This article was linked and prominently featured at the planning/urban affairs website "Planetizen":

 

Cleveland Caught betwee Dream of Revival and Reality of its Woes

 

Are the grand plans for reviving Cleveland put forth by city leaders - and hyped by the architecture critic at the city's main newspaper - fantasies masking the city's elemental problems or goals worth pursuing?

 

In the coverage of Cleveland's current state, Michael D. Roberts and his journalistic colleagues see "a tale of two cities: the perception of a downtown revival contrasted with the reality of enormous job and population loss and the abandonment of neighborhoods."

 

...which sounds a lot like Cincinnatti and Dayton and even Chicago to some extent....

 

 

^That article cites 40,000 vacant housing units... and that's a streeeeeeetch if there ever was one.  Cleveland's been the most agressive city in the nation when it comes to the demolition of vacant properties.  Since the start of the Housing Crisis, the city has torn down over 6,000 (!) properties.  If you want proof, look at the intersections E. 79th and Cedar,  E. 75th and Kinsman, Woodhill, etc.  Neighborhoods which were once there are GONE.  The true number of vacant housing units would be between 10,000 and 15.000- not that that's a good thing (indeed it's not), but it sure as he!! ain't 40,000 housing units.

 

Edit: On top of that, the article is overly negative.  Granted- the city has it's problems, but this article is looking at the problem in a negative light instead of the potential that the city has right now for change and rebirth.    It ignores the thousands of people who have moved downtown, the 1000+ units of housing in which there is demand for in Ohio City, the successes of Tremont and Detroit Shoreway, the successes of Little Italy and demand in University Circle, the rebranding and continued success of North Collinwood, the upward demand of housing units in Hough (regardless of the neighborhood's current problems), and the stability of neighborhoods such as West Park and Old Brooklyn.

 

Some folks can see the rebirth occurring- regardless of the state of the economy in the region right now (and I'm big on that- we won't see the city as a whole grow until jobs are brought back.  We will also continue to see the decline of the inner-ring without the added jobs and population).  I don't know if the author of that article can.

A quick couple of clicks and you'll discover it's just another horsecrap article written by Michael Roberts for Cleveland Magazine.

 

While I think a lot of Cleveland's renaissance is far from perfect, I do think there is a lot of positive momentum in the city.

 

Leave it to Roberts and Brent Larkin of the PD to continually suppress optimism.

Can't wait for both of them to put away their typewriters permanently.

Have to say I find both extremes pretty tedious: mindless boosterism and the angry "I'M THE ONLY ADULT IN THE ROOM" pieces that seems to think everyone else is a mindless booster.  This guy seems to think it's impossible to be excited about some stuff while still realizing that other stuff is pretty grim.  Or maybe assumes nobody is smart enough to see things that way.  Steve Litt gets excited by projects because he's an architecture critic and it's his job to write about them. I can't say I've ever considered him a booster drone who's oblivious to the city's many problems. Am I crazy?

 

Cleveland's been the most agressive city in the nation when it comes to the demolition of vacant properties

 

...in otherwords, a growing urban prairie.

 

Y

 

Cleveland's been the most agressive city in the nation when it comes to the demolition of vacant properties

 

...in otherwords, a growing urban prairie.

 

 

Yes.  In some areas, but not others.

*Note: @Straphanger - I just read your comment after I posted this and realized you basically made my point more succinctly.

 

The article seems to completely ignore the fact that Steven Litt's post at the Plain Dealer is that of "Art and Architecture Critic". (taken from his own linkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/steven-litt/10/210/14a)  His job is NOT urban economics and policy critic or whatever else the article seems to think he is.  So why the indignation that he focuses on new architecture and art developments??

 

The logic of the linked article seems to be as follows: The existence of poor people in the City of Cleveland means that the business and middle class's efforts to make the city a place for them are not allowed.  How is this helpful?  Are we, Clevelanders, not allowed to build new buildings, develop our art scene or...ya know, participate in the 21st century economy until there are no more poor people?  The article attacks Cleveland's lack of a "critical mass" downtown while simultaneously lambastes the efforts to draw people back in. 

 

Are there problems in some of Cleveland's neighborhoods?  You bet.  Should they be worked on? Yes.  Should these problems retard efforts to attract the middle, upper middle, and upper class back into the city?  Hell no.

^Plus, Litt actually does write a lot of pretty sobering stuff about the city and region.  Here's something from April:

 

News about urban poverty, growth and sprawl reveal Northeast Ohio as a region at odds over its future

 

Consider: Cleveland this year will mark the completion of a new convention center and the Global Center for Health Innovation and an expanded and much improved Cleveland Museum of Art. Hurray for Cleveland. The two projects are among many intended to restart a virtuous cycle of population growth and job creation.

 

Yet, as The Plain Dealer’s Olivera Perkins reported Thursday, the city continues to bleed jobs more quickly than many other urban areas. A Brookings Institution report ranked Cleveland 19th among 100 metro areas in the percentage of jobs located beyond the city and its close-in suburbs.

 

...

 

And yet, as The Plain Dealer’s Tom Feran reported a little over a week ago, infant mortality in neighborhoods near University Circle’s museums, hospitals and educational institutions reaches levels comparable to that of such Third World countries as North Korea, Uzbekistan and Zimbabwe.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/architecture/2013/04/clashing_ideas_over_the_future.html