Some interesting things I saw

 

For the main part of Tremont, we saw a 3% increase in White population, 80% increase in Asian population, but a 15% decrease in black population and a 55% decrease in Hispanic population.

 

Ohio City as a whole seemed to lose in the upper 20% in white population while having mixed results in black population, some increase, some decrease. Also all other groups seemed to lose, besides for in census tract 103602 we see a 43% gain in Asian population.

 

Detroit Shoreway seems to be seeing growth in all groups besides whites.

 

In University Circle, Census Tract 1187 saw a 539% gain in asian population putting it at 17% of the total population. Also we see a 155% gain in Hispanic population, 163% gain in white population, but a 31% decrease in black population.

can you provide a link?

I was able to find some of that information here: http://factfinder2.census.gov/main.html

Just go to the address search in the lower right.

Someone provided this link in a different thread, I forgot who and where, but here it is.

 

http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/map?hp

That's better than my link.

 

I was quite surprised to see that Tremont's census tracts all lost population, even 1044 which includes Lincoln Park, didn't include the old projects. 

 

103562, an area north of Lorain, lost only 3.7%, which is only 103 people. The new condos must have offset the demoing of places near Lutheran Hospital.

 

 

Also surprised to see the extent of the Hispanic movement out of the near west side.  Most of the tracts in Old Brooklyn are near 20% Hispanic.  Or 20% Latino.  I can't remember which one I'm supposed to use.  Where is MTS?

Also surprised to see the extent of the Hispanic movement out of the near west side.  Most of the tracts in Old Brooklyn are near 20% Hispanic.  Or 20% Latino.  I can't remember which one I'm supposed to use.  Where is MTS?

 

bumsquare, according to the US Census Bureau, it's hispanic.

I know I'm just playin'.  MTS hates one of the terms but I can't remember which one it is. 

He hates the term hispanic.

Downtown has only 9471 people?  Seems low. As best as possible given census track boundaries, I defined Downtown as from the river to the innerbelt, using Tracks 107101, 107701, and 107802. (Source:  http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/map?hp ).

 

They include west bank

^You responding to me? If so, I purposely did not include the west bank as I don't consider that Downtown--I had no choice but to include the East Bank as it is the same Tract as part of the Warehouse District. My comment was that--despite all the boom in Downtown living plus existing places like the Chesterfield and Reserve Square--the population was still only less than 10,000. Less than I was expecting.

I can see what your saying. 668 wasn't included in the census though to my knowledge.

Do they have citywide demographics available yet?

Also, for the percentages for Census Tracts, if a certain tract lost a large white percentage, and shows an increase in Hispanics, can that mean that no new hispanics actually moved in, they just now make up a larger percentage of the population due to a large loss in white population? Or how does that work? The numbers seem like they could be misleading.

I think it was 66% minority, 53 black, 33 white. 

 

I was quite surprised to see that Tremont's census tracts all lost population, even 1044 which includes Lincoln Park, didn't include the old projects. 

 

103562, an area north of Lorain, lost only 3.7%, which is only 103 people. The new condos must have offset the demoing of places near Lutheran Hospital.

 

 

 

Tremont and Ohio City lost population, but gained housing units.

 

edit: I mean the "central" or "gentrifying" parts.  The peripheries still lost housing units on net.

Downtown has only 9471 people?  Seems low. As best as possible given census track boundaries, I defined Downtown as from the river to the innerbelt, using Tracks 107101, 107701, and 107802. (Source:  http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/map?hp ).

 

 

And this total includes the population of the Justice Center jail too, no?

One new resident to downtown is Joe Haden. Just found out he lives in Pinnacle.

He hates the term hispanic.

 

fyi - hispanic is generally used for mexicans and other central/south americans. latino is used for the islanders. no one knows why so dont ask :)

 

***

 

as for the dt pop numbers being under 10K, that is indeed surprizing. is it a change in how residents are counted this time? ie.,  -- i thought that west bank flats is considered dt whether we like it or not (and so therefore and soforth and forthwith its numbers should be included)? that would put dt over 10K. can someone explain why its arbitrary? also, can someone say with certainty if the jailbirds in the jc are counted or not? thx!

 

 

From i've seen in Cleveland thus far, when a neighborhood begins improving, it is usually parallel to an increase in white citizens. This is why I ask, why did Ohio City see a 10% loss in white citizens and see an 11% gain in black citizens. Same goes for Detroit Shoreway. Most tracts seem to see a 20-40% drop in white citizens and about a 25% gain in black citizens. Only downtown, university circle, central tremont, west bank, and a few random tracts showed an increase in white population. I know this can be a sensitive subject to some, but the intentions are not offensive. Is there an explanation to these numbers? Are only parts of our "growing" neighborhoods improving, but declining as a whole?

While all this gentrifying is taking place, the west side is also continuing to integrate.  Two separate phenomena.  If the data were available I imagine we'd see the income of the whites in these neighborhoods increasing.  Low income whites on the west side are just now getting around to white flight, while the ones coming in are generally better off.

The west side of Cleveland, traditionally known as "the white side" of town, has certainly seen an overall increase in blacks.  This includes Cudell/Edgewater as well and even inner suburbs such as Lakewood..  Thus as goes with the theory that you mention of improvement with the increase in whites as opposed to what is happening here, is certainly concern in many of these areas, because with the new diversity, there has been an increase in crime (just a fact).

 

Hopefully with the renewed/continued interest in Ohio City and Detroit Shoreway, those areas will remain stable and continue to build on the urban living model, but it may be the in-between areas that are of the greatest concern.  I had been advocating for the Cleveland PD to have a greater presense in these areas (mainly form Detroit Shoreway to Cudell and Edgewater (where the crime increase is most noticable), since we really dont need to see one of Clevelands last traditionally most stable neighborhoods, go down hill... 

I would have to believe that in the Edgewater census tract, that north of Lake Avenue, possibly even Clifton is almost 100% white. I believe south of Clifton is where most of the minority population is.

Mostly (not 100%), and many of the apartment building along Lake have diversified as well, and the area north of Lake (Clifton) has been increasingly affected by the population south of Clifton. 

From i've seen in Cleveland thus far, when a neighborhood begins improving, it is usually parallel to an increase in white citizens. This is why I ask, why did Ohio City see a 10% loss in white citizens and see an 11% gain in black citizens. Same goes for Detroit Shoreway. Most tracts seem to see a 20-40% drop in white citizens and about a 25% gain in black citizens. Only downtown, university circle, central tremont, west bank, and a few random tracts showed an increase in white population. I know this can be a sensitive subject to some, but the intentions are not offensive. Is there an explanation to these numbers? Are only parts of our "growing" neighborhoods improving, but declining as a whole?

 

Well I would imagine that poor whites are still moving out while whites with higher incomes are moving in. Also, while these neighborhoods are certainly improving, they are a ways from being fully "gentrified" compared to other trendy neighborhoods in other cities. Tremont seems to me to be the closest to that, and as you mentioned the demographics are also the closest to that pattern.

/diatribe begin/

 

So long as diversification of a neighborhood (or its present diversity) is seen around here as a negative (just a fact... justified or not), there is little hope for large scale gentrification of the urban core.  Cleveland is not and never will be a 'white city' a la Minneapolis or Portland.  Drastic changes in attitudes, perceptions, and behavoir is needed from all Clevelanders (black, white, brown, yellow) or stagnation will remain the theme for some time.  Everyone takes the 'easy out', with many simply pointing their fingers at a single lumped up racial group, thereby giving that group a reason to simply dismiss the finger pointing as racially motivated.  When we realize we are all one community and not two communities that need to deal with our issues separately, we will have reached a much-needed starting point.  We're not there yet, instead opting to spin our wheels aimlessly.

 

/diatribe over/

Well ideally, and that's what I'm sure we all would hope for, but that's certainly easier said than done.  Unfortunately and much too often, this diversification also proportionately parallels an increase in crime and other things that destabilize a neighborhood.  I don't think it is unreasonable to expect to live in a safe neighborhood where people care about one another.  I knew several in the Cudell area and north that had to move due to the huge amount of drug activity (and accompanying crime that had come along with it) that seems to taken hold in certain areas.  Its too hard to see things move backwards that you have lived in...  People tend to not like not being able to do the things that they were once able to do (like walking to the store at night).     

 

I mean I have experienced the opposite in DC.  My neighborhood is boring as hell, but I cant say that I miss all the muggings, robberies and murders that used to be prevalent when it was more racially diverse.

That's because the diversification also proportionally parallels socio-economic changes in the neighborhood, and those changes/shifts are extrapolated when stable families (justifiably or not) pre-emptively pack up and move to the exurbs the second "there goes the neighborhood" crosses their minds.

/diatribe begin/

 

So long as diversification of a neighborhood (or its present diversity) is seen around here as a negative (just a fact... justified or not), there is little hope for large scale gentrification of the urban core.  Cleveland is not and never will be a 'white city' a la Minneapolis or Portland.  Drastic changes in attitudes, perceptions, and behavoir is needed from all Clevelanders (black, white, brown, yellow) or stagnation will remain the theme for some time.  Everyone takes the 'easy out', with many simply pointing their fingers at a single lumped up racial group, thereby giving that group a reason to simply dismiss the finger pointing as racially motivated.  When we realize we are all one community and not two communities that need to deal with our issues separately, we will have reached a much-needed starting point.  We're not there yet, instead opting to spin our wheels aimlessly.

 

/diatribe over/

 

There has been serious gentrification in other cities with the same race issues as Cleveland. Chicago, Philly, and Baltimore for example.

Maybe we should look at some 'parallels' with those cities? *ducks*

 

Seriously though, white flight is certainly not 'uniquely' a Cleveland problem, but it is nonetheless a Cleveland problem and one we have to overcome.  It causes a spiraling effect in both reality and perception. 

That's because the diversification also proportionally parallels socio-economic changes in the neighborhood, and those changes/shifts are extrapolated when stable families (justifiably or not) pre-emptively pack up and move to the exurbs the second "there goes the neighborhood" crosses their minds.

 

Yeah, I was taught that in Urban Planning school too.  But tell that to PG county outside DC, the highest per capita income black county in the nation...  My friends that used to live in Bowie (in the far reaches of PG county), moved farther out mainly due to the influx guns in the public schools as well as other incidents that have become rather common, but used to be unheard of there. 

 

Sure socio-economics play a part (and what is that really saying other than making excuses), but I think its a bit beyond socio-economic at this point... 

I didn't go to urban planning school.  But I did sleep at a Holiday Inn express last night.

 

A lot of it is simply perception.  For instance, at Mentor, there is a 'bullying' problem.  At Heights, it is a 'thug' problem.  But if I had to choose whether to send my son to Heights or Mentor, I wouldb choose Heights 7 days out of the week and twice on Sunday.  At least kids aren't committing suicide there.  Most people would disagree with me but I don't think they could bring the facts, other than racial demographics, to back up their point.  Perception, particularly pre-determined skin deep perception, is often very far from reality. 

From i've seen in Cleveland thus far, when a neighborhood begins improving, it is usually parallel to an increase in white citizens. This is why I ask, why did Ohio City see a 10% loss in white citizens and see an 11% gain in black citizens. Same goes for Detroit Shoreway. Most tracts seem to see a 20-40% drop in white citizens and about a 25% gain in black citizens. Only downtown, university circle, central tremont, west bank, and a few random tracts showed an increase in white population. I know this can be a sensitive subject to some, but the intentions are not offensive. Is there an explanation to these numbers? Are only parts of our "growing" neighborhoods improving, but declining as a whole?

 

I've always said gentrification is population dropper. Take a street that had working class whites with 2-4 kids per each family, and now replace that household with middle to upper income whites who are most likely: childless young professional couples or singles. It's easy to see how fixed up neighborhoods easily lose population because household size is decreasing.

 

This is also a concern for those interested in density. A lot of Cleveland is 1940-1960 single family housing stock on smaller lots, but still for all intents and purposes suburbia with a city of Cleveland name. While of course still denser than most suburbs, as these households shrank from 5-6 people down to 1 or 2 we now have a problem where the only way to build density is for people to start filling up their house.

 

Even for areas that are traditionally dense and urban, the shrinking household size plays a crucial role because you almost have to build twice as dense just to achieve the same density that the area might have had in 1950. Think of all the singles living in/desiring their own 1,000 sq foot loft apartment.

^Those are good reasons for us to use household numbers (and numbers of different household types) when looking at neighborhood changes.

Well ideally, and that's what I'm sure we all would hope for, but that's certainly easier said than done.  Unfortunately and much too often, this diversification also proportionately parallels an increase in crime and other things that destabilize a neighborhood.  I don't think it is unreasonable to expect to live in a safe neighborhood where people care about one another.  I knew several in the Cudell area and north that had to move due to the huge amount of drug activity (and accompanying crime that had come along with it) that seems to taken hold in certain areas.  Its too hard to see things move backwards that you have lived in...  People tend to not like not being able to do the things that they were once able to do (like walking to the store at night).     

 

I mean I have experienced the opposite in DC.  My neighborhood is boring as hell, but I cant say that I miss all the muggings, robberies and murders that used to be prevalent when it was more racially diverse.

 

The Edgewater area (anything north of the tracks) similarly parallels the housing stock in Lakewood with alternating streets between single family and multi family homes. I feel as if the streets that are mostly owner occupied are much more stable, W 103rd, which is in my opinion the nicest middle class street in Cleveland, is leaps and bounds different than W 106th which is mostly renters. The transient nature of renting causes homes to quickly fall apart as renters tend to not take care of something as well as if it was theirs, especially if they plan on living there for a year and moving on.

 

In my opinion keeping the Edgewater/Clifton/Cudell area from falling into disrepair rests on preventing any more homes from turning into rental properties and converting existing rental homes into owner occupied units. Would be interesting to see how many more rental units appeared versus owner occupied in the past 10 years. I think this is something that the census records, but not sure if it's out for 2010 yet.

From what I've seen from infill projects in Cleveland, Higher density projects like apartments or condos get built on main throughfares. There are plenty of blocks Especially on the East side where developers could build denser projects. What I wonder about is what is going to happen as the 1900s vintage two-families continue to age and go into disrepair? That may be an opportunity to build denser projects on side streets and by denser I mean maybe a side by side or up and down duplex on a street that already has a good number of multi-family dwellings.

As a 20 year renter, I'd like to also point out the extreme lack of care paid by most landlords and apartment complex owners on their properties. Unlike when you own a home, renters are very limited in what they're allowed to do to both the interior and exterior - virtually nothing, really, and stuff is band-aided and stuck together with the cheapest materials around and with the cheapest solution possible. We had a problem for the first few years here of our bathtub and toilet backing up because of a tree root problem outside (we border a woods). They just kept coming and snaking things out and then in another 4 or 5 months it would happen again. After it happened on our anniversary, and then on a Thanksgiving when we had company, I wrote a letter threatening to pay rent into escrow until it was permanently and properly fixed. They finally had diggers come out and dug everything up and really fixed it for good and it never did that again, but who knows how long the problem had gone on before we moved in.

 

We get a new carpet every 5 years or so. The new carpet we got is almost cheaper than the original, and immediately became shabby and stained just from regular foot traffic and you can't get it clean with a steam cleaner.

 

The bathroom is in horrible condition because they keep spraying white paint over everything ("but it has a sealant so it's fine). The mold that is impossible to remove because it's behind the tile and underneath several layers of caulking is never dug out and properly fixed. They just keep refinishing over the tub and spraying the wall and then the mold creeps in underneath the new caulking. They insist this is the way "everyone" fixes a bathroom.

 

Similar problems happen on the exteriors. Here, we have such a horrible problem with those borer bees that it becomes a game of dodge-em getting to your carport. When little RNR was an infant, it was terrible running to the car with him while dodging bees buzzing at your ear. They never seek a perm. solution. IF you complain, they spray something around your carport only, and it works for awhile, then next year the bees are back.

 

If you complain of a bug problem, they come in and spray your unit only. The bugs move to other units for awhile, then come back. No perm solution or proper fix is ever put in place, and there's very little you can do to your place to make it look nice inside or out. We are not allowed to even have blinds or curtains replacing the white vertical blinds they put up unless they hang inside and your curtains can't be seen from the outside. You can't have any bikes on your patio, even little kids' bikes, or in your carport - if you want a bike, you have to suspend it upside down in the carport on a hook.  Guess what - our bike is ancient and weighs like 100 pounds. Since we hung it, it's never come down as it takes 2 people to get it up and down from there and 1 person is always watching the baby in my home, so that was the end of bike riding. You can't grill out anymore. You can't use your disposal because they can't chew anything up, and they send around notices about every 4 months reminding you that you can't put 50billion things down there including rice, meat, eggshells, coffee grounds, any type of fruit or veg matter, leftover pasta, etc. Basically ALL FOOD. If you use the disposal and it clogs, they charge you and tell you you weren't supposed to use it. Etc etc.

 

Part of the reason renters have the attitude they do is they can't do anything about their property. They can't paint it, they can't landscape, they can't even have a bike on their patio.

Also regarding gentrification, the maps on the NY Times site show change in census tract housing vacancies. No surprise that the majority of the region saw an increase in housing vacancies, the notable exception include Ohio City, which saw a 38% decrease in housing vacancies, but of course still lost population, a hint that decreasing household sizes were a likely factor.

 

http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/map

Did some math and found out that the north half of Tremont has...

 

White: 2276  74%

Black: 742    24%

Asian: 44    1%

 

Could not get hispanic information.