^Its probably closer to parity if you exclude the inmates.

 

I did not include inmates in those numbers. I have sex/age/race statistics on them but did not post them. 1,813 men, 211 female.

^2010.

 

CLE OH, do you have enough data to make a ROM (Rough Order or Magnitude) or a WAG (Wild *ss Guess) as to the population today?

^2010.

 

CLE OH, do you have enough data to make a ROM (Rough Order or Magnitude) or a WAG (Wild *ss Guess) as to the population today?

 

Ha. I do, I just need to find it first. I posted it on this website somewhere awhile ago. I take added units and multiply it by the average household size in downtown cleveland, which is somewhere sound 1.5 people.  The only building I do differently is the Langston since they are not your typical unit.

Alright found it...

 

First we must add 668 Euclid Avenue which is not included in the census. About 342 people.

 

With my numbers I got about 1.4477 people per unit. This is on the high side though so expect the actual count to be slightly lower than these estimates.

 

The Rosetta Center, 1717 East 9th Street, Reserve Square, Chester Commons, Avenue District, Breuer Tower, 1010 Euclid Avenue, and Hanna Annex will add 1,025 units downtown. This will add about 1,483 residents to the total. The Langston seems to be adding at a 2 people per unit rate so with both Phase 1 and 2, it should add around 616 people. This brings new residents up to 2,099.

 

When all is complete this raises the total to 9,884.

^ which is around the same 10,000 mark that's been claimed for almost the last 10 years.

 

Did you add in Reserve Square, the new apartments?

^ which is around the same 10,000 mark that's been claimed for almost the last 10 years.

 

Did you add in Reserve Square, the new apartments?

 

Yeah it's on the list above as part of the new units number.

So the downtown population would be around 12,000 after these new units come online if you include the inmate population, right?

 

I know that things like stores and restaurants don't benefit from the inmate population, but it does provide a more apples to apples comparison to other downtown populations which also count inmate population in their numbers.

So the downtown population would be around 12,000 after these new units come online if you include the inmate population, right?

 

I know that things like stores and restaurants don't benefit from the inmate population, but it does provide a more apples to apples comparison to other downtown populations which also count inmate population in their numbers.

 

Yes but I don't believe I would ever use that number.

 

Cleveland still has a weak core comparatively. Additionally Downtown Cleveland is very isolated from surrounding neighborhoods. Boston for instance has nearly 60,000 residents in downtown adjacent neighborhoods within walking distance, not divided by rivers, highways, industry, or valleys. The number is even greater when you cross those barriers. The population is highly educated, with high income.

 

"Downtown Cleveland" may be close to "Downtown Boston's" population but is meaningless as Boston has the North End, Beacon Hill, Back Bay, and other neighborhoods feeding directly into downtown's greater population and activity/business.

So the downtown population would be around 12,000 after these new units come online if you include the inmate population, right?

 

I know that things like stores and restaurants don't benefit from the inmate population, but it does provide a more apples to apples comparison to other downtown populations which also count inmate population in their numbers.

 

Yes but I don't believe I would ever use that number.

 

Cleveland still has a weak core comparatively. Additionally Downtown Cleveland is very isolated from surrounding neighborhoods. Boston for instance has nearly 60,000 residents in downtown adjacent neighborhoods within walking distance, not divided by rivers, highways, industry, or valleys. The number is even greater when you cross those barriers. The population is highly educated, with high income.

 

"Downtown Cleveland" may be close to "Downtown Boston's" population but is meaningless as Boston has the North End, Beacon Hill, Back Bay, and other neighborhoods feeding directly into downtown's greater population and activity/business.

 

So goes the story of Cleveland.  Islands.  Pockets of activity.  Is it just geography? 

Partially. The river and the valley have always divided the west side. The high level bridges made things worse by moving the connection above ground level and creating a further distance. The east and south were always the best locations for downtown neighborhoods. The eastern neighborhoods were replaced with light industry, while the south was destroyed by the highway.

Alright found it...

 

First we must add 668 Euclid Avenue which is not included in the census. About 342 people.

 

With my numbers I got about 1.4477 people per unit. This is on the high side though so expect the actual count to be slightly lower than these estimates.

 

The Rosetta Center, 1717 East 9th Street, Reserve Square, Chester Commons, Avenue District, Breuer Tower, 1010 Euclid Avenue, and Hanna Annex will add 1,025 units downtown. This will add about 1,483 residents to the total. The Langston seems to be adding at a 2 people per unit rate so with both Phase 1 and 2, it should add around 616 people. This brings new residents up to 2,099.

 

When all is complete this raises the total to 9,884.

 

I could be wrong, but I believe the 2010 Census just missed the pretty substantial Phase 2 of Euclid Commons ... Census conducted in April, units came online over the summer. This article says that it added 262 beds in fall 2011: http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/09/cleveland_state_university_has.html

 

^ which is around the same 10,000 mark that's been claimed for almost the last 10 years.

 

Did you add in Reserve Square, the new apartments?

 

This 10,000 number excludes inmates and also (correct me if I'm wrong ClevelandOhio) excludes Flats West Bank, both of which civic leaders have traditionally been including in downtown population estimates. I think the consensus seems to be that these exclusions lead to a more accurate reflection of downtown population, but it's also "hiding" about 4,200 people that a decade ago we would have seen included in downtown estimates.

 

Pretty superficial article on what's boosting four Midwest downtowns -- including Columbus and Cleveland -- like stadiums, casinos and convention centers. Fluff 'n stuff....

 

Which Midwest downtowns are booming? Here are four of them

September 10, 2015  |  Dan Rafter

 

Millennials want to live in the middle of cities. This has become common knowledge. It’s why developers are rushing to downtowns across the Midwest to build new apartment towers boasting party decks, onsite fitness centers and rooftop pools.

 

But it’s not just young people who are moving to cities. Brokers across the Midwest say that consumers of all ages are flocking to urban centers. They want to live where they can walk to public transportation, grocery stores, shops and restaurants. They want to park their cars and forget about them for weeks at a time.

 

The Midwest is fortunate in that it has plenty of downtowns that are thriving today. Downtown Chicago, the biggest of them all, is booming, of course. But people both young and old are also renting in downtown Cleveland, Omaha, Louisville, Minneapolis/St. Paul and Kansas City. There’s a resurgence going on now in downtown Detroit, and much of it is fueled by young renters moving into the city’s apartment stock.

 

Which Midwest downtowns are sizzling today? Here’s a look at four booming downtown areas and what makes them so special.

 

See more at:

http://www.rejournals.com/2015/09/10/which-midwest-downtowns-are-booming-here-are-four-of-them/#sthash.Izjq4NBO.dpuf

Have U.S. Cities Reached 'Peak Millennial'?

http://www.citylab.com/housing/2016/03/keeping-millennials-in-cities-dowell-myers/473061/?utm_source=SFTwitter

So I'm going to go ahead and call shenanigans on that. For a few reasons.

 

1. The entire article is premised on the idea that sububranism is the norm and urban life is the deviation from it while history says otherwise.

 

2. Cities are becoming more family friendly already. And it's not because of some conscious effort to keep millennials, it's because millennials are doing it themselves as they start having kids. Walk around any of Ohio's Downtowns and compare to a decade ago and you can see the amenities that have been pushed for by residents are a lot more family friendly than they once were.

 

3. I'm confused about the "varied housing" argument. Urban areas have always and will always have more options than suburbia. The suburbs are dominated by the single family home with a big yard. If you don't want that it's hard to come by something else in many areas. Urban areas have a much wider variety of options.

 

4. Basically no major city's Downtown is showing a downturn in the number of Millennials living there or seeking to live there. So the entire premise is flawed to begin with since there isn't any evidence supporting we've peaked.

 

My friends who are getting married, living together, planning for kids, etc. aren't moving to the suburbs if they even move at all. They're moving one neighborhood ring out of Downtown and settling down. They're not heading for the suburbs and the fact that many second ring suburbs are flailing supports that. It just isn't seen as desirable. I know this article is about "Downtowns" but there is a whole area of awesome, urban neighborhoods that are awesome for families between suburbia and Downtown and that's where Millennial families are moving if they choose to leave Downtown at all.

 

Sounds like an article written to try to stir some feathers and create controversy out of nothing.

From a purely statistical point of view, that guy is drawing too straight a line between age cohort size and demand for city housing. We'd also need to know about the trend in the preference split within cohorts (urban vs suburban), and the trend in the durability of the preference for city life among those who chose it (which the article hints at with the delayed marriage). "Millennials" aren't a monolith-- many (most?) have probably been choosing the suburbs all along. It's totally possible for the generational wave to crest without demand for city life flagging.

 

[in fairness, it's likely this guy did consider lots of demographic factors and trends in his work, and the article dumbs it down a bit.]