid Corridor areas could be host to hundreds of thousands more, and Cleveland could easily be a city of 1 Million without annexing a single square foot.

 

I never said there couldn't be pockets of growth.  In fact, we are seeing that now and I sincerely think it will only pick up steam as time goes on.  But you also have to realize that there are many, many areas of the City that are beyond the point of no return and will continue to empty out until the bulldozers arrive.  Many more of these areas than there are promising areas.  We are talking block upon block, neighborhood upon neighborhood of beat up, worn down, painfully neglected wood-frame housing stock that has seen too many winters. 

 

We are talking block upon block, neighborhood upon neighborhood of beat up, worn down, painfully neglected wood-frame housing stock that has seen too many winters. 

 

Quite right.  Cleveland's primary task over the next 40 years is to replace most of its housing stock, and that's a biggie.  Thousands of woodframe doubles and shotguns need to come down.  In their place we need townhouses and high rises and mixed use apartment blocks, as well as several good-sized new parks.

I disagree. If Cleveland wants to get a downtown population, they should worry about replacing the housing stock second. First on their list should be the school system. No one will move into Cleveland if the school system remains how it is today. You can easily move just outside the city lines and go to a much better school system than what Cleveland can provide. You want to attract people back to downtown? Fix the schools, then developers will flock to build and develop housing.

^Fixing the schools has little to do with attracting people downtown, since most downtown residents don't have children.  But I do agree that improving the schools is important, but Cleveland does have some quality public schools... they are just overshadowed by the larger number or poor performing schools. 

Maybe attracting people downtown initially has little to do with a solid school system but it certainly has to do with maintaining people downtown long term. I have a 2 year old and I am already starting to look for houses in the suburbs. It makes me want to cry. I am also looking into the Tremont Montessori and Cleveland State as options as well. Do you think vibrant downtown populations have only empty nesters??

The larger part of "fixing the schools" is attracting a populace with more education and less poverty.  There's only so much a school system can do.  And downtown itself won't house enough new population to make much of a dent.  Downtown is key, but by 2050 we need to work on more than just that.

^^That's a fair point and I agree.  Vibrant downtowns don't only have empty nesters.  My point was that the downtown population isn't stifled by a bad school system as much as the surrounding neighborhoods.  Yes, families tend to leave when they have children, but there are plenty of people ready to replace them.  It's a shame that families feel the need to leave the city, but it doesn't really hurt downtowns population numbers. 

 

My wife and I are starting to look for a home or condo and we've had to ask ourselves if we're willing to buy in the city of Cleveland even with it's poor public school system.  It's too bad that's a question that young couples need to ask themselves...

 

We do plan to buy in the city btw.  Private elementary school is affordable if necessary... high school would be another issue entirely.

I live in the inner ring and approached it this way, Hoot.  I bought a 4bdrm 2 1/2 bath house for about 100-200gs less than I would have paid in a "better" school system for a comparable home.  When I add in savings on interest and propery tax, that figure doubles over the term of my mortgage.  That savings easily accounts for a reasonable private school education should we decide to go that route.

^We've been doing the same type of math and it becomes fairly easy to justify living in the city and sending the kids to private school.  Especially when you compare the tax rates in Cleveland versus those fancy suburbs like Shaker Heights and Cleveland Heights.  :wink:

Especially if you also work in the City of Cleveland, which I don't ;)

Maybe attracting people downtown initially has little to do with a solid school system but it certainly has to do with maintaining people downtown long term. I have a 2 year old and I am already starting to look for houses in the suburbs. It makes me want to cry. I am also looking into the Tremont Montessori and Cleveland State as options as well. Do you think vibrant downtown populations have only empty nesters??

 

Cleveland State's elementary school seems like it could become an interesting option in the future. And doesn't John Hay High School have higher requirements?

Yes.  I believe you have to have and maintain a certain gpa to be enrolled at John Hay

We need to think about the people in Cleveland who need the public schools becasue they simply can not provide private education.  Most Clevelanders are not Urban Pioneers nor do they have the left over income to send their kids to private schools.  Therefore, we can not look at the cost savings Cleveland offers due to ridiculously cheap housing and lower taxes (which actually isn't much lower than alot of suburbs)as a way to send kids to private schools.  In any event, we need to make people feel safe in Cleveland Schools, and areas surrounding Cleveland Schools as their kids may be walking back and forth to them. 

I don't think anyone is suggesting that we ignore the schools. 

^I agree.  I want to move back to the city and the school system is a major hurdle since I have a 5-year-old... who will be entering school in the fall.  In fact, it's the main impediment.  At this point, a family with kids has little choice but to send their child to a private school... and I'm not one who would want to foot the extra bill.  I know I'm not alone on this... I'm sure there's a great number of families who would like to do the same, but can't.

^I agree.  I want to move back to the city and the school system is a major hurdle since I have a 5-year-old... who will be entering school in the fall.  In fact, it's the main impediment.  At this point, a family with kids has little choice but to send their child to a private school... and I'm not one who would want to foot the extra bill.  I know I'm not alone on this... I'm sure there's a great number of families who would like to do the same, but can't.

 

 

That's a good a reason as any to move out.

 

It was my parents main motivation to move out of the West Park area in the early 80's - so I wouldn't have to attend Cleveland city schools.

Clevelands never going to be one of the biggest cities again, and that shouldn't be our goal. I would like to see us create a sustainable city. One that supports local businesses, buys local food, etc. I would like to see us lead the nation in renewable energy. We should strive to become one of the most walkable cities with great public transportation and active citizens. Go against the american city model. To get ahead you must become unique.

It would be if we merged/annexed as much land as CBus or Indy.  Hell, if we were the size of Indy, we'd probably rank in the top 5 because the city boundary would stretch all the way to Canton.

 

But I agree.  Unrealistic expectations are not going to help.  We shouldn't focus on what we can do to be more like Chicago or New York.  We should focus all of our energies on becoming the best Cleveland we can be.  As much as this board likes to armchair quarterback City Hall, they do understand this better than those who criticize every step foward as being less than ideal. 

YMMV.

It would be if we merged/annexed as much land as CBus or Indy.  Hell, if we were the size of Indy, we'd probably rank in the top 5 because the city boundary would stretch all the way to Canton.

I suppose it could extend to Canton if you drew boundaries like our congressional districts, but otherwise, not so true:

 

Indianapolis 365.1 sq mi

Cuyahoga County 458 sq mi

(source: en.wikipedia.org)

Yeah, I see now.... I was just using Canton because it is 60 miles away and 60x60 is about the size of Indy.  Whatever.... I don't care much for municipal boundaries.  I refuse to acknowledge Indy as the "bigger city".... just like I'm sure there aren't many folks in Cincy who think Corpus Christi is the "bigger city"

you're off by a factor of ten on the size of indy

We are talking block upon block, neighborhood upon neighborhood of beat up, worn down, painfully neglected wood-frame housing stock that has seen too many winters. 

 

Quite right.  Cleveland's primary task over the next 40 years is to replace most of its housing stock, and that's a biggie.  Thousands of woodframe doubles and shotguns need to come down.  In their place we need townhouses and high rises and mixed use apartment blocks, as well as several good-sized new parks.

 

I don't agree.  Everyone prefers masonry, of course.  But just because a house is woodframe, doesn't mean it isn't solid.  If that was the case, we would gut about 85-90% of Ohio City, which has many Victorian (and even earlier) homes that have stood 150 years.  Also, look at San Francisco's famed "Painted Ladies" that withstood the 1906 Earthquake.  Many of those Cleveland Doubles are solid; often more solid than the newer homes wrapped in aluminum.  Maybe you gut some low density shotguts... I could go along with that.  But I think Cleveland needs to hold onto as many multi-unit dwellings as it can, be they frame or brick.  ... btw, as you know, many of the Cleve doubles are frame with brick bases.  A few innovative ones are all brick; a number exist in Larchmere, for example.

Clevelands never going to be one of the biggest cities again, and that shouldn't be our goal. I would like to see us create a sustainable city. One that supports local businesses, buys local food, etc. I would like to see us lead the nation in renewable energy. We should strive to become one of the most walkable cities with great public transportation and active citizens. Go against the american city model. To get ahead you must become unique.

 

I agree Cleveland.  I think we are moving in that direction.... obviously we have a long way to go.  But I really think we're bottoming out in population losses; at least, being near to bottoming out.  Our close-in neighborhoods, esp downtown, are actually growing, and those areas are more dense, walkable, have excellent transit and are becoming more and more sustainable.  But to continue in this direction, we must go to the polls and limit the Kasich types whose policies are often counter to creating this type of city and are more geared to suburbanization, sprawl and disconnected-ness.

you're off by a factor of ten on the size of indy

 

No.  I know how big Indy is.  I'm just not smarter than a 3rd grader when it comes to arithmetic, apparently

But just because a house is woodframe, doesn't mean it isn't solid.  If that was the case, we would gut about 85-90% of Ohio City, which has many Victorian (and even earlier) homes that have stood 150 years.

 

Yep! My house was built in 1923, and with the exception of the fascia under the gutters, its structurally as good as new. As long as you maintain these old houses, they can last another 50 years easily. The problems are the houses that have been uninhabited for several years, they have developed leaks and cracks that have festered and grown.

Nobody said that all woodframe homes should be bulldozed.  But let's not pretend that the city's streets are lined with victorians that just need a little (or a lot of) TLC to restore them to their former glory.  There are some nice pockets, like Ohio City, Glenville, etc.  But what is more common is housing stock built to suit a booming industrial town.  And it is actually not the stock from the 20-30's that concerns me.  It is the post war build out that is going to pose a real problem when neglected.  Nobody is going to want to restore those houses to the glory they never had.

^ exactly. We are going to need to build new. Save some pockets for sure like hts121 said. Not everybody is going to want to live in an old house, even if renovated. And yes, not every house in Cleveland is worth saving. The days of the double are mostly over. Some, I have seen have been converted to single family home, but in the end, many will have to go.