I thought it would be fun to start a thread were we can rate our cities performance for 2006.

 

I was thinking we could use a A-F scale, and please backup your opinion.

Category: Building new bowling alleys

Grade: A+

 

 

I would give Cleveland a B-

 

Positives: Breaking ground on the Avenue District, movement in the FEB, proposed conversion of the Park Building, continued expansion of Stonebridge, development agreement for the Triangle, corner alley, tightening in the office market.

 

Negatives: Inability to lure a large company downtown, no movement on 515, constant bickering between property owners (FEB), increase in crime.

 

 

 

 

 

Jesus in Monroe: A

Jesus in Maumee: C-

Negatives: Inability to lure a large company downtown, no movement on 515, constant bickering between property owners (FEB), increase in crime.

 

I agree with all but the first. The future of Downtown Cleveland is NOT luring large corporations downtown. We live in a time were corporations merge, come, and go. The bottom line is profit, not the city.

 

I'm not saying that this is expectable but just a reality.

 

Nobody said 515 would be moving yet.  It was proposed as a far off future development.

I give Cleveland a B-. Overall, there seems to be more of a sense of optimism about Cleveland's future.

 

Some random successes:

 

- What appears to be some massive infusions of support into University Circle (wait ... what did Jane Jacobs say about cataclysmic funding?  :wink:).

- Continued success in securing venture capital for local biotech start-up.

- Increasing talks about alternative energy research, design and manufacturing as a labor niche.

- Dedicated funding for arts and culture organizations and individual artists.

- Land planning emerging as the #1 concern in Voices & Choices, which should hopefully lead the foundations to begin devoting some substantial funds to smart growth initiatives.

- A plethora of exciting downtown development projects (I'm particularly excited about the District of Design/ECP/Playhouse Square/Erie St. Cemetery area ... yay).

- Ongoing positive trends in Ohio City and Tremont; promising developments in both Detroit Superior (Gordon Square, Battery Park) and Asiatown (first signs of a comprehensive marketing strategy around Asiatown).

 

Ongoing failures, IMHO:

 

- Quiet leadership at both the city and county level (more importantly, leadership that is not always transparent and fails to engage citizens in a meaningful way).

- Lack of comprehensive strategy around social equity issues and lack of outrage that this isn't happening. The common solution for addressing poverty, poor educational outcomes and even crime seems to be, let's get those with means back into the city. While this is an important strategy, it should not be the only one ... with every major investment in the city (whether it be Steelyard or the Uptown Initiative or fuel cell development), we should be asking: how can we engage the citizens of Cleveland in this project in a way that provides them additional benefit?

 

 

Cleveland is definitely in D territory.

 

Poorest city in America (again). 1/3 of it's residents below the poverty line.

 

Population loss at a faster rate than same period ten years ago.

 

CBD office vacancy rate one of the highest in the country. The kicker is that suburban vacancy rates are actually LOWER than the national suburban average. Many business staying in town are opting for the 'burbs.

 

The only reason it's not an F is that residential growth downtown is accelerating while the city's population as whole decreases. With many d'town projects nearing completion or being constructed in the near future, that trend will continue. But it's a definitely a diamond in the rough situation.

The problem with the poorest city ranking is the small decimal changes and sampling variation.  Cleveland went from first to twelfth to first again, and not because of large changes in the actual number of poor.  Also, what are you basing the "population loss at a faster rate than ten years ago" on? 

^ Geez, man.

 

ILMAO!

The problem with the poorest city ranking is the small decimal changes and sampling variation.  Cleveland went from first to twelfth to first again, and not because of large changes in the actual number of poor.  Also, what are you basing the "population loss at a faster rate than ten years ago" on? 

 

Yeah but even if you argue 1/12/1 thats a three year average ranking of 4.67. I don't think you could find a three year average where Cleveland ranked that high. The overall trend is getting worse not better. And you can't deny that with a poverty rate of 33 percent the city is doing a good job of turning it's fortunes around.

 

The figures I got were from the census. Cleveland lost 28,000 people between 1990 and 2000. The estimate for 2000-2005 is a 21,000 population loss which means if this trend continues 42,000 by 2010. Granted the census estimate could be really far off. Look at the revised Cincy numbers.

 

And the silver lining is in d'town area. That's why it's a D not an F. The city has done a good job of getting residental projects off the ground. There's no reason that C-land's d'town population won't be 12K or more, especially if Stark's project gets rolling.

 

Amrap, thine name is Debbie. :)

The problem with the poorest city ranking is the small decimal changes and sampling variation.  Cleveland went from first to twelfth to first again, and not because of large changes in the actual number of poor.  Also, what are you basing the "population loss at a faster rate than ten years ago" on? 

 

Yeah but even if you argue 1/12/1 thats a three year average ranking of 4.67. I don't think you could find a three year average where Cleveland ranked that high. The overall trend is getting worse not better. And you can't deny that with a poverty rate of 33 percent the city is doing a good job of turning it's fortunes around.

 

The figures I got were from the census. Cleveland lost 28,000 people between 1990 and 2000. The estimate for 2000-2005 is a 21,000 population loss which means if this trend continues 42,000 by 2010. Granted the census estimate could be really far off. Look at the revised Cincy numbers.

 

And the silver lining is in d'town area. That's why it's a D not an F. The city has done a good job of getting residental projects off the ground. There's no reason that C-land's d'town population won't be 12K or more, especially if Stark's project gets rolling.

 

Yeah, I'm not saying that the city doesn't have a poverty problem, all I'm saying is that the rankings they put out don't mean a whole lot.  The same thing goes with the Census estimates- the revised 2005 estimate for Boston gave it 7,000 more people than it had in 2000, which is even more remarkable than Cincinnati's 31.  I'm not going to believe any of the numbers they put out until they actually count people in 2010.

 

You're right about the progress being made despite the poverty, especially downtown.  I'd like to believe that projects around the city, especially on the West Side, are making a bigger impact than we think.

 

Oh yeah, and this whole state absolutely sucks at selling itself. Most of America doesn't give a shit about ANY city in Ohio (I'd bet Sandusky is as nationally/internationally recognized as the Three C's). We need better ad campaigns and better PR. These are old problems that require new solutions.

 

That's one of my biggest gripes with the leadership in Cleveland and all across the state.  We're never going to attract newcomers unless we do some heavy-duty cheerleading.  A good place to start would be sending reps to college job fairs around the country, or maybe setting up offices in Europe or Asia to help bring businesses here.

You hit the nail on the head with the intercity competition.  I think it gets wayyyy past friendly sometimes. 

 

I've noticed a severe lack of Ohio representation at job fairs at my school, but maybe that's because it's in New England.  I think that's also why all the Ohioans that I talk to can't wait to go back- I don't know anyone who wants to go to Florida.  Personally, I'd rather stay up north... I kind of like not having to worry about having my house flattened by a hurricane.  :wink:  I believe what you're saying though.  If you're instate, you'd know better than me.  But, it's like they say, the grass is always greener... 

 

At least in Greater Cleveland, it seems that a lot of the younger people seem to like the city and the area, and most of the complainers are baby-boomers.  Of course, there are always people that want to move and experience life elsewhere, but that can't be helped. 

 

As a side note, I think some of the most beautiful beaches I've been on have been in Ohio.  Huntington, the Mentor Headlands, and the Islands... I think those are really stunning.

The problem with the poorest city ranking is the small decimal changes and sampling variation.  Cleveland went from first to twelfth to first again, and not because of large changes in the actual number of poor.  Also, what are you basing the "population loss at a faster rate than ten years ago" on? 

 

Yeah but even if you argue 1/12/1 thats a three year average ranking of 4.67. I don't think you could find a three year average where Cleveland ranked that high. The overall trend is getting worse not better. And you can't deny that with a poverty rate of 33 percent the city is doing a good job of turning it's fortunes around.

 

The figures I got were from the census. Cleveland lost 28,000 people between 1990 and 2000. The estimate for 2000-2005 is a 21,000 population loss which means if this trend continues 42,000 by 2010. Granted the census estimate could be really far off. Look at the revised Cincy numbers.

 

And the silver lining is in d'town area. That's why it's a D not an F. The city has done a good job of getting residental projects off the ground. There's no reason that C-land's d'town population won't be 12K or more, especially if Stark's project gets rolling.

 

Yeah, I'm not saying that the city doesn't have a poverty problem, all I'm saying is that the rankings they put out don't mean a whole lot.  The same thing goes with the Census estimates- the revised 2005 estimate for Boston gave it 7,000 more people than it had in 2000, which is even more remarkable than Cincinnati's 31.  I'm not going to believe any of the numbers they put out until they actually count people in 2010.

 

You're right about the progress being made despite the poverty, especially downtown.  I'd like to believe that projects around the city, especially on the West Side, are making a bigger impact than we think.

 

Oh yeah, and this whole state absolutely sucks at selling itself. Most of America doesn't give a shit about ANY city in Ohio (I'd bet Sandusky is as nationally/internationally recognized as the Three C's). We need better ad campaigns and better PR. These are old problems that require new solutions.

 

That's one of my biggest gripes with the leadership in Cleveland and all across the state.  We're never going to attract newcomers unless we do some heavy-duty cheerleading.  A good place to start would be sending reps to college job fairs around the country, or maybe setting up offices in Europe or Asia to help bring businesses here.

 

Fair enough...but the national impression of Cleveland is being built on those poverty numbers. Cleveland does have an high amount of poor people compared to our "sister" C's. Instead of waiting for census numbers, the city needs to do something outside of waiting for richer people to move downtown. It's amazing lack of action/vision on this issue (i.e lack of job creation, slow action on solving the foreclosure problem, etc.) is why it deserves the D it gets.

 

As for the CBD office vacancy rates:

 

http://www.buildingteamforecast.com/article/CA6401068.html?industryid=43721

 

As of 3Q 2006:

 

Cleveland's CBD vacancy rate was 22.2 percent and stagnant

Cleveland's suburban vacancy rate was 16.7 percent and stagnant

 

Columbus's CBD vacancy rate was 18.4 percent and stagnant

Columbus's suburban vacancy rate was 21.4 percent and stagnant

 

Cincy's CBD vacancy rate was 16.9 percent and rising quickly

Cincy's suburban vacancy rate was 18 percent and declining quickly

 

All three cities rate an F in my mind. All three cities had vacancy rates higher than the national average. Only Cleveland's suburban vacancy rate was within a percentage point of the national average. Not CBD but suburbs, ugh. Cincy's trends, another ugh. At what point does this shit stop in our cities? Not any one of the 3 C's will see a major office development downtown with these numbers. Filling in the gaps with our downtowns will be residental building based for the near future.

 

I agree about the statewide thing, but Ohio's govt. has never really had the "vision thing" if you know what I mean. :)

There are some promising trends for all three C's though.

 

Forbes predicts the real estate market will rebound rater dramatically for most of Ohio's metros which can lead to better times/job creation.

 

In fact Forbes predicted Youngstown as the number one price growth area in the Midwest for '07. (18th nationally). The three C's all ranked in the Top 10 in the Midwest and Top 40 nationally. Roughly 3 percent to 4 percent housing price increases for '07 and '08.

Wow, this thread is off to an awesome start.  :roll:

Wow, this thread is off to an awesome start.  :roll:

 

Merry Christmas to you, f'er. ;)

 

Fair enough...but the national impression of Cleveland is being built on those poverty numbers. Cleveland does have an high amount of poor people compared to our "sister" C's. Instead of waiting for census numbers, the city needs to do something outside of waiting for richer people to move downtown. It's amazing lack of action/vision on this issue (i.e lack of job creation, slow action on solving the foreclosure problem, etc.) is why it deserves the D it gets.

 

 

I'm not implying that we should wait for Census numbers to take proactive steps towards solving our poverty problems, just that we shouldn't pay attention to the Census estimates when it comes to population loss.  Unfortunately, though, City Hall just doesn't seem to have its act together when it comes to job creation.  I can understand their chicken and egg argument with respect to needing tax revenues in order to actively pursue businesses, but that's really no excuse for their inaction.  There are other things that they could be doing in the meantime.

 

I agree about the statewide thing, but Ohio's govt. has never really had the "vision thing" if you know what I mean. :)

 

True dat.  :-(  We can always pray that the new government will get it together, but I'm not holding my breath.  Cleveland just needs to roll up its sleeves and get the job done.

I give Toledo a D+ although I would have rated it an F from 2005 on back..

 

The rise comes from the fact that there has been 6.5 billion in total investment (according to city officials), which is unheard of for this city. Ground has been broken on the Marina district and Commissioners have been very aggressive on the downtown arena construction. Even though I dont like the guy I have to admit Carty has been A WORLD of difference when compared to Jack Ford.

 

The problem is Toledo couldnt attact jobs if its life depended on it. Its like theyve all but given up on attacting new HQ's to the city. I would have liked to have seen an aggressive attempt to snag Qucken loans when they were debating between Clevland and Detroit..Depending on Jeep and GM is like living on a respirator, the city has been getting LUCKY breaks by making the right products for the right car companies. With the loss of the Ford plant in Maumee you can see the luck is slowly running out.

 

 

I will only venture to speak of Cleveland, but the task of improving the vacancy/economic outlook here is going to be incredibly daunting and it will be long-term, and we've got to get some things straight.

 

I read an article recently about how so many states and cities are after the same "new" jobs from companies like Google and Microsoft, etc. If we want to succeed, we need to create a system of job creation within this state. Like a baseball team, we need to nurture talent from the very bottom so that one day they will lead the team into the World Series.

 

In terms of doing this, we suck. A lot of the perks have to come from the state leaders, and considering they are a bunch of Republicans, we aren't too pro business around here. Cleveland then has to tackle its own issues. I've been thinking about this a little, and although I voted for Issue 18, I wish we could have instead funded school/pro-education programs. We need to increase the education levels of kids in Cleveland and the suburbs.

I give Cleveland a C.

 

We're starting to try an do more progressive things, like putting together a promotional campaign to sell the region to the world, and taking steps to update/expand the outdated airport, as well as getting some of the mega projects started, but clearly there's still LOTS of work to do.

 

I think first we need to improve Clevelanders view of Cleveland, especially Clevelander's ages 14-24 as well as make their quality of life better. Lots in that age group feel as if Cleveland and Ohio are boring and "dead." They can't wait to move to LA, or Atlanta. These downtown super projects if successful will create an urban vibrancy thats been missing for about 30 years. That will get more young people to return once they've graduated. An educated workforce attracts employers seeking educated people. Continue building the Cleveland State brand continue to change its image from a school you end up going to, to one you want to go to (its a good school, with a less than stellar rep amongst some locals)

 

Next improve the schools and the school funding system , not an easy job, but as we know in today's world you need education and we've got to work together to find a solution or we'll fall further behind.

 

Focus lots of energy and money into the job creating behemoths of University circle. These organizations need educated people for some of the jobs they create, but with all their expansion they are also creating jobs people with only high school degrees or less can attain (Building maintenance, security, clerical, construction) and these are good jobs with fairly stable organizations.

 

Finally be positive. If a place like Atlanta can go from just having a huge place to land planes, into one of the most robust economies in the nation, then Cleveland with all its amenities and unrealized potential can turn itself around as long as it has positive people that can be innovative and are open to new suggestions.

wow do i wanna read all the garbage on this thread?  Debating Great Lakes beaches?  haha

 

anyway I give Cleveland a B-,  broken ground on The Avenue District, almost done with Stonebridge along with a massive plan for more of those, University Circle humming along with construction.  Some negative stuff would be crime increases in some neighborhoods, still no population increase, also keep hearing about Ohio City pricing out lower income people due to gentrification (which to me sounds bad due to the fact that the amount of new jobs are still stagnant in the region).

As for the CBD office vacancy rates:

 

http://www.buildingteamforecast.com/article/CA6401068.html?industryid=43721

 

As of 3Q 2006:

 

Cleveland's CBD vacancy rate was 22.2 percent and stagnant

Cleveland's suburban vacancy rate was 16.7 percent and stagnant

 

Columbus's CBD vacancy rate was 18.4 percent and stagnant

Columbus's suburban vacancy rate was 21.4 percent and stagnant

 

Cincy's CBD vacancy rate was 16.9 percent and rising quickly

Cincy's suburban vacancy rate was 18 percent and declining quickly

 

All three cities rate an F in my mind. All three cities had vacancy rates higher than the national average. Only Cleveland's suburban vacancy rate was within a percentage point of the national average. Not CBD but suburbs, ugh. Cincy's trends, another ugh. At what point does this shit stop in our cities? Not any one of the 3 C's will see a major office development downtown with these numbers. Filling in the gaps with our downtowns will be residental building based for the near future.

 

I agree about the statewide thing, but Ohio's govt. has never really had the "vision thing" if you know what I mean. :)

 

I hate the office vacancy measuring stick, because it includes older office buildings that will never be offices again. I'll bet the Park and Southworth buildings on Cleveland's Public Square were considered vacant in the last count. I hope they won't be this time around (both were rezoned and due to be renovated with condos)!

 

I wish there was a more accurate way of measuring the office supply in a downtown area. Come to think of it, there is. Just refer to the Class A space, because that's what's on the market and will likely be marketed as office space for a long time. On that score, downtown Cleveland's office vacancy rate drops to near 10 percent.

 

As for the poverty rankings, how is that a small change in factors causes Cleveland to go from #1 to #12 and back to #1 again? And, is the income level of a Cleveland individual/household taken into context against the city's low cost of living, or is the income level merely compared against those of other cities without the cost-of-living adjustment? I would be interested in learning that.

 

Since I went from covering the suburbs for 12 years at Sun to covering Cleveland City Hall, I was astonished at how professional, dedicated and aware of urban planning issues most city hall staff, planning/landmarks commission members and councilpersons are. While covering the suburbs, I heard all the horror stories of Cleveland City Hall being a din of political backbiting, corruption and waste. Guess what? It's not as bad as advertised. In fact, I've seen much worse in the suburbs -- including those suburbs that are growing rapidly (Westlake, Avon Lake etc).

 

Better still, in Cleveland, council members treat each other professionally and respectfully, even though they may disagree. They recognize something more important is at stake than themselves. I was talking to councilpersons Jay Westbrook and Fannie Lewis who say that City Council has been its most productive and professional in the last couple years -- moreso in the prior decades they've served on council.

 

Now, I do wish some of the designated cheerleading organizations (DCA, CVB, etc) would do more of it (at least locally), and the PD would stop being such a downer all the time in the guise of hard-hitting journalism. There are so many great Cleveland success stories to be told, and I'm just one person. There's so much more I would like to be able to share with all of you and Sun's readers (like the business incubators being added downtown and in the neighborhoods, the efforts to create more regional partnerships, joint-development agreements with more suburbs tied to extension of water lines, successes in the city schools, and much much more).

 

So, in the end, I give Cleveland a "B-". The things that knock it down are the shortcomings of the city's "cheerleader organizations," the continuing problems with crime and the lack of parental involvement in the schools, and the inability of RTA and NOACA to break out of their "use the past to plan for the future" approach. For RTA, I would like to see it act as less of a social service organization and more as a transportation/development entity to enhance ridership and revenues, while nurturing more sustainable land-use practices. It's starting to move in that direction, and any bureaucracy will be slow to alter its strategies. For NOACA, they have terrific planning principles but do not stick to them. Howard Maier is a very nice person, and he understands the urban planning dilemma faced by metros under anti-urban state policies. But I don't think that is an excuse for continuing to use past trends to guide future land-use planning decisions. Get a hard-nosed, bully-pulpit pounder to replace Maier, then develop by consensus a metro Cleveland land-use/transportation plan that identifies what Greater Cleveland wants to be in 10, 25, 50 years from now. Get the region (even by a public vote) to support it. Then direct resources to achieve it. Make it a binding agreement, not a wish list like Voices and Choices.

I hate the office vacancy measuring stick, because it includes older office buildings that will never be offices again. I'll bet the Park and Southworth buildings on Cleveland's Public Square were considered vacant in the last count. I hope they won't be this time around (both were rezoned and due to be renovated with condos)!

 

I agree.  Anything below Class A should not be measured because it isn't marketable at all, and probably never will be again--at least as office space.  There is no demand.

 

Class B is in fact still quite marketable.  We have a bad class B vacancy rate downtown, however.  Class C is what is being converted to non office use.  Current market reports for downtown and suburbs are available here: http://www.cbre.com/cbre/Templates/Global/General/GlobalMarketResearch.aspx?NRMODE=Published&NRORIGINALURL=%2fGlobal%2fResearch%2fMarket%2bReports%2fLocal%2bReports%2bWorldwide%2ehtm&NRNODEGUID=%7b9B72DA11-47C2-4D44-9FEF-DF0BE72702B6%7d&NRCACHEHINT=Guest

 

Vacant office space does not equal "empty buildings" usually.  The reason being that any building that's empty is most likely not being actively marketed, and therefore is taken out of the vacancy calculations.  The vacancy rate is the rate of empty square footage within actively marketed buildings.  It is a measure of market availability, not of physical plant.

 

As for the poverty rankings, how is that a small change in factors causes Cleveland to go from #1 to #12 and back to #1 again? And, is the income level of a Cleveland individual/household taken into context against the city's low cost of living, or is the income level merely compared against those of other cities without the cost-of-living adjustment? I would be interested in learning that.

 

 

It's mostly because the Census Bureau uses an annual survey to measure poverty, and it only samples about 100,000 households nationwide.  The survey asks questions about household income, and compares responses to a grid of poverty thresholds that depend on age and household size, although there's no correction for cost of living.  The provided statistical error (2.2% for Cle.) places Cleveland among any of the top three, and when cost of living is taken into account, the rankings would probably shift even more.  Since we don't know how big the sample was, that could change things too. 

 

The important thing to remember is that the rankings by themselves are fairly meaningless.  Yes, Cleveland has a big poverty problem, as do many other cities, but from a statistical point of view, it's nearly impossible to quantify it in such absolute terms.  The fact that Cleveland went from 1 to 12 to 1 again proves it. 

 

Here's the 2005 poverty report from the Census Bureau (the relevant info is on page 24.)

http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/acs-02.pdf

Thanks for the description!

 

As for the poverty rankings, how is that a small change in factors causes Cleveland to go from #1 to #12 and back to #1 again? And, is the income level of a Cleveland individual/household taken into context against the city's low cost of living, or is the income level merely compared against those of other cities without the cost-of-living adjustment? I would be interested in learning that.

 

 

It's mostly because the Census Bureau uses an annual survey to measure poverty, and it only samples about 100,000 households nationwide.  The survey asks questions about household income, and compares responses to a grid of poverty thresholds that depend on age and household size, although there's no correction for cost of living.  The provided statistical error (2.2% for Cle.) places Cleveland among any of the top three, and when cost of living is taken into account, the rankings would probably shift even more.  Since we don't know how big the sample was, that could change things too. 

 

The important thing to remember is that the rankings by themselves are fairly meaningless.  Yes, Cleveland has a big poverty problem, as do many other cities, but from a statistical point of view, it's nearly impossible to quantify it in such absolute terms.  The fact that Cleveland went from 1 to 12 to 1 again proves it. 

 

Here's the 2005 poverty report from the Census Bureau (the relevant info is on page 24.)

http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/acs-02.pdf

 

It dosent matter how many households are measured...it matters how accurate the data is. To be able to take a small nationwide cohort and then come within 2.2 percent of an accurate number, that's pretty wild stuff. As for the adjustment of COLI...Cleveland is not as low as I think some believe. Energy costs keep Cleveland off the low end of the COLI list.

 

Look guys, if we ignore and or dismiss the signs, the city will flounder no matter how many condo's are built downtown. There is a very large poverty problem in Cleveland that is not being addressed by City Hall. There is no real desire for companies to move back into the city, again not being addressed. City council can sing "kumbaya" for all I care, but they're not getting much done.