I think it's just lazy journalism- "Here's Pittsburgh, they've done X,Y,Z right.  Now here's Cleveland- they haven't.  Those're our choices"  Never mind that the cities have done much the same thing and are getting overall much the same result, but see my above comments about how the municipalities slice the pie of our respective regions.

I don't know where the perception of Pittsburgh as the jewel of the Rust Belt comes from.  I suppose some of the neighborhoods are more intact, but I would think that has more to do with the geographic isolation and relatively homogeneous population.  It's still lost people at the same rate as Cleveland and Detroit.

Gee....where I used to make many deliveries... I get a whole different story than Pitt being a shining pillar of success. There is a lot of evidence of the same problems. Maybe less, but they exist. I think Cleveland has some geographical advantages over Pittsburgh. Eventhough there are navigable rivers, the place still feels landlocked to me. In Cleveland, the lake seems to make that feeling seem less... and the fact Canada is on the other side gives it a certain international closeness appeal.

Pittsburgh's blue collar economy bottomed-out almost 25 years ago, so they've had a head start. I think we may look back at the early 2000's as Cleveland's bottom in terms of its manufacturing base. Also, there a number of demographic and geographic reasons that Pittsburgh has twice as many college grads living within the city. People always say Cleveland and Pittsburgh are similar. However, in my opinion, Cleveland and Detroit are more similar in terms of demographics and geography.

^ Yeah, I can deal with it more than that Myron Cope accent!

^ I guess think of Pittsburgh as a cross between some of the demographics of Cleveland and the economy and geography of Cincinnati.

 

That's how I always thought of Pittsburgh.  It looks and acts very similarly to Cincinnati (except they have winning sports teams...), but has the demographics of Cleveland. Although I don't think that Pittsburgh has nearly as many Black or Hispanic residents.

I do have to agree, I really like the Upper Midwest Accent in Cleveland and further west.

All good points.  I think the foreclosure crisis has helped push Cleveland into a negative light through the national media more so than most other cities in the Midwest, save Detroit.  When the foreclosure crisis hit, people from all over the world descended on Cleveland to see how bad things got here- but didn't make it a big deal until some of the Sunbelt cities were seeing the same devastation in newer subdivisions.  All we saw on TV was Slavic Village, how desolate it had become, and the destruction occurring there- all man made.  Now many neighborhoods on the east side are becoming just as desolate- however, I don't know if the national perception of Cleveland is based solely on this alone.

 

Could the perception of the city nationally be made more positive with an influx of college grads, as Pittsburgh has?

Pittsburgh really hasn't seen an influx of college grads. They still have have a hard time retaining young people. Its just the city offers better options than any of the suburbs. Imagine if Lakewood, Cleveland Hts, and Shaker Hts were within the city limits. My wife graduated from Pitt with a masters in public administration. She recently told me just about everyone she graduated with has left the region. However, the difference between the Pittsburgh and Cleveland is that there are still some pretty nice neighborhoods within the city limits. Squirrel Hill and Shady Side are very similar to Cleveland Hts and Shaker Hts. I think this is the biggest reason why Pittsburgh has a better reputation. Cleveland has some really nice inner-ring suburbs that are not within the city limits, whereas Pittsburgh's nicest areas are within the city limits. I think over time Cleveland's reputation will improve. Already Cleveland has a reputation as a great food city.

It also has the most highly-educated population of any Rust Belt city (more than twice the percentage of residents with college degrees than Cleveland).

 

I would like to see the County or MSA numbers on this statistic.

It also has the most highly-educated population of any Rust Belt city (more than twice the percentage of residents with college degrees than Cleveland).

 

I would like to see the County or MSA numbers on this statistic.

 

Its c-dawg.  He wrote it, how dare you question him.  ;)

I think he meant within the city.

^ Yes.  He did mean within the City.  However, as explained in prior posts, using raw data from "within the City" does not paint an accurate picture of the overall economic standing of the MSA's.  Whenever talking about economic health, MSAs, not city limits, should be used.  Isn't economic connectiveness how we define MSAs anyways?

Using just the city statistics would slant Cleveland more towards underachievement when compared to other cities with more diverse socioeconomic demographics in their neighborhoods.  Looking at the graph in the news article regarding Vegas, Cleveland is just slightly above Detroit when it comes to college graduates living within the city, and even those who have had only some college.  But if Pittsburgh has neighborhoods which could resemble Cleveland Heights and Shaker, that would definitely help their numbers.

 

Bah!  Pitt just gets lot of mileage outta them darned Steelers.

^I wouldn't be suprised if some type of study showed that that is the case for many cities nationwide.  We just haven't had that experience since the start of Cleveland's decline.

you guys are missing a larger issue.

 

As said before Cleveland has no multi platform advertising or marketing Campaign.

"Bah!  Pitt just gets lot of mileage outta them darned Steelers."

 

I've always said that. It does a lot for the psyche of the entire region. It also gives everyone in the region something to rally around. Generally, Pittsburghers don't have the "woe is me" syndrome that seems to infect all of NEO. From a national perspective, Pittsburgh is seen as a winner because of the Steelers.

I'll admit that I am not overly familiar with Cleveland, but from my perspective as an outsider, I tend to think that GREATER Cleveland is pretty nice, but the actual city for the most part is pretty run down and abandoned. From what I've seen here, Shaker Square appears to be the nicest neighborhood in Cleveland city limits, and it is on the fringe of the city.  Downtown, while it has pockets of activity, is so large that it makes it harder to appear to be a cohesive "nice downtown". Even some of the more marquee neighborhoods in Cleveland (Ohio City, Tremont, Little Italy) are sort of shady if you venture too far away from the main drag. 

 

I think if Cleveland had large solid block of nice, safe, and relatively upscale neighborhoods, it would definitely change the perception of the city.  When you think of upscale and nice areas of cities, it definitely helps to have the areas clustered so they appear to be the dominant image of the city to the outsider.  The Northside of Chicago, West Side of LA, and even the East Side of Cincinnati all have clustered neighborhoods of upscale homes, shops, etc. IMO, this is what Cleveland needs in the actual city limits.

 

I could be totally off base, and please correct me if I am.  This is just my perception of Cleveland as an outside viewer.

 

 

^I would have to agree to an extent that our own local perception, which is generally "can't do", could be linked in part with the failure of our sports franchises to win within the last 40+ years (except for the Crunch!).  Winning 6 Superbowls certainly doesn't hurt the psyche of a city- I would imagine that at least the local vibe/view of the city would be a bit more positive with that many championships, but again, that's just my opinion.

I would rather we were less obsessed with sports in this town in general, but I know i'm in the minority. Having so much riding on sports teams will bring cyclical disappointment again and again. JMO.

I'll admit that I am not overly familiar with Cleveland, but from my perspective as an outsider, I tend to think that GREATER Cleveland is pretty nice, but the actual city for the most part is pretty run down and abandoned. From what I've seen here, Shaker Square appears to be the nicest neighborhood in Cleveland city limits, and it is on the fringe of the city.  Downtown, while it has pockets of activity, is so large that it makes it harder to appear to be a cohesive "nice downtown". Even some of the more marquee neighborhoods in Cleveland (Ohio City, Tremont, Little Italy) are sort of shady if you venture too far away from the main drag. 

 

I think if Cleveland had large solid block of nice, safe, and relatively upscale neighborhoods, it would definitely change the perception of the city.  When you think of upscale and nice areas of cities, it definitely helps to have the areas clustered so they appear to be the dominant image of the city to the outsider.  The Northside of Chicago, West Side of LA, and even the East Side of Cincinnati all have clustered neighborhoods of upscale homes, shops, etc. IMO, this is what Cleveland needs in the actual city limits.

 

I could be totally off base, and please correct me if I am.  This is just my perception of Cleveland as an outside viewer.

 

 

 

Damn skippy!  Actually there are bunch of nice neighborhoods in the city proper.  Like the around John Marshall (is the Kamm's Corner or West Park?), Brooklyn, Edgewater, Collinwood, Glenville, Forest Hill, AsiaTown & Lee-Miles.

 

Again, the city does not have a multi layered media, advertising or marketing plan.  So the plain dealer along with developers only choose to spot light downtown, OC, & Tremont.

I think if Cleveland had large solid block of nice, safe, and relatively upscale neighborhoods, it would definitely change the perception of the city.

 

Edgewater, West Park & Old Brooklyn.

I think if Cleveland had large solid block of nice, safe, and relatively upscale neighborhoods, it would definitely change the perception of the city.

 

Edgewater, West Park & Old Brooklyn.

 

Would old BK and WP be considered "upscale"?

I don't think any of the neighborhoods you guys have mentioned except Edgwater, and a small chunk of Glenville would be considered upscale.

I think that CLE's reputation is the result of many years of half truths and misperceptions.  Eventually, a tale told often enough becomes the truth whether it's accurate or not.  When the media needs an example of something done wrong or not at all, what is easier than going to the old "punching bag" for that example.  And of course, CLE's local media feeds the fire.  Changing CLE's perception will have to come from within.  Local positivity will eventually reflect on the larger national preception.

I think if Cleveland had large solid block of nice, safe, and relatively upscale neighborhoods, it would definitely change the perception of the city.

 

Edgewater, West Park & Old Brooklyn.

 

Would old BK and WP be considered "upscale"?

 

They meet the other criteria but not exactly upscale except for Edgewater. But probably more upscale than Collinwood, AsiaTown & Lee-Miles. :-)

The nice parts of the city proper in Cleveland do tend to be spread out all over the city.  That can certainly affect the perception of outsiders.  Maybe with the emergence of Detroit Shoreway we'll have something like that stretching from Tremont to Edgewater.

I don't think any of the neighborhoods you guys have mentioned except Edgwater, and a small chunk of Glenville would be considered upscale.

 

and Shaker Square.

I think that CLE's reputation is the result of many years of half truths and misperceptions. Eventually, a tale told often enough becomes the truth whether it's accurate or not. When the media needs an example of something done wrong or not at all, what is easier than going to the old "punching bag" for that example. And of course, CLE's local media feeds the fire. Changing CLE's perception will have to come from within. Local positivity will eventually reflect on the larger national preception.

 

I agree COMPLETELY.  But how do individuals locally begin to foster this type of movement?  Not purchasing the PD and letting them know that you will not do so because of the constant negative reporting is one way.  In fact, I have to admit that maybe, just maybe, they're beginning to get the picture.  It's been a while since the last completely negative Cleveland story was on the front page, or in bold letters online. 

 

The marketing campeign, as MTS mentioned, is also important on a regional scale.  I wonder why Positively Cleveland or the GCP has not done so.  I would guess that Cleveland + is their answer, however, how effective is that towards changing Cleveland's perception to the nation?

 

I think that CLE's reputation is the result of many years of half truths and misperceptions.  Eventually, a tale told often enough becomes the truth whether it's accurate or not.  When the media needs an example of something done wrong or not at all, what is easier than going to the old "punching bag" for that example.  And of course, CLE's local media feeds the fire.  Changing CLE's perception will have to come from within.  Local positivity will eventually reflect on the larger national preception.

 

I agree COMPLETELY.  But how do individuals locally begin to foster this type of movement?  Not purchasing the PD and letting them know that you will not do so because of the constant negative reporting is one way.  In fact, I have to admit that maybe, just maybe, they're beginning to get the picture.  It's been a while since the last completely negative Cleveland story was on the front page, or in bold letters online. 

 

The marketing campeign, as MTS mentioned, is also important on a regional scale.  I wonder why Positively Cleveland or the GCP has not done so.  I would guess that Cleveland  is their answer, however, how effective is that towards changing Cleveland's perception to the nation?

 

 

If I didn't have a job, I'd introduce my own plan.

 

Part - and a large part - of the problem is the age, ethnicity, orientation and home address of those in leadership positions.

 

 

If I didn't have a job, I'd introduce my own plan.

 

Part - and a large part - of the problem is the age, ethnicity, orientation and home address of those in leadership positions.

 

True that man.  I will say that as far as the home address is concerned, people in the CLE who live ex city don't seem to realize that they are, in fact, Cleveland.  What would Parma or Rocky River be without CLE?  I know I'm getting in to the regionalism topic but as CLE goes, so does NE Ohio. 

 

 

If I didn't have a job, I'd introduce my own plan.

 

Part - and a large part - of the problem is the age, ethnicity, orientation and home address of those in leadership positions.

 

True that man.  I will say that as far as the home address is concerned, people in the CLE who live ex city don't seem to realize that they are, in fact, Cleveland.  What would Parma or Rocky River be without CLE?  I know I'm getting in to the regionalism topic but as CLE goes, so does NE Ohio. 

 

You're preaching to the Urban Ohio Gospel choir on that one!

I don't think any of the neighborhoods you guys have mentioned except Edgwater, and a small chunk of Glenville would be considered upscale.

 

By national standards of income and home price, I don't think there's really any part of the city proper bigger than a single block or two that we can call "upscale" with a straight face.  I think edale is pretty right on.  When you look at retail, the situation is even worse- there isn't even any upscale retail of note (other than antiques or super specialty stuff) in the inner ring suburbs.

 

It's true that Cleveland proper looks particularly bad on paper because of jurisdictional line drawing, but it's also true that a much larger geography radiating from downtown is hollowed out in terms of wealth than in other rustbelt cities (maybe other than Detroit of course).  Western Cleveland Heights and Shaker Heights, which are in fact upscale, are actually pretty far from downtown, and there's a lot of misery in between.

 

Actually as an "Outsider" I can't believe any of you are letting this comment by this Edale person even merit these responses. Just from the first sentence "I admit I am not overly familiar with Cleveland" should just about sum it up about this person. Ok so your not familiar but you're going to go ahead and state that most of Cleveland is run down and abandoned? Excuse me but I live in San Francisco and just came back from a week long trip to Cleveland and it's anything but run down and I would take Cleveland any day in a head to head match against Cincinnati in any capacity, and I have been to BOTH towns. So yeah you are totally and completely off base. You must be completely oblivious or insanely insecure about your own Town and I would assume it could be both, not that I am overly familiar with you or anything.

It is a fallacy to say that a person who does not live in a city cannot speak intelligently to the city's situation.

You're clearly not getting my point. Did I say ANYTHING about someone having to LIVE in a city to make accurate or even somewhat intelligent statments? NO! Read my post again please before you comment. When someone outright admits they are not familiar with a city but then goes on to blurt out completely outrageous statments is when I say they are in no position to have valid comments. The bulk of Cleveland's negative perception is perpetuated by people who have not the slightest idea of what Cleveland is all about because they have little or no experience with the city.

After visiting many U.S. cities ,and some in Canada and Europe, I am convinced that topography/geopgraphy is the biggest single factor (EXCEPT FOR ,of course, a city's economy) in determining the outcome of a city.

In Cleveland's case... this would be a totally different city if University Circle was much closer to downtown. At the turn of last century, the city planners decided that Doan Brook and its environs would be the best place for all of the cultural institutions, etc. If Doan Brook had been around E.55, then the Museums , universities, colleges and the parks/greenspaces would've been right up against downtown. And that also means that areas like Cleveland Hts and Shaker Hts would've been half the distance from Public Square that they are today. Cleveland would be a much different experience than it is today.

 

Those city planners had no idea though that this would be so important. They were pretty much sold on Doan Brook... hence the present day location of Rokefeller Park and University Circle. Imagine how great it would be to have all of our cultural jewels an extension of the center city. Instead, at least in 2010, we have 2 downtowns kinda competing with each other. Although, between the 1910s and 1950s (Cleveland's heydays) this was not so apparent because the city was such a boomtown... Downtown and UC were connected by a vibrant 4-5 mile stretch of Euclid Ave (not to mention Carnegie, Superior and Chester). The fact that the topography along the Lake Erie shoreline is essentially flat did not/does not help matters because it allows for this unlimited sprawl horizontally.

 

Pittsburgh is a good comparison. The "Oakland" area of Pittsburgh is just like University Circle in Cleveland. But it's right up against their downtown. Because the topography of southwest Pennsylvania is hills and mountains, things are forced to be more clustered and less stretched out. This makes for a denser city.

 

The Great Lakes cities are flat. The exception to the rule--Chicago-- is huge and stretches horizontally in every direction but it doesn't matter because it has a ton of residents and is one of the best economies in the Midwest, for the most part. Milwaukee, Buffalo and Detroit have experienced, to a degree, the same experience as Cleveland. Which is Boomtown for a few decades (i.e. manufacturing powerhouses) then not-Boomtown, with these cities planned horizontally.

 

Places like San Fransisco which is a peninsula ,and Manhattan (island) are landlocked and are extreme examples of topography/geography. They CAN'T stretch out...this drives up property values, keeps everything centrally located and "compact", and creates close-in upscale housing and shopping.

 

But back to Cleveland, I really do think that a closer placement of our cultural zone to the center city would have done wonders. A lot of this discussion would be different if we didn't have 2 downtowns (and kinda far inner-ring suburbs).

 

Clueless I disagree.

 

Eastern Hough (86 to 105 and Wade Park to Euclid),  & Glenville were prominent and wealthy neighborhoods.  Those neighborhoods were named after the pioneers in those neighborhoods.

 

Thats why UC was placed where it is.  It had nothing to do with CH or SH.  and they would be there regardless.

 

 

MTS, Good Morning...

Im just trying to make the point that... all else being equal... if the Cuyahoga River and Doan Brook had been only 2 miles apart from each other rather than 5 miles apart , Cleveland would've been a much different place in terms of density, etc

MTS, Good Morning...

Im just trying to make the point that... all else being equal... if the Cuyahoga River and Doan Brook had been only 2 miles apart from each other rather than 5 miles apart , Cleveland would've been a much different place in terms of density, etc

 

Thats speculative.  I cant say that would be accurate.

well yeah I'm being speculative.

I think Im right on this.

 

Then how would you resolve ths "2 downtowns" problem in Cleveland?

well yeah I'm being speculative.

I think Im right on this.

 

Then how would you resolve ths "2 downtowns" problem in Cleveland?

 

We dont have two downtown.  However, if you look at a history of Cleveland (or any major city) there has always been, business districts that are major for their neighborhood. Examples = Broadview, memphis, Pearl;  East 105; east 55 both on Euclid were also considered "satellite" downtowns.

We are too stretched out in this city.

 

But it's not the end of the world

We are too stretched out in this city.

 

But it's not the end of the world

 

Its like that anywhere.  This is not unique to Cleveland.

Youre both right and not right.  There is a cluster effect that plays into how declining cities fare.  Clueless you are correct about the Pittsburgh analogy, and it is likely that there would be better synergy and less emptiness if University Circle was closer to downtown (certainly less space to be empty, and more visitors going back and forth that currently would'nt) , but there are too many other factors in the bigger picture that play into what your saying to predict exactly how it would have turned out. 

 

The cluster effect has been a debate as far as city planning and economic development goes.  Look at the report that was released yesterday for Cleveland that says that Cleveland needs to concentrate its resources into its strongest neighborhoods and clusters as oppposed to spreading them out everywhere, thus watering them down to non-effectivness.  This has been the case for Cleveland for quite some time.  Its about maintaining (and building on) what is good in a city that continues to lose population (and certainly the outcome would be different if it was a growing region/city)   

 

As EC puts it below quality vs quantity (quantity that frankly cannot be, and is able to be maintained given current circumstances)

 

 

I think Cleveland's reputation is slowly getting better.  I just watched the diners, drive-ins and dives program where Guy F was here at Lucky's and it was a completely positive little spot.  I see more and more mentions of Cleveland in a positive fashion.  Mostly related to food, and secondarily related to culture.  I think things like Michael Symon becoming an Iron Chef, the celebrity of LeBron James and the positive press we're getting for our restaurants, cultural instititions and medical facilities is sloooowly turning the tide on Cleveland's image.  JMO.

 

I'll admit that I am not overly familiar with Cleveland, but from my perspective as an outsider, I tend to think that GREATER Cleveland is pretty nice, but the actual city for the most part is pretty run down and abandoned. From what I've seen here, Shaker Square appears to be the nicest neighborhood in Cleveland city limits, and it is on the fringe of the city.  Downtown, while it has pockets of activity, is so large that it makes it harder to appear to be a cohesive "nice downtown". Even some of the more marquee neighborhoods in Cleveland (Ohio City, Tremont, Little Italy) are sort of shady if you venture too far away from the main drag. 

 

I think if Cleveland had large solid block of nice, safe, and relatively upscale neighborhoods, it would definitely change the perception of the city.  When you think of upscale and nice areas of cities, it definitely helps to have the areas clustered so they appear to be the dominant image of the city to the outsider.  The Northside of Chicago, West Side of LA, and even the East Side of Cincinnati all have clustered neighborhoods of upscale homes, shops, etc. IMO, this is what Cleveland needs in the actual city limits.

 

I could be totally off base, and please correct me if I am.  This is just my perception of Cleveland as an outside viewer.

 

 

 

Damn skippy!  Actually there are bunch of nice neighborhoods in the city proper.  Like the around John Marshall (is the Kamm's Corner or West Park?), Brooklyn, Edgewater, Collinwood, Glenville, Forest Hill, AsiaTown & Lee-Miles.

 

Again, the city does not have a multi layered media, advertising or marketing plan.  So the plain dealer along with developers only choose to spot light downtown, OC, & Tremont.

 

Actually, the way he describes this is how the city was in the 20's 30's... Look at the way E. 55th/Woodland  E.55th/Euclid looked and so on (old photos).... it was that way. E.105 and Euclid was often called Cleveland's 'second downtown' We tore it all down. Today they are nutritional wastelands and the best that is offered to residents is Church's Chicken and Rally's and gas stations. Sad. And on the population points...again, I say we need to focus more on quality than quantity.

You're clearly not getting my point. Did I say ANYTHING about someone having to LIVE in a city to make accurate or even somewhat intelligent statments? NO! Read my post again please before you comment. When someone outright admits they are not familiar with a city but then goes on to blurt out completely outrageous statments is when I say they are in no position to have valid comments. The bulk of Cleveland's negative perception is perpetuated by people who have not the slightest idea of what Cleveland is all about because they have little or no experience with the city.

 

This is true. As for our reputation, we have many right here in the area who are the city's worst enemy. They project pity so much to the point people start believing it... who may have otherwise had no opinion of the city.... Bottom line is that if you act like a loser and keep projecting it, that's what people will think of you. We need a major dose of more civic pride. You needn't be monetarily wealthy to have this pride. Its free!

^I can agree... to an extent.  Civic pride comes with the great things that a city is able to accomplish.  Historically, we can refer to the Terminal Tower's completion as a time when people were proud to live in Cleveland, much more than today.  Another example, in my opinion would be the civic pride the city experienced in the 90s, which came from many factors- including the RRHOF, The Flats, The Gund, Jacobs Field, and the Browns Stadium later.  That's not to mention the other projects which occurred within the city during that time.