I never seem to hear voiced concerns about recent Cleveland development impacts on its first suburbs. While I want to embrace all that is happening downtown and its surrounding neighborhoods, could urban renewal in the city steal residents and retail tenents from cities like Lakewood and Cleveland Heights? These cities have traditionaly been favored by young professionals, artists, professors, students, and middle-income people who prefer urban living. What impact does the Warehouse District, Ohio City, and Detroit Shoreway have on Lakewood, and what impact will the University Circle arts and retail district and housing initiatives have on Coventry, Cedar Fairmont, and Cedar Lee in Cleveland Heights? Is there a threat here, or could all of these developments be seen as complements and draw people into the city and its first suburbs who traditionally wouldn't consider them?

Will urban development steal population from first ring suburbs? I would have to say yes. We are in a flat growth state. Here's a link to population projections county by county in 2030.

 

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=4047.0

 

This projection has Cuyahoga county losing 119,000 in the next 25 years. If these projections prove accurate, it seems clear that the efforts of individual cities to maintain their population and tax base ( i.e. new developments, economic incentives, business recruitment) will necessarily be shifting these numbers since there won't be any new population base to attract.

 

I like to think the opposite will happen, that population numbers will maintain themselves or, somehow, increase. It's the optimist in me.

 

I know there have been efforts to reach out to the immigrant community. Marketing Cleveland as a multi-cultural place that is small enough to make a real start in America can be a tempting lure. Also, during the Campbell administration, which I expect will continue into the Jackson years, an outreach was made to Israel for leveraging the area's Jewish heritage with business leaders overseas to help foster foregin investment in the city and the region.

 

And ultimately, that is what it will come down to. Jobs. A development in one part of the city or another- downtown, first ring or outlying suburb-will only shuffle the numbers of people who will hold onto what will be, without major economic turn around, a finite number of jobs.

 

Is there a threat here, or could all of these developments be seen as complements and draw people into the city and its first suburbs who traditionally wouldn't consider them?

 

I think any development in the city or the first suburbs, at this point, would serve to draw people back in from the outlying suburbs (if these populations numbers hold true) and not from other parts of the country or the world. And if that's the case, I think it could be complimentary. There has to be an appropriate geographic footprint for the numbers of people that are expected to be here in 25 or 50 years in order to maintain and upgrade the cities and their infrastructure. Our footprint is too big right now. I tend to think if you could constrict the growth in the outlying suburbs, barring any unforeseen population influx, downtown and the first suburbs might not have to compete for the same population in a destructive manner. I guess it's all about regionalism and how big we want our region to be.

 

On that note, Ideas on PBS had a segment on shared resources between first suburbs and the efforts they are making to better utilize the resources currently available. They are members in NEOSO.

 

http://www.neoso.org/

 

They've been involved in collective bargaining agreements for equipment for its member communities, but plan to extend to fire districts, administrative redundancies and maybe, in 6,000 or 7,000 years, public education resource and finance sharing.

 

So I think there will be "damage" between cities as they compete for the same population, but regional cooperation and smarter government movements like NEOSO, will become the necessary reality of keeping the region viable, and not the fanciful notion it was when regionalism for first mentioned decades ago.

I think the inner ring suburbs should step it up a notch as far as this is concerned. While they may lose some people initially, I think if we have a good downtown population they will eventually benefit as long as they still have something to offer. Say for example a young person moves in from out of town to live the city life and lives in an apartment or condo...they decide they want to maintain an urban life style, but want a house, so the move to Clev Height or Lakewood to maintain proximity to the city.

 

If anyone is interested,  I am an example of someone Clev Heights lost. my husband and I moved from out of state (he for Prof job at CSU) . I was in charge of doing all the research on where to live, and I have to say at the time (2002) Clev Heights looked really great on line. It promoted things we love-- culture, progressiveness, racial integration, gay rights (not gay, but it is a good indicator is community is gay friendly)cool housing stock, etc. The community, in a neighborhood we could afford, ended up not being the dream. My neighbors in this nearly completely Orthodox community literally  refused to speak (I am not kidding not a word..even when spoken to) to me for the 2 years we lived there (they would talk to my husband on occasion). I realize my kitchen was not kosher so I could not try and invite anyone over to eat, but I could not even get anyone to return a hello when I was on the street or in the yard.  I later was told by a Jewish friend that the community is not really open to outside women.  I thought there was a racial tension throughout the community (esp schools!), which I did not expect-although I guess I built myself up for some kind of utopia. With the exception of Pacific East and the now defunct Natures Bin, neighborhood business' seemed to have no interest in appreciating that I was a regular and loyal customer. If we had been around  cedar lee or coventry (which was not affordable)maybe things would have been different as far as my impression of Cleveland Heights-not sure though. I love to walk everywhere I can  and the Taylor area didn't have much (except Sun Luck Gardens -fabulous). The only time I ever felt a sense of community was when I was canvasing for Moveon.Org in the 2004 election and people really showed a sense of unity, well with the exception of my street- where they responded by filling the street with Bush signs and passing petitions to repeal the gay friendly partner registration ordinance. This kind of intolerance was very disheartening-- sorry my politics are showing. The only thing I truly miss is the Cedarlee, and Pacific  East. Ok and the Guinness at Parnell Stewart.  I am sure people will be upset by my comments, just remember it is only my opinion. I don't want to seem like a downer, just an outsiders' view (and aren't we trying to get people from the outside?)

 

So why the move? We ended up spending so much time downtown and near west side (including work)..that moving made sense. what have I gotten in return? despite being in the "big city"-  friendly, diverse neighbors, a great sense of community  , too many great businesses to name-that appreciate and recognize loyal customers, very active civic/activist community, a lower mortgage on more costly home (due to low interest rates, tax abatement and lower taxes), and the fact that on good weather weekends the car stays parked all weekend...or beyond. I can wholeheartedly recommend this area to outsiders, whereas before I would have some reservations. So I gave you a micro answer to your big picture question didn't I?

I wonder if you look far into the future, with all this urban renewal, if the outer ring (think North Olmted etc) suburbs will be the ones to start worrying. IN European cities, the suburbs are the ghetto!

IMO, If regional population stays the same or near the same 3 million mark and most people in the housing market choose to live in the city, then the outer ring moreso than the inner ring will suffer. If things change and the growth rate for the metro goes from 3% to something much more robust then we will probobly see a more even influx of people to both the inner city, suburbs and outer suburbs.

I think its more like it depends on what inner ring it is and what it has/is historicaly has to offer. Lakewood/Cleveland Hts./Shaker/Hts. they are unique inner ring suburbs, and I think they will continue to remain unique in the minds of greater Clevelanders. They have faired much better than other inner ring suburbs (in the minds of the people, and maybe in reality) so they will allways have an appeal to them. Its the Parmas, Euclids, Fairview Parks, East Clevelands that will degrade because nobody can think of anything that makes them great.

peabody,

 

haha! I live on the eastern edge of the orthodox neighborhood (wood rd to be exact), and i agree with your assesment of the orthodox. They are, hands down the most unfriendly group of people I have ever encountered. Being male or female, its obvious whether you are "one of them". I have never gotten a "hello", and its rare if i get a hello back. Kids will cross the street to avoid walking by me during a jog/stroll. Adults will keep their heads down, stop their conversation and avoid eye contact until we pass eachother and 10 yards is between us.

 

One time, a youngster orthodox was walking a dog (didn't know they owned pets) and the dog ran away from the child into the street, I came about 1 ft from hitting the dog in my vehicle. As i came to a halt, I recommended to the kid, to consider a leash, and she just stared at me for a second, and kept walking.

 

Oh, and the wearing black and walking in the streets at night has to stop, i'm going to nail one of them eventually.

I have to say I am uncomfortable with generalizations...so  hopefully no one will misunderstand my post. I am speaking only about my old neighborhood. but it sounds like Pope has gone through the same thing-so I feel a little better. as I was experiencing all this, I tried to find info on the internet to help better understand the culture-not much out there from Orthodox about themselves regarding social contact with non-orthodox-and really who will admit to shunning others if that is part of the culture? The rest of the info out there was a bunch of useless,racist crap.  as I mentioned  I tried to engage my neighbors to one day learn more, but even a hello was ignored..it is truly bizarre to speak to someone and have them look at you and walk away wordless.  Needless to say this didn't give Clev Heights the progressive feeling that I think inner ring burbs hope to project since I think they now will be targeting the urban market...On the other hand Brooklyn, NY has it's fundamentalist enclaves and it works just fine as far as I know!

well i did a little research and found out something that may help us understand the orthodox, so according to wikipedia:

 

Orthodox Jews can be classified into several subgroups. These groups maintain significant social differences, and differences in understanding halakha due to their varying "attitudes" to various issues. The greatest differences are over:

 

1. the degree to which an Orthodox Jew should integrate and/or disengage from modern secular society

 

so apparently there is a motive among some orthodox to not interact with you or I.

 

 

so here I thought I was the happiest person when our house finally sold and we moved on...some folks were even happier! from an social anthropological standpoint, I wonder what subgroup lives in the heights? the least disengaged, the most disengaged?

peabody, I don't think anyone will judge you - you've simply told us about your unfortunate experience with a select group of individuals. Who could blame you for not feeling comfortable or welcome?

 

If I live somewhere, I'd like to know my neighbors - not necessarily be friends per se, but just so we're aware of each other. If someone can't be bothered to say hello in return (or at least a nod of acknowledgement), I have to wonder if they would bother to call the police in case of an emergency? Would they care enough about a neighbor who isn't "one of them" if they saw something/someone suspicious?

 

And what's with the neon addresses on some of those houses?  :wtf:

We are in a flat growth state. Here's a link to population projections county by county in 2030....

This projection has Cuyahoga county losing 119,000 in the next 25 years.

 

I hear those projections quoted all the time -- by everyone from Al Ratner of Forest City to Howard Maier of NOACA -- as a justification for lack of action and development in this region.

 

But let's keep in mind, they are only projections. In the 1950s, the projections were that Cleveland's metro population would balloon to 5 or 6 million. That didn't quite come to pass, did it?

 

No one knows what could happen in the next 25-30 years. Maybe, as scientists have recently been predicting again, the Big One will hit California. Maybe the government will finally realize it's unsustainable to keep rebuilding communities in Hurricane Alley, or to allow a waterless, desert city like Phoenix to continue to sprawl. Maybe some Cleveland entrepreneur will start up a fast-growth business.

 

In the meantime, let's not let these predictions become a self-fulfilling prophecy (ring any bells, fellow Levin-ers? ;) ).

 

I believe the crucial first step in revitalizing the region is to revitalize the city. People who come here from outside see a rather dead downtown (with life in spots, true) and largely abandoned neighborhoods, and are left with the impression that this place is on its way out. It's not enough to have nice suburbs -- not even inner-ring suburbs. The city will always be our public face. So I say it's worthwhile to redevelop the city even if in the near-term it threatens the inner-ring suburbs.

 

Also, I think at this point places like Cleveland Heights and Lakewood are artificially holding on to people who would rather live closer to downtown if vibrant neighborhoods existed there. For years, the Heights and Lakewood have served a niche of urban-minded Greater Cleveland residents. But if Cleveland itself can do a better job of serving that niche -- and I believe it can, by definition -- then the inner-ring burbs are going to have to find another market to serve.

Ah, b12 is dropping some knowledge on urbanohio!

And what's with the neon addresses on some of those houses?  :wtf:

 

you should see the artwork in their homes! stereotypes are true!

Hmm, I've been in quite a few Reform household homes for a shiva or two, but not Orthodox. I'd be curious to see what, if any, differences there might be.

 

If we're talking Agam or Vasarely, I'm a huge fan.

 

 

 

 

Sorry to get off topic  :oops:

so here I thought I was the happiest person when our house finally sold and we moved on...some folks were even happier! from an social anthropological standpoint, I wonder what subgroup lives in the heights? the least disengaged, the most disengaged?

 

Well my research makes me guess that they are hasidic or haredi two of the more "removed" subgroups, that's just a guess. I found some info on the temples in the area online, but no real signs pointing at the specific subgroup, only referrence to "orthodox"

It's interesting you say bringing in a percentage of the population that desires to live in an urban area. 

For the Cleveland Metro Area, roughly 3,000,000 people, let's say 5% of the people want urban living; that is 150,000 people.  And one would assume once it gets rolling the percentage could roll up to 10%, 25%, 50%.

This type of repopulation would then attract others not from the area to come live in a thriving urban landscape.

I don't think it is that big of a stretch to say that if we promote ourselves correctly we can repopulate this city.

This type of repopulation would then attract others not from the area to come live in a thriving urban landscape.

I don't think it is that big of a stretch to say that if we promote ourselves correctly we can repopulate this city.

 

I like your math, W28th. I'm also reminded of Bob Stark's projections that a vibrant downtown Cleveland could draw not only from the metro area, but from a wider region stretching from Toledo to Erie, Pa. (See KJP's "Pesht" series.) I think he estimated he could capture about 1% of this market for his downtown projects.

About the Stark project though, I think Stark meant the retail component. He didn't mean live. Maybe I'm wrong, but 1% of however you consider the metro area would be hundreds of thousands of people. He wasn't talking about them all coming to live downtown. I think he meant to shop.

 

Another thing about the retail component of Stark's plan. I believe he wants to create a retail strip that would transform Northeast Ohio, meaning retailers not in the Cleveland marekt. One can only assume what they are, but I think he implied that the retail would be high profile and exclusive enough to draw a market that stretches all the way out to Toledo. This retail component he is envisioning is probably really upscale, and wouldn't have much impact on area shopping centers. If anything it would try to steal some of the retail markets like Chicago and New York where some Clevelanders spend quite a bit of money, and/or provide better access for those who could afford these types of shops who live in the Toledo, Cleveland, Columbus, Pittsburg metro areas.

 

But in terms of living, the downtown Stark project as all projects in Cleveland, could steer people away from living in Lakewood or Cleveland Heights where urban-inclined people tradiontionally wanted to live.

I do think a lot of single people, young people working downtown, and other childless people have tended to prefer cities like Lakewood and Cleveland Heights, but are now being loured to downtown. Cleveland Heights and Lakewood are suburbs, and while they should embrace their more attractive urban qualities, maybe they need to start acting more suburban to attract families. Instead of new townhouses and condos, maybe they should be more focused on their schools, renovating single family homes, and promoting their city to families. Not that we don't need middle-income families and better schools in Cleveland, but maybe at this point Cleveland Heights and Lakewood should make their communities more attractable to middle-income families who seem to prefer newer neighboring communities. This would be a good option as they will start to rely less and less on students, professors, young professionals, and other single people working or studying in the city. 

Considering that families with children is a declining market segment, while singles, childless couples, and retirees are growing segments, I have to disagree with you on that.  They would be better off building on their urban amenities and access to downtown.  Good schools are still important of course, but most families with children still seem to want to raise them in splendid isolation, meaning the most homogenious surroundings with the least activity that is possible.

 

Also, 1% of Cleveland's CMSA is 30,000 people.  Stark was considering more than that.  He probably wants one percent of our market area- 50,000+.

I'm also reminded of Bob Stark's projections that a vibrant downtown Cleveland could draw not only from the metro area, but from a wider region stretching from Toledo to Erie, Pa. (See KJP's "Pesht" series.) I think he estimated he could capture about 1% of this market for his downtown projects.

 

Stark said he believed "Pesht" could get 4-5 percent of the residential market from Toledo east to Erie and south to Canton. I think that's a bit optimistic, but I don't do market analysis for a living.