Funny how such a dominant portion of GDP comes from 3% of land in the US... but politicians always show rural areas in their commercials and call it "the real America".

 

 

I'm sure that figure includes small cities and rural county seats, but the point is still valid. And, of course, those same small cities in rural areas get short shrift from the same national policies.

 

Those small towns need tons of state and federal subsidies just to stay afloat.  More so than even suburbs.  They have absolutely no ability even to maintain all the infrastructure that they've built in the post-war era (sewers, water systems, roads and bypasses, etc.), let alone repay their construction or replacement.  So as downtrodden as many of those places are, they're actually receiving a disproportionate amount of aid.

Is that stat by land area?  a large portion of several, huge, states (Alaska, texas, idaho, etc) are completely undeveloped and receive little subsidy.

I'm sure that figure includes small cities and rural county seats, but the point is still valid. And, of course, those same small cities in rural areas get short shrift from the same national policies.

 

Those small towns need tons of state and federal subsidies just to stay afloat.  More so than even suburbs.  They have absolutely no ability even to maintain all the infrastructure that they've built in the post-war era (sewers, water systems, roads and bypasses, etc.), let alone repay their construction or replacement.  So as downtrodden as many of those places are, they're actually receiving a disproportionate amount of aid.

 

And in Ohio since 2010, they're getting significantly less state aid.

“We could have built a suburban campus,” Bezos said, noting that a location outside of the city might have saved the company money. “I think it would have been the wrong decision.”

 

He said the types of people Amazon employs and wants to attract in the future “appreciate the energy and and dynamism of an urban environment,” which means the company is more likely to get the talent it wants with an urban campus.

 

It’s also better for the city of Seattle and the planet, he said. “I think it’s pretty much indisputable that urban campuses relative to suburban campuses are better because there’s much less commuting and much less fuel burned,” with many people choosing to live near work.

http://www.geekwire.com/2014/amazons-bezos-suburban-hq-wrong-decision/

“We could have built a suburban campus,” Bezos said, noting that a location outside of the city might have saved the company money. “I think it would have been the wrong decision.”

 

He said the types of people Amazon employs and wants to attract in the future “appreciate the energy and and dynamism of an urban environment,” which means the company is more likely to get the talent it wants with an urban campus.

 

It’s also better for the city of Seattle and the planet, he said. “I think it’s pretty much indisputable that urban campuses relative to suburban campuses are better because there’s much less commuting and much less fuel burned,” with many people choosing to live near work.

http://www.geekwire.com/2014/amazons-bezos-suburban-hq-wrong-decision/

 

Is it better for Seattle and the environment? Yes.

Is the argument about attracting employees factual? Maybe... Microsoft does have a suburban campus in Redmond, just outside of Seattle, and there are plenty of Amazonians who are jealous because msft has loads of parking for them.  Amazon's campus charges employees for parking and has huge wait lists to secure a spot.

The company hired trolleys to tour young prospective job applicants from East Coast and Chicago universities. They showed them downtown, North Coast Harbor, Ohio City, University Circle etc. and they loved it all. And then... They took the long ride on the interstate out to Progressive's office campus in Mayfield Village and their interest level in working for Progressive Insurance disappeared.

 

I wonder how that actually played out in the hiring process.  What are the facts?  How many had they interviewed; how many had they hoped to hire; how many ended up turning them down; and how many did they end up hiring?

 

Sorry, it all sounds a lot like heresay to me.

Ironically, after we discussed the Parking Lot On Public Square, we discussed Progressive Insurance. The company hired trolleys to tour young prospective job applicants from East Coast and Chicago universities. They showed them downtown, North Coast Harbor, Ohio City, University Circle etc. and they loved it all. And then... They took the long ride on the interstate out to Progressive's office campus in Mayfield Village and their interest level in working for Progressive Insurance disappeared. While we both agreed Progressive won't relocate existing offices downtown, they may expand downtown. That's the kind of anchor tenant that would be needed for an office building, and Progressive would plant a big visible flag right on Public Square. That part IS speculation on our part, however.

 

How do you know this? Also, that's nothing that a nice salary can't cure for a young person.

You don't have to live where there office is, in fact I would bet there are people that live Downtown and commute to the HQ.

There's no argument that Progressive or even Eaton have done a disservice to their employees and community by their locations, but they also have a lot invested in those locations.

Sorry, it all sounds a lot like heresay to me.

 

Were you on the trolley with the kids? My source was. He said the kids were real excited in the city and lost interest when they got to Mayfield Village. When you're trying to attract young talent, being in the suburbs isn't attractive. I hope that's not a revelation to you.

 

Being on Public Square is attractive. So back to the topic.

How do you know this? Also, that's nothing that a nice salary can't cure for a young person.

 

Because in repeated studies of Millennials location decision-making, it's become almost stereotypical that the findings show many choose where to live first, then they find a job to support their decision.

 

EDIT: I posted the Progressive information to support the prospective tenant issues related to the Public Square project. This latest conversation is not related to the Public Square project. If you want to discuss the marketability of the suburbs for job seekers without a correlation to a Public Square office building, we have other threads for that.

No, I wasn't on the trolley. I don't doubt that they weren't dissappointed. Just wondered if it affected the hiring process.

 

No reason to be snippy, I'm just asking questions a good reporter would ask. You are stating a fact, and I'm just wondering if in the end, they actually changed their minds.

 

You changed to topic, not I.

You challenged the veracity of my comment as "hearsay" -- that's not snippy? You give me snippy, you get snippy in return. And how in the world did I change the subject???

 

It wouldn't be unusual to move world global hq downtown and keep the back office functions in the burbs.  It would probably give them ability to consolidate some space and refocus the company.  So, there's a chance.

No, its not snippy.  You gave no facts. Sorry, I guess I'm still learning the rules of when I can have an opinion.

 

As far as the subject, clearly you are more pro downtown than suburbs.  That's fine, but give some facts.  It does us no good to say how disappointed they were, if they still took the suburb job.

 

Just an opinion.

 

 

It wouldn't be unusual to move world global hq downtown and keep the back office functions in the burbs.  It would probably give them ability to consolidate some space and refocus the company.  So, there's a chance.

IIRC, Mike White suggested that as a last resort and Progressive didn't want that.

No, its not snippy.  You gave no facts. Sorry, I guess I'm still learning the rules of when I can have an opinion.

 

As far as the subject, clearly you are more pro downtown than suburbs.  That's fine, but give some facts.  It does us no good to say how disappointed they were, if they still took the suburb job.

 

Just an opinion.

 

 

 

Moved to a more appropriate thread.......

 

The comment my source made was that he observed the young people seemed disappointed in where Progressive's office were located. Why were facts needed to support this observation? If I see someone at a restaurant be disappointed that they ran out of food, do I need to go to the kitchen to verify this and take stock of their inventory before reporting that this person was disappointed?

 

You seem to be taking this disappointment in Progressive's location a little personally. What's up with that? Do you work for Progressive? Are you a suburban developer? My source's opinion was based on a physical observation he made. Your complaint wasn't based on anything except a personal belief.

 

And you also seem to be surprised that people in this forum support urban settings more than suburban ones -- you do realize the name on this forum, don't you?

The definition of hearsay is something you've heard, with no information to back it up. Calling something hearsay is not snippy.

 

Clearly, you don't have any answers to my simple question about facts.  No, I have nothing personal about Progressive, I just don't like when someone takes a cheap shot and can't back it up.

 

I never said I was surprised by your support of urban.  Where did I say that? I was confirming that fact, and I said it was fine.  No surprise.

 

I think you just dislike anyone questioning you, or asking for facts on a blanket statement.

You're right. I don't like it when someone questions me when I pass along a piece of information. What's the point of questioning me? What more do you want out of me? Should I have not told the story about this guy seeing the young people show excitement at the urban settings and then show disappointment at where Progressive was located? I'm absolutely baffled that this is such a big issue for you. Maybe you wouldn't have passed along this story, but I thought it was interesting and I suspect others here will find it interesting too. Have a nice day.

Sprawl illustrated

http://www.originalgreen.org/blog/costs-of-sprawl---the-speed.html

 

 

 

 

Being on Public Square is attractive.

 

Said no one ever... :-P

It wouldn't be unusual to move world global hq downtown and keep the back office functions in the burbs.  It would probably give them ability to consolidate some space and refocus the company.  So, there's a chance.

IIRC, Mike White suggested that as a last resort and Progressive didn't want that.

 

That’s what I heard to.  It would make sense.  Lewis’s vision of Progressive HQ was a self contained entity that didn’t necessarily mix much with its surroundings.  His skyscraper would have been the same thing.  That triggered the parking debate.  His original plan was that the building have integral parking for Progressive employees only.  The garage operators opposed this and the city sided with them.

 

The “vibrant downtown” advocates may have dodged a bullet with this one.  Had Progressive built their tower, there would be complaints that it was a fortress whose denizens did not play nicely (or at all) with others.  That’s their culture, and it could have worked just as well in a skyscraper as it does in the burbs.

 

America split between two community ideals

 

http://bettercities.net/news-opinion/blogs/robert-steuteville/21157/america-split-between-two-community-ideals

 

More....

 

@APA_Planning: Residents of compact, connected metro areas have better quality of life than sprawling regions: http://t.co/7h8GrwT56V

How do you know this? Also, that's nothing that a nice salary can't cure for a young person.

 

Because in repeated studies of Millennials location decision-making, it's become almost stereotypical that the findings show many choose where to live first, then they find a job to support their decision.

 

EDIT: I posted the Progressive information to support the prospective tenant issues related to the Public Square project. This latest conversation is not related to the Public Square project. If you want to discuss the marketability of the suburbs for job seekers without a correlation to a Public Square office building, we have other threads for that.

 

I don't think anybody on here would debat that YP's and even Empty Nesters would rather live in urban areas. What I said was that the location of work does not always correlate to where people live, office jobs especially.

I think you are also forgetting that we are in an economy that while bouncing back, jobs are still valued and sought after. We don't have the option to go wherever we want.

I don't think anybody on here would debat that YP's and even Empty Nesters would rather live in urban areas. What I said was that the location of work does not always correlate to where people live, office jobs especially.

I think you are also forgetting that we are in an economy that while bouncing back, jobs are still valued and sought after. We don't have the option to go wherever we want.

 

I think it's possible to find enough young people seeking suburban jobs to make that a true statement. But I'm not forgetting anything. I reported what someone witnessed. Period.

 

For someone my age (47), it's still astonishing for me to hear about young people enjoying a city and lamenting a suburb. Yet too many of the corporate chieftans who are older than me continue to make site selection decisions in ignorance of what young people prefer in their workplace setting. Or if they're not ignorant of those preferences, then the corporate big-wigs apparently think that somehow young people are delusional and will eventually come to their senses. That's a horrible way to attract talent.

I cant imagine living in a sprawling suburb myself, but I feel like things have been massively overblown by urban promoters. All we hear is how young people love urban neighborhoods and transit, hate cars and suburbs. Yet when you look at whats happening on the ground, the majority of young people still choose to live in suburbs and drive cars. Even in our urban neighborhoods basically everyone owns cars and uses them to commute. All new residential projects come with plenty of parking. I do realize that this urban living trend exists greater in cities like Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Toronto, etc, but it seems to not have caught on as much in lower density midwest cities like Cleveland. It does exist to a degree and no doubt that things are improving, but it is not the majority mindset by any means like the news articles would like us to believe. I wish this wasn't the case but I think its pointless to ignore reality.

Yet too many of the corporate chieftans who are older than me continue to make site selection decisions in ignorance of what young people prefer in their workplace setting.

 

It's not as simple as that.  New hires probably make up a small percent of any major company.  There are many employee surveys hashing out preferences.  I'm sure its highly valued and considered, but in their minds (I didn't say mine), and even in the companies minds, I'm sure they think  that they are offering benefits that outweigh having to travel downtown.

 

You can't deny the facts that the desire to working and living in the suburbs might increase as people age.  The trick would be to convince them why its better to live in the city.

I do realize that this urban living trend exists greater in cities like Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Toronto, etc, but it seems to not have caught on as much in lower density midwest cities like Cleveland. It does exist to a degree and no doubt that things are improving, but it is not the majority mindset by any means like the news articles would like us to believe. I wish this wasn't the case but I think its pointless to ignore reality.

 

What's also interesting to me is how we tend to not appreciate how urban Cleveland is. True, the other cities you mentioned are more urban. But when I show people from Cincinnati, Columbus, Indianapolis and other Midwest cities around Cleveland, they're amazed at how many buildings (and the sizes of them) we're converting to residential. Or that we're putting new buildings on the sidewalk with greater frequency than they are. Or that we're increasing putting more of our buildings at transit stations.

 

See, when I was growing up, no one built anything in Cleveland. When I was a kid in 1976, there were NINE building permits issued for the ENTIRE city of Cleveland. Nowadays, there are streets in Cleveland that have more than nine building permits issued for them in a single year!

 

You can't deny the facts that the desire to working and living in the suburbs might increase as people age.  The trick would be to convince them why its better to live in the city.

 

You describe a fact as "might"? Did you see the data I linked to above that showed that older people are more apt to live in an urban setting than young people? If a young people chose to live in the city, I doubt they have to be convinced why they should stay put as they get older. I think many are aware their children are safer in the city than they are in the suburbs.......

 

Want a safe place to raise kids? Look to the cities

http://grist.org/article/2010-12-27-want-a-safe-place-to-raise-kids-look-to-the-cities/

I cant imagine living in a sprawling suburb myself, but I feel like things have been massively overblown by urban promoters. All we hear is how young people love urban neighborhoods and transit, hate cars and suburbs. Yet when you look at whats happening on the ground, the majority of young people still choose to live in suburbs and drive cars. Even in our urban neighborhoods basically everyone owns cars and uses them to commute. All new residential projects come with plenty of parking. I do realize that this urban living trend exists greater in cities like Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Toronto, etc, but it seems to not have caught on as much in lower density midwest cities like Cleveland. It does exist to a degree but isn't the majority mindset by any means like the news articles would like us to believe. I wish this wasn't the case but I think its pointless to ignore reality.

 

Don't confuse choice with lack of choice.  In many places, especially here in the midwest, no matter how much you might want to live car-free, take transit, live in an urban setting, etc., you're limited by what's actually available.  It's NOT easy to go car-free around here, so many people have to own a car even if they don't want to.  Because of governmental and banking policies, it's much easier and cheaper to buy a house in the suburbs than a condo or apartment in the city.  Many people end up living where they do not because it's urban or suburban but because of other factors such as crime, schools, proximity to work, and other amenities.  If you want to live close to work and in an urban neighborhood, but your job is in the suburbs, you have to either live in the suburbs, endure a long commute, or find a different job, none of which are easy choices to make.

 

Also, what I find amusing about job sprawl is that it by definition reduces the pool of potential employees.  Except where the metro area has geographic constraints that makes it very lopsided, like a lake or ocean, mountains, etc., downtown is pretty close to the center of the metro area.  By locating in the suburbs, your pool of potential employees shifts to include more undeveloped rural area, and fewer of the suburbs on the other side of downtown.  I work in Blue Ash, and while it's easier for the folks who live in Hamilton, Loveland, Indian Hill, and Wyoming, it's a bitch for those of us who live in Cincinnati proper, let alone Kentucky or the west side.  We've probably missed out on getting resumes from people who live in Florence, Delhi, or Hebron, and being close to Maineville, Goshen, and Morrow isn't much of a benefit since few people live out there. 

I do realize that this urban living trend exists greater in cities like Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Toronto, etc, but it seems to not have caught on as much in lower density midwest cities like Cleveland. It does exist to a degree and no doubt that things are improving, but it is not the majority mindset by any means like the news articles would like us to believe. I wish this wasn't the case but I think its pointless to ignore reality.

 

What's also interesting to me is how we tend to not appreciate how urban Cleveland is. True, the other cities you mentioned are more urban. But when I show people from Cincinnati, Columbus, Indianapolis and other Midwest cities around Cleveland, they're amazed at how many buildings (and the sizes of them) we're converting to residential. Or that we're putting new buildings on the sidewalk with greater frequency than they are. Or that we're increasing putting more of our buildings at transit stations.

 

I suspect it depends on what city the people are from. But to Cincinnatians what Cleveland is doing different is lots of midrises. And that's always been a difference in the character (and density style) between the two cities. Cincy has an abundance of (sidewalk-abutting) rowhouses, and that's in large part what's being infilled in Cincy today.

I cant imagine living in a sprawling suburb myself, but I feel like things have been massively overblown by urban promoters. All we hear is how young people love urban neighborhoods and transit, hate cars and suburbs. Yet when you look at whats happening on the ground, the majority of young people still choose to live in suburbs and drive cars. Even in our urban neighborhoods basically everyone owns cars and uses them to commute. All new residential projects come with plenty of parking. I do realize that this urban living trend exists greater in cities like Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Toronto, etc, but it seems to not have caught on as much in lower density midwest cities like Cleveland. It does exist to a degree but isn't the majority mindset by any means like the news articles would like us to believe. I wish this wasn't the case but I think its pointless to ignore reality.

 

Don't confuse choice with lack of choice.  In many places, especially here in the midwest, no matter how much you might want to live car-free, take transit, live in an urban setting, etc., you're limited by what's actually available.  It's NOT easy to go car-free around here, so many people have to own a car even if they don't want to.  Because of governmental and banking policies, it's much easier and cheaper to buy a house in the suburbs than a condo or apartment in the city.  Many people end up living where they do not because it's urban or suburban but because of other factors such as crime, schools, proximity to work, and other amenities.  If you want to live close to work and in an urban neighborhood, but your job is in the suburbs, you have to either live in the suburbs, endure a long commute, or find a different job, none of which are easy choices to make.

 

I think even more the issue is that people from the Midwest who want that simply move to those places where DM4 says "the urban living trend exists greater". It's not so much that it exists "greater" in those places, but that people who want urban living from here move there. So those people simultaneously make the trend look smaller in the Midwest and greater on the coasts than is actually the case in those places.

Downtown is pretty close to the center of the metro area.

 

True, but Blue Ash is possibly a shorter commute for more drivers. Blue Ash has interstates leading in 6 directions: I-75 north and south, I-71 north and south, and I-275 east and west.

 

I cant imagine living in a sprawling suburb myself, but I feel like things have been massively overblown by urban promoters. All we hear is how young people love urban neighborhoods and transit, hate cars and suburbs. Yet when you look at whats happening on the ground, the majority of young people still choose to live in suburbs and drive cars. Even in our urban neighborhoods basically everyone owns cars and uses them to commute. All new residential projects come with plenty of parking. I do realize that this urban living trend exists greater in cities like Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Toronto, etc, but it seems to not have caught on as much in lower density midwest cities like Cleveland. It does exist to a degree but isn't the majority mindset by any means like the news articles would like us to believe. I wish this wasn't the case but I think its pointless to ignore reality.

 

Don't confuse choice with lack of choice.  In many places, especially here in the midwest, no matter how much you might want to live car-free, take transit, live in an urban setting, etc., you're limited by what's actually available.  It's NOT easy to go car-free around here, so many people have to own a car even if they don't want to.  Because of governmental and banking policies, it's much easier and cheaper to buy a house in the suburbs than a condo or apartment in the city.  Many people end up living where they do not because it's urban or suburban but because of other factors such as crime, schools, proximity to work, and other amenities.  If you want to live close to work and in an urban neighborhood, but your job is in the suburbs, you have to either live in the suburbs, endure a long commute, or find a different job, none of which are easy choices to make.

 

Also, what I find amusing about job sprawl is that it by definition reduces the pool of potential employees.  Except where the metro area has geographic constraints that makes it very lopsided, like a lake or ocean, mountains, etc., downtown is pretty close to the center of the metro area.  By locating in the suburbs, your pool of potential employees shifts to include more undeveloped rural area, and fewer of the suburbs on the other side of downtown.  I work in Blue Ash, and while it's easier for the folks who live in Hamilton, Loveland, Indian Hill, and Wyoming, it's a bitch for those of us who live in Cincinnati proper, let alone Kentucky or the west side.  We've probably missed out on getting resumes from people who live in Florence, Delhi, or Hebron, and being close to Maineville, Goshen, and Morrow isn't much of a benefit since few people live out there. 

 

Bingo.

 

The same is true around Cleveland, with the whole East Side/West Side thing. There is insane job sprawl along I-271 on the east side and that in itself limits the job pool from the west side. I have neighbors who tell me that they would "refuse to work out there [i-271]. The commute is horrible." Having the bulk of jobs centrally located is critical in maintaining the largest possible pool to hire from.

 

I live in an urban walkable neighborhood. I have so many transit options within a few blocks of my doorstep. But that is nearly completely wasted because I live on the west side of Cleveland and work on the east side of the 271 corridor. I want to live car free, or at least not have to depend on it for 90% of my trips. But because I don't "have the luxury" of working downtown or in a transit friendly area I have to get in the car and do the daily rat race.

 

With young people starting off and wanting to live car free you have some choices. You can say to yourself well, "I'm only going to apply to jobs that are located downtown." But how realistic is that? In an already tough job market, you've limited yourself to a fraction of the available jobs and limiting your career potential. If you do get a job in the suburbs you can say, "well I can live downtown or in a walkable neighborhood and then drive to work." In many cases that can be a very difficult commute. Parking may be hard to come by where you live and/or expensive. Do those costs and associated time outweigh just getting an apartment a few miles away from the sprawling office park of your job?

 

In Ohio, with so many professional jobs stuck in the suburbs with limited or no transit options, living car free is difficult even for those who want it. You have to be incredibly fortunate if you can pull off being able to land a job downtown and be able to find/afford an apartment there especially if you are a recent graduate.

In Ohio, with so many professional jobs stuck in the suburbs with limited or no transit options, living car free is difficult even for those who want it. You have to be incredibly fortunate if you can pull off being able to land a job downtown and be able to find/afford an apartment there especially if you are a recent graduate.

 

Or you just give up and move to NYC, Chicago, San Francisco, etc....the brain drain that has dogged us for years.

People will throw themselves onto the knife to be in cities like that. Sometimes they can't make it there since things are so competitive and return really PO'ed. It wouldn't be that hard to make our cities like that. It's mostly politicians and insecure suburbanites stopping it really.

I'm in the same boat, hating my daily commute from Lakewood to Beachwood, as well as my car payment.  Cleveland's job sprawl is especially challenging because so much of it is concentrated at one far end of the metro, with poor accessibility from the urban core via highway or transit.

My line of work is, by nature, suburban/semi-rural. I tried an urban location and it didn't work. Others in my industry report identical results.

Downtown simply doesn’t make sense for manufacturing or warehousing and many of the parts of the city that used to host it aren’t options because of potential CERCLA liability.  Maybe the OC will change that.  I suspect it will, to some degree.  Especially if some major changes happen to the federal law, basically clearing new companies of liability for old companies.  This may happen, but environmental activists will likely oppose it.  The current system is a jobs program for environmental scientists/lawyers/etc.  The cities are going to have to push that through, like they blocked the proposed “environmental racism” campaign at the beginning of the Clinton administration.

 

Downtown has its benefits if the address is seen is prestigious and for businesses that have dealings with the government and others like themselves.  Banks and law firms come to mind.  It’s more expensive, especially if a company needs a lot of space.  It’s a tradeoff.    Also, the trend has gone away from separate HQ buildings for manufacturing companies and those that remain are likely to be in the suburbs.  That’s industry wide.

 

Complaining about concentrations is kind of odd for downtown advocates, it seems to me.  In Cleveland, downtown is also on one edge of the metro area, albeit for obvious geographic regions. 

 

I don't think anybody on here would debat that YP's and even Empty Nesters would rather live in urban areas. What I said was that the location of work does not always correlate to where people live, office jobs especially.

I think you are also forgetting that we are in an economy that while bouncing back, jobs are still valued and sought after. We don't have the option to go wherever we want.

 

I think it's possible to find enough young people seeking suburban jobs to make that a true statement. But I'm not forgetting anything. I reported what someone witnessed. Period.

 

For someone my age (47), it's still astonishing for me to hear about young people enjoying a city and lamenting a suburb. Yet too many of the corporate chieftans who are older than me continue to make site selection decisions in ignorance of what young people prefer in their workplace setting. Or if they're not ignorant of those preferences, then the corporate big-wigs apparently think that somehow young people are delusional and will eventually come to their senses. That's a horrible way to attract talent.

 

I think you missed my point, coming out of college now there is so much competition to find a job it doesn't matter where it's at. Live where you want, work where you can get a job.

^That's not necessarily the case for the 'top talent' these companies are trying to attract.  Sure, you can get you run of the mill college grad to sign on no matter where your offices are.  But I do believe there are studies showing that, when presented with options, the millennials will choose an office in an urban setting

In Cleveland, downtown is also on one edge of the metro area, albeit for obvious geographic regions.  [/color]

 

I think you'd be surprised where the population center of gravity would be for the Cleveland MSA.  Using the racial dot map at http://demographics.coopercenter.org/DotMap/index.html (and some superior spatial relations skills :P ) I estimate it's somewhere around University Circle or Coventry.  There is more population east of Cleveland than west, and a lot of it stretches along the Lake Erie shoreline.  There isn't much total population to speak of south of Maple Heights/Bedford on the east side, and the larger southwestern populations of Parma, Strongsville, etc. are more than offset by large populations northeast of downtown in Lake County and Euclid.

In Cleveland, downtown is also on one edge of the metro area, albeit for obvious geographic regions.  [/color]

 

I think you'd be surprised where the population center of gravity would be for the Cleveland MSA.  Using the racial dot map at http://demographics.coopercenter.org/DotMap/index.html (and some superior spatial relations skills :P ) I estimate it's somewhere around University Circle or Coventry.  There is more population east of Cleveland than west, and a lot of it stretches along the Lake Erie shoreline.  There isn't much total population to speak of south of Maple Heights/Bedford on the east side, and the larger southwestern populations of Parma, Strongsville, etc. are more than offset by large populations northeast of downtown in Lake County and Euclid.

 

I know that's how the MSAs are done because of Akron, but is it valid to include Lake County and not Summit?  My area (Nordonia) and Twinsburg would consider themselves a sort of borderland between the two cities.  Even Hudson thinks that way, and then what about Medina County?

 

But what you're saying is that population center is as close to the 271 employment concentration as to downtown.

In Cleveland, downtown is also on one edge of the metro area, albeit for obvious geographic regions.  [/color]

 

I think you'd be surprised where the population center of gravity would be for the Cleveland MSA.  Using the racial dot map at http://demographics.coopercenter.org/DotMap/index.html (and some superior spatial relations skills :P ) I estimate it's somewhere around University Circle or Coventry.  There is more population east of Cleveland than west, and a lot of it stretches along the Lake Erie shoreline.  There isn't much total population to speak of south of Maple Heights/Bedford on the east side, and the larger southwestern populations of Parma, Strongsville, etc. are more than offset by large populations northeast of downtown in Lake County and Euclid.

 

Fwiw, in 2000, the population center of Cuyahoga County was in Newburgh Heights.  I haven't seen the 2010 centroid anywhere, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it shifted southwest given the staggering population losses on Cleveland's east side.  Dunno about the MSA, though.

In Cleveland, downtown is also on one edge of the metro area, albeit for obvious geographic regions.  [/color]

 

I think you'd be surprised where the population center of gravity would be for the Cleveland MSA.  Using the racial dot map at http://demographics.coopercenter.org/DotMap/index.html (and some superior spatial relations skills :P ) I estimate it's somewhere around University Circle or Coventry.  There is more population east of Cleveland than west, and a lot of it stretches along the Lake Erie shoreline.  There isn't much total population to speak of south of Maple Heights/Bedford on the east side, and the larger southwestern populations of Parma, Strongsville, etc. are more than offset by large populations northeast of downtown in Lake County and Euclid.

 

Fwiw, in 2000, the population center of Cuyahoga County was in Newburgh Heights.  I haven't seen the 2010 centroid anywhere, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it shifted southwest given the staggering population losses on Cleveland's east side.  Dunno about the MSA, though.

 

Before this discussion started, I would have guessed somewhere near the 480-77 interchange.

In Cleveland, downtown is also on one edge of the metro area, albeit for obvious geographic regions.  [/color]

 

I think you'd be surprised where the population center of gravity would be for the Cleveland MSA.  Using the racial dot map at http://demographics.coopercenter.org/DotMap/index.html (and some superior spatial relations skills :P ) I estimate it's somewhere around University Circle or Coventry.  There is more population east of Cleveland than west, and a lot of it stretches along the Lake Erie shoreline.  There isn't much total population to speak of south of Maple Heights/Bedford on the east side, and the larger southwestern populations of Parma, Strongsville, etc. are more than offset by large populations northeast of downtown in Lake County and Euclid.

 

Fwiw, in 2000, the population center of Cuyahoga County was in Newburgh Heights.  I haven't seen the 2010 centroid anywhere, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it shifted southwest given the staggering population losses on Cleveland's east side.  Dunno about the MSA, though.

 

I would be surprised if the MSA's population center isn't north of Cuyahoga County's, given that Lorain County and Lake County are the two most heavily populated collar counties, and they both skew heavily towards Lake Erie, with Lake County's population being entirely north of downtown.

Some interesting (though not unexpected) poll results about American preferences for auto-oriented vs walkable neighborhoods: http://bettercities.net/news-opinion/blogs/robert-steuteville/21157/america-split-between-two-community-ideals

 

The gist: it's roughly split in half, but youngest and oldest, and those best educated, skew more towards walkable.  Middle aged, white people, and less educated skew more towards auto-oriented. Also, the predictable correlation with political viewpoint.  I'm sure the results are sensitive to how the question was asked, but the questions seemed pretty fair and neutral to me (see graphic below).

 

 

 

 

Complaining about concentrations is kind of odd for downtown advocates, it seems to me.  In Cleveland, downtown is also on one edge of the metro area, albeit for obvious geographic regions. 

 

True, as it is for most port cities, but our infrastructure developed with that particular concentration in mind.  Downtown is the hub of the transit system and the highway system, maximizing its utility as an economic center.  Beachwood is under-served in both regards, not only making it less accessible to the workforce, but also clogging up the interstates in that area and impairing the bypass function for which they were designed.     

I think you missed my point, coming out of college now there is so much competition to find a job it doesn't matter where it's at. Live where you want, work where you can get a job.

 

Not at all. I know of a few young folks who are working urban jobs they are over-qualified for because they didn't want to work at suburban jobs where their training matches the qualifications. That's my experience with this issue.

That's not true of the young professionals I know.  They would much rather go where they can best use their training and expertise.  It validates their education.

Wait, I get it! There are different people out there with different values, who will make different choices.  Congratulations, you're both right.  About some of them.

Complaining about concentrations is kind of odd for downtown advocates, it seems to me.  In Cleveland, downtown is also on one edge of the metro area, albeit for obvious geographic regions. 

 

True, as it is for most port cities, but our infrastructure developed with that particular concentration in mind.  Downtown is the hub of the transit system and the highway system, maximizing its utility as an economic center.  Beachwood is under-served in both regards, not only making it less accessible to the workforce, but also clogging up the interstates in that area and impairing the bypass function for which they were designed.     

 

I don't know if Beachwood is as much underserved as poorly served by freeways.  Specifically, by the retrospectively imbecilic bottleneck southbound after the express lanes merge back in, and the equally poor design of Richmond Road south of Miles.  Independence and Strongsville are also concentrations, though their traffic issues are less severe because they are further out.

 

As for transit, this was a conscious design.  Remember Norman Krumholz railing against "fatcats" being served by RTA?  Making travel downtown more difficult probably had a lot to do with Beachwood developing their own options.  He and his ilk (and the RTA merger) did to Cuyahoga County transit what Judge Battisti did to the Cleveland Public Schools.

 

A big part of why so many of us who came of age during that era is the disastrous unintended consequences of "liberal" ideas.