What ExSpectator36 said.  I'll add that centralization around Mayfield Heights isn't as efficient as centralization around Downtown, because of lower densities and limited transportation options.

"It'sunlikely that anyone in that office lived in Rocky River. "

 

Patently untrue.  I lived in Lakewood for years and when I did, worked in Beachwood, Cleveland Heights, etc.  My Mom lives in Lakewood and worked at Case for 20 years.  Mr. rockandroller works in Mayfield and we live on the SW side. We are not exceptions by any means. LOTS of people make the cross town commute every day for work.  You go where the work is.

 

My experience as well indicates that this is very common here.  My parents live in the region, with one working in the far western suburbs, and one with a job in the southeast suburbs.  As a result there is no way for both of them to live close to work. It is especially difficult to move to where the work is each time you change jobs if multiple members of a household work outside the home.  An exception of course is if all of those working household members happen to get jobs in the same area, and the more jobs there are downtown, the more likely this becomes. 

"It'sunlikely that anyone in that office lived in Rocky River. "

 

Patently untrue.  I lived in Lakewood for years and when I did, worked in Beachwood, Cleveland Heights, etc.  My Mom lives in Lakewood and worked at Case for 20 years.  Mr. rockandroller works in Mayfield and we live on the SW side. We are not exceptions by any means. LOTS of people make the cross town commute every day for work.  You go where the work is.

 

Yep, we live on the SW side and I work in Canton everyday.  Like you said, go where the work is. 

I don't want to undersell downtown; I remain an urbanist by inclination myself, moving into downtown Akron despite the fact that there really aren't the kinds of amenities there that there are in downtown Cleveland yet (at least, not in quantity).  I began with an anti-poaching point and it somehow morphed into me defending the suburbs, which I'm not overly inclined to do by any inclination other than the one to play devil's advocate (which I often do).  And, of course, the firm itself freely chose to move downtown, and I'm not generally in the business of second-guessing the business decisions of private enterprises (though I'm also not generally in favor of preferential tax treatment to entice businesses from other jurisdictions, which I see as often creating destructive competition between municipalities).

 

The point I stand behind is that I don't think Greater Cleveland gained anything by poaching from Mayfield Heights and adding to downtown, and that the only thing that will change that is if the firm does in fact grow more downtown than it would in the suburbs.  (Of course, that may very well happen if downtown is so much better a place to attract talent than Mayfield Heights.)  I also do see, in the short week I've been on these boards, that a lot of people here do shamelessly defend the double standard that poaching is OK when it's downtown poaching, but not when it's downtown being poached from.  I doubt I'm ever going to subscribe to that POV, so I'm going to let it go at that.

I agree that a strong downtown is key to suburbian wealth and that if a new or expanding company were to locate in Cleveland rather than Mayfield Heights, then that would make complete sense for a bunch of reasons already discussed.  However, this is not that situation; rather, the Greater Cleveland region will not see any changes outside of maybe some money coming into downtown from transit, restaurants, etc.  This is just an example of poaching.

 

I think my biggest problem with this move is that Mayor Jackson had a press conference announcing it as though this was some major news.  BULL!  This is not Microsoft relocating or Eaton changing its mind about leaving or a new company that's going to hire 500+ leasing out space.  This is not press conference worthy whatsoever, yet Mayor Jackson had one for purely political reasons.  Cleveland does not really benefit, at least not substantially, from this development, and I think as a matter of principle, it's awfully hypocritical for people to support this or even act like this move is a big deal while chastising other Cleveland groups for leaving to suburbs.

I agree that a strong downtown is key to suburbian wealth and that if a new or expanding company were to locate in Cleveland rather than Mayfield Heights, then that would make complete sense for a bunch of reasons already discussed.  However, this is not that situation; rather, the Greater Cleveland region will not see any changes outside of maybe some money coming into downtown from transit, restaurants, etc. This is just an example of poaching.

I think my biggest problem with this move is that Mayor Jackson had a press conference announcing it as though this was some major news.  BULL!  This is not Microsoft relocating or Eaton changing its mind about leaving or a new company that's going to hire 500+ leasing out space.  This is not press conference worthy whatsoever, yet Mayor Jackson had one for purely political reasons.  Cleveland does not really benefit, at least not substantially, from this development, and I think as a matter of principle, it's awfully hypocritical for people to support this or even act like this move is a big deal while chastising other Cleveland groups for leaving to suburbs.

 

Please provided me with information that this was poaching.  This company came to the city, to find space.

 

Typically, when companys move from the city core they are lured.  When company moves from the suburbs/exurbs/outskirts of the region into the city core, it's by choice.

I agree that a strong downtown is key to suburbian wealth and that if a new or expanding company were to locate in Cleveland rather than Mayfield Heights, then that would make complete sense for a bunch of reasons already discussed. However, this is not that situation; rather, the Greater Cleveland region will not see any changes outside of maybe some money coming into downtown from transit, restaurants, etc. This is just an example of poaching.

I think my biggest problem with this move is that Mayor Jackson had a press conference announcing it as though this was some major news.   BULL! This is not Microsoft relocating or Eaton changing its mind about leaving or a new company that's going to hire 500+ leasing out space. This is not press conference worthy whatsoever, yet Mayor Jackson had one for purely political reasons. Cleveland does not really benefit, at least not substantially, from this development, and I think as a matter of principle, it's awfully hypocritical for people to support this or even act like this move is a big deal while chastising other Cleveland groups for leaving to suburbs.

 

Please provided me with information that this was poaching. This company came to the city, to find space.

 

Typically, when companys move from the city core they are lured. When company moves from the suburbs/exurbs/outskirts of the region into the city core, it's by choice.

 

From the article back on p.1:

 

Crowe Horwath will receive several financial incentives from the city, including a $100,000 forgiveable loan that will help fund some of the build out costs at the Fifth Third Building. Another perk allows the company to receive a grant equal to 1 percent of its total payroll for five years. Employee salaries range from the mid-$30,000s to more than $150,000, McClure said.

 

But I'd wager solid odds that that wasn't the way that the commutes were spread out. It's unlikely that anyone in that office lived in Rocky River. Most of them probably lived in eastern neighborhoods and suburbs. That's why I said I'd bet money that the total commute time in the office just increased.

 

I would take those odds.  I have worked in three offices, and in every one there have been a substantial number of people commuting from the opposite side of town (and even some from Warren and Canton).  I have not known a single person that has moved closer to their workplace at any of the places I have worked.

 

Most people move once they get a new job, especially if it's a long way from where they currently live. When each of those Mayfield Heights workers got their job offer, they probably assumed that the company was going to be staying in Mayfield Heights and bought in the area. Therefore, "centralization" actually occurred around the Mayfield Heights office, not around downtown Cleveland. The ones who moved in east of Mayfield Heights are in the worst position of all now.

 

Weren't you the one saying most people aren't very mobile?  Why then should they have to move to Mayfield Heights for the job?  And wouldn't it make sense to move to an area where there are many possible places of employment if you are choosing to live near where you work (a smart move)?  Wouldn't centralizing office in downtown allow people to not have to move if they need to change jobs and still wish to be close to work?  Downtown Cleveland has far more employment opportunities than Mayfield Heights.  Besides the fact that a Mayfield Heights office makes it nearly impossible for any employees to commute to work because they can't or don't wish to drive.  And if people moved to Mayfield Heights to be close to work, can't they now move to Cleveland to be close to work?  And the added bonus is that they'll have more opportunities to change jobs and still be close to work in the future.

I don't want to undersell downtown; I remain an urbanist by inclination myself, moving into downtown Akron despite the fact that there really aren't the kinds of amenities there that there are in downtown Cleveland yet (at least, not in quantity). I began with an anti-poaching point and it somehow morphed into me defending the suburbs, which I'm not overly inclined to do by any inclination other than the one to play devil's advocate (which I often do). And, of course, the firm itself freely chose to move downtown, and I'm not generally in the business of second-guessing the business decisions of private enterprises (though I'm also not generally in favor of preferential tax treatment to entice businesses from other jurisdictions, which I see as often creating destructive competition between municipalities).

 

The point I stand behind is that I don't think Greater Cleveland gained anything by poaching from Mayfield Heights and adding to downtown, and that the only thing that will change that is if the firm does in fact grow more downtown than it would in the suburbs. (Of course, that may very well happen if downtown is so much better a place to attract talent than Mayfield Heights.) I also do see, in the short week I've been on these boards, that a lot of people here do shamelessly defend the double standard that poaching is OK when it's downtown poaching, but not when it's downtown being poached from. I doubt I'm ever going to subscribe to that POV, so I'm going to let it go at that.

 

I agree with you that a company moving from another region would obviously be much bigger news.  However, I believe it is still a small net gain for companies to gather around a strong downtown rather than remain spread about the outer ring suburbs.

 

I don't care for any type of poaching, but I can excuse the return to downtown paching more than the other way around.  I know you think this is hypocritical, but I think it's karma.  The suburbs only exist because they have poached from the central cities.  They are not stand-alone cities (ala Akron, Youngstown, Canton, Toledo, Sandusky, Mansfield, etc.), but leeches that simply exist to spread things out.  A complete waste of people's time and energy consumption.

From the article back on p.1:

 

Crowe Horwath will receive several financial incentives from the city, including a $100,000 forgiveable loan that will help fund some of the build out costs at the Fifth Third Building. Another perk allows the company to receive a grant equal to 1 percent of its total payroll for five years. Employee salaries range from the mid-$30,000s to more than $150,000, McClure said.

 

 

That is not poaching.  Did Cleveland go to them and say move into the city and we will give you this A, B & C??  Yes or No?  If they did, then that is poaching.

 

If CH came to the City and said we want to do X, Y and Z. and the city then said we'll assist by providing A, B &  C.  That is a different scenario all together.

 

Now, back to my original question, is there any proof that Cleveland poached this company??

From the article back on p.1:

 

Crowe Horwath will receive several financial incentives from the city, including a $100,000 forgiveable loan that will help fund some of the build out costs at the Fifth Third Building. Another perk allows the company to receive a grant equal to 1 percent of its total payroll for five years. Employee salaries range from the mid-$30,000s to more than $150,000, McClure said.

 

 

That is not poaching. Did Cleveland go to them and say move into the city and we will give you this A, B & C?? Yes or No? If they did, then that is poaching.

 

If CH came to the City and said we want to do X, Y and Z. and the city then said we'll assist by providing A, B & C. That is a different scenario all together.

 

Now, back to my original question, is there any proof that Cleveland poached this company??

 

If they knew that the incentives would be available just for them that are not available to Cleveland companies generally, then yes, it's poaching, whether it was affirmatively solicited or more carefully crafted to maintain plausible deniability.

If they knew that the incentives would be available just for them that are not available to Cleveland companies generally, then yes, it's poaching, whether it was affirmatively solicited or more carefully crafted to maintain plausible deniability.

"It ain't a crime if you can't prove it!"

If they knew that the incentives would be available just for them that are not available to Cleveland companies generally, then yes, it's poaching, whether it was affirmatively solicited or more carefully crafted to maintain plausible deniability.

 

I'm not sure that they were given special incentives beyond what any business would be to either move into the city or to retain workforce numbers in the city. If you visit the city's Department of Economic Development (http://www.city.cleveland.oh.us/CityofCleveland/Home/Government/CityAgencies/EconomicDevelopment/Brownfield), you can see that the city offers a variety of standardized incentives, including low-interest loans, forgivable loans and grants to expand and retain number of employees, to reclaim vacant property, to reclaim brownfields, to invest within the Design District, etc. All of these incentives are scalable based on the degree which a particular company advances a particular objective ... typically the number of full-time equivalent jobs they agree to add or retain within the city. I have not seen anything to indicate that this company was provided any incentives beyond those typically given to a business that is locating or expanding in Cleveland. Moreover, I think you would have to be using a pretty liberal definition of "poaching" here unless we knew for certain that a) the city actively promoted these incentives to this company and b) that the incentive package was beyond what is typically provided by Mayfield Heights and comparable municipalities.

Well, (b) is the only criterion that matters for me, and that only insofar as they were given incentives beyond what were typically offered by Cleveland, not by Mayfield Heights.  In other words, it's poaching if they were given treatment that wouldn't have been given to a loyal company that had stayed there for a generation (or a century) that wanted to move into that same space.

Well, (b) is the only criterion that matters for me, and that only insofar as they were given incentives beyond what were typically offered by Cleveland, not by Mayfield Heights.  In other words, it's poaching if they were given treatment that wouldn't have been given to a loyal company that had stayed there for a generation (or a century) that wanted to move into that same space.

 

You cant be possibly believe the BS you yourself has typed. :|  If the company owner or Managing partner decides they want to leave one area and relocate to another and is offered assistance, that is not poaching.

Well, (b) is the only criterion that matters for me, and that only insofar as they were given incentives beyond what were typically offered by Cleveland, not by Mayfield Heights. In other words, it's poaching if they were given treatment that wouldn't have been given to a loyal company that had stayed there for a generation (or a century) that wanted to move into that same space.

 

You cant be possibly believe the BS you yourself has typed. :| If the company owner or Managing partner decides they want to leave one area and relocate to another and is offered assistance, that is not poaching.

 

So if the circumstances were identical and it were a downtown company leaving for the suburbs, you'd still say that?

Well, (b) is the only criterion that matters for me, and that only insofar as they were given incentives beyond what were typically offered by Cleveland, not by Mayfield Heights.  In other words, it's poaching if they were given treatment that wouldn't have been given to a loyal company that had stayed there for a generation (or a century) that wanted to move into that same space.

 

You cant be possibly believe the BS you yourself has typed. :|  If the company owner or Managing partner decides they want to leave one area and relocate to another and is offered assistance, that is not poaching.

 

So if the circumstances were identical and it were a downtown company leaving for the suburbs, you'd still say that?

 

See my previous post, most companys that leave the core are lured.  If the company that leaves downtown leaves on their own, thats fine.  If they are lured, thats is different situation. Example, Eaton.

"Moving that company from downtown to the beachwood corridor, give the impression that the city & county government along with other business leaders couldn't work to keep Eaton DT and creates the perception that businesses are leaving Cleveland when in fact with the loss of some major company's it's still one of the top 10 CBDs in the country."

 

Exactly, that's why no expense shoudl have been spared to keep them downtown even if it meant building them a "suburban" campus (i.e. moving the rail line).  The maro payoff would have exceeded the cost.

 

"Moving that company from downtown to the beachwood corridor, give the impression that the city & county government along with other business leaders couldn't work to keep Eaton DT and creates the perception that businesses are leaving Cleveland when in fact with the loss of some major company's it's still one of the top 10 CBDs in the country."

 

Exactly, that's why no expense shoudl have been spared to keep them downtown even if it meant building them a "suburban" campus (i.e. moving the rail line).  The maro payoff would have exceeded the cost.

 

 

The rail line was not the issue.  Also, building a suburban campus in the middle of downtown is not progressive especially when Eaton was trying to dictate adjacent land uses.

 

Do you really know what was going on?  If the [glow=red,2,300]city, county and port[/glow] had not done all they could do to keep Eaton the members of this very forum would have burned down city hall.

 

If you going to make statements, like the one above, be sure review all the facts.

I have kept up with the forum and I really don't know all of what was done and not done.  Neither does anybody else here as we do not have access to that confidential information.  What I do know is that it was not enough.  There is plenty of vacant land in Cleveland to build a "suburban" style park.  It appears to me that not enough was offered. 

" Neither does anybody else here as we do not have access to that confidential information."

 

In all seriousness, if you really believe that, you obviously don't know who is participating (or at least lurking) on this forum - their identity/information is strictly confidential (and will always be), but there are some here who have plenty of legitimate insight into different developments; in some cases, they're THE head honcho.

 

That said - yes, there's plenty of vacant land in Cleveland to build a suburban-style office park - but do you think Eaton would want a huge swath of land just ANYwhere in the city? As MTS said, they absolutely wanted to dictate certain design elements of the rest of Flats East Bank... I absolutely support the City making its best effort to support businesses and give them every reasonable incentive to stay in the city limits, especially one as significant as Eaton - but bending over backward for every absurd whim at the expense of an area with the most potential? No. At some point it has to stop being about a CEO's or Mayor's ego and be about the best benefit for the city and the region.

The mayor has said repeatedly that Eaton executives did not want to be near a working port, and the Flats location would have made that impossible for at least 10 or 15 years. Yes, Eaton had demands about their surroundings -- at Chagrin Highlands they got the city to agree not to put wind turbines nearby. The sense the mayor has given is that he was willing to give Eaton everything its officials wanted, short of moving port warehouses that can't be moved.

 

As for Crowe Horwath, the way it's being described is that the company's site selector, based out of Chicago, approached the city and said its unnamed client was interested in moving to downtown ... a feeler was put out for what types of incentives might be available.

 

Tony Brancatelli, the councilman who chairs the council's Community and Economic Development Committee, told me that legislation came through a while back that approved incentives for a relocating company that wanted to be unidentified for business reasons.

 

I'm guessing that's Crowe Horwath.

 

Anyhow, that's more of what I know.

 

- Henry Gomez, The PD

The mayor has said repeatedly that Eaton executives did not want to be near a working port, and the Flats location would have made that impossible for at least 10 or 15 years. Yes, Eaton had demands about their surroundings -- at Chagrin Highlands they got the city to agree not to put wind turbines nearby. The sense the mayor has given is that he was willing to give Eaton everything its officials wanted, short of moving port warehouses that can't be moved.

 

As for Crowe Horwath, the way it's being described is that the company's site selector, based out of Chicago, approached the city and said its unnamed client was interested in moving to downtown ... a feeler was put out for what types of incentives might be available.

 

Tony Brancatelli, the councilman who chairs the council's Community and Economic Development Committee, told me that legislation came through a while back that approved incentives for a relocating company that wanted to be unidentified for business reasons.

 

I'm guessing that's Crowe Horwath.

 

Anyhow, that's more of what I know.

 

- Henry Gomez, The PD

 

The key words highlighted.  Gracias HJG.

The mayor has said repeatedly that Eaton executives did not want to be near a working port, and the Flats location would have made that impossible for at least 10 or 15 years. Yes, Eaton had demands about their surroundings -- at Chagrin Highlands they got the city to agree not to put wind turbines nearby. The sense the mayor has given is that he was willing to give Eaton everything its officials wanted, short of moving port warehouses that can't be moved.

 

As for Crowe Horwath, the way it's being described is that the company's site selector, based out of Chicago, approached the city and said its unnamed client was interested in moving to downtown ... a feeler was put out for what types of incentives might be available.

 

Tony Brancatelli, the councilman who chairs the council's Community and Economic Development Committee, told me that legislation came through a while back that approved incentives for a relocating company that wanted to be unidentified for business reasons.

 

I'm guessing that's Crowe Horwath.

 

Anyhow, that's more of what I know.

 

- Henry Gomez, The PD

 

The key words highlighted. Gracias HJG.

 

And you think that makes that not poaching?  I guess you're right--we have different definitions of the term.  Regardless, whatever you call that, it has the same consequences: industries playing one area of a region off against another in order to bargain for special treatment for doing nothing more than rearranging deck chairs.

I think it's still poaching.  But I don't care so much in this direction.  I will repeat:

 

I believe it is still a small net gain for companies to gather around a strong downtown rather than remain spread about the outer ring suburbs.

 

I don't care for any type of poaching, but I can excuse the return to downtown paching more than the other way around.  I know you think this is hypocritical, but I think it's karma.  The suburbs only exist because they have poached from the central cities.  They are not stand-alone cities (ala Akron, Youngstown, Canton, Toledo, Sandusky, Mansfield, etc.), but leeches that simply exist to spread things out.  A complete waste of people's time and energy consumption.

I don't care for any type of poaching, but I can excuse the return to downtown paching more than the other way around. I know you think this is hypocritical, but I think it's karma. The suburbs only exist because they have poached from the central cities. They are not stand-alone cities (ala Akron, Youngstown, Canton, Toledo, Sandusky, Mansfield, etc.), but leeches that simply exist to spread things out. A complete waste of people's time and energy consumption.

 

I think this is a simplistic, unwarranted, and unjustifiably hostile perspective.  Cardinal Health was not poached from Columbus, nor was the Limited, and principals of those enterprises have nevertheless given extremely generously to Columbus (notably to Ohio State).  There are numerous smaller businesses around the Columbus beltway that originated there, not downtown, too.  I can't imagine it's any different in Cleveland or Cincinnati.

 

The suburbs exist for a myriad of reasons.  Not all of them are complimentary--white flight was definitely a factor--but that's nevertheless different than poaching.  No one paid Jerome Schottenstein to move to Bexley or Les Wexner to move to New Albany.  It's been primarily people, not businesses, that suburbs have lured from the inner cities, and they didn't do that by specifically targeting individual high-value residents, but by offering something across the board that people found attractive enough to warrant moving.  The difference here is that Crowe Horwath got special treatment, not that Crowe Horwath moved to downtown (or to a different suburb, or to Phoenix or Ottawa).

 

If Cleveland had a universally-available office-renovation grant program that Crowe Horwath took advantage of, that'd be one thing.  That doesn't look like what happened--they went to the city and asked how they might sweeten the pot.  (Unspoken thought hanging in the air at that conversation: "How much is it worth for you to have a big, PR-friendly event for photo shoots and press releases with a mayoral election looming?")

They received a standardized incentive to move in. While that might not be available to a company that's been here 100 years (unless they are expanding their real estate holdings or adding employees or doing a green retrofit or opening a storeroom in the Design District or reclaiming vacant land or reclaiming a brownfield ... any number of expansion or improvement activities), it is available to any company of a minimum number of employees (IIRC, 15 in some cases, 5 in others). It doesn't appear to me that the incentives they were offered were any greater than for any other relocating firm. And I don't think it would matter if they were moving to a different suburb or to Phoenix or to Ottawa ... I think just about any firm will inquire about relocation incentives; if such incentives are almost universally available throughout developed countries, why would they NOT at least investigate those possibilities.

 

All of that being said, I do think a case can be made that the mere presence of such incentives, particularly if they're disproportionate to those offered in the suburbs, could be considered poaching. But as so many have indicated, in a region with stagnant population and an abundance of site options, location near the city core is better for the region (and likely better for the firm) than dispersed suburban campuses spread over an 18-county or 7-county footprint.

I don't understand how this is poaching? The company put out feelers and the city offered the standard incentive package. So, Cleveland shouldn't have offered a package? In my opinion, poaching is when a city actively recurits a company or offers a ridiculous incentive package to a company that has not indicated a desire to move. I don't understand why we're even having this conversation.

They received a standardized incentive to move in.

 

Did they?  That would actually make a difference to me.  That was not my impression from the articles posted.

I dont know that in this day and age that there are any cities (city or suburb) that do not offer at least a standardized incentive package.  If they didnt they would lose out to other regions, first and foremost. 

 

   

I don't understand how this is poaching? The company put out feelers and the city offered the standard incentive package. So, Cleveland shouldn't have offered a package? In my opinion, poaching is when a city actively recurits a company or offers a ridiculous incentive package to a company that has not indicated a desire to move. I don't understand why we're even having this conversation.

 

 

100% agree!!

 

The suburbs exist for a myriad of reasons.

 

Yes, mostly because government policies from WWII on have actually made it cheapier and easier to build new junk on farmland.  Suburbs are still

A complete waste of people's time and energy consumption.

 

If Cleveland was at maximum capacity then I can see their purpose.  It sure isn't.  Suburbs are inherently a paradox (close but not too close).  If they don't want to be in Cleveland, why don't these companies just relocate to Hopedale, Ohio.  Oh, that's right, they want to be part of the Cleveland region, but not really.  And we've paid for the miles and miles and lanes and lanes of congested highways for them to be able to afford to do this.  And who does it help?  The workers that have to drive in rush hour traffic to work?  So they can see a fake pond, walking trail, and parking lot out their window (or nearest window to their cubicle)?  Or the CEO that cut his travel time from his wooded mansion by 15 minutes?  Moving these companies downtown IS a net gain for the region, even if small.  If we don't want our region to be centralized, why have a region at all?  We might as well just evenly distribute companies throughout the entire country.

The suburbs exist for a myriad of reasons.

 

Yes, mostly because government policies from WWII on have actually made it cheapier and easier to build new junk on farmland.

 

Or because the schools were better, the crime rate lower, the available space larger, the scenery greener (not always, I admit, but compared to some urban neighborhoods, absolutely), the people whiter (sad, but true), and so on.

 

Government may have subsidized the roads but it didn't subsidize the schools (more than the cities, anyway), the police, or the homebuilders.  People were looking to get out of the cities.  The highways may have subsidized suburban sprawl in part, but they also simply released a pent-up demand that was already there.

 

Suburbs are not inherently a "paradox."  They're inherently a compromise that many people found attractive: not fully urban and not fully rural.  They're no more paradoxical (inherently contradictory or impossible) than cities, which were extraordinarily rare until relatively recently in human history: Philadelphia had 40,000 people in it when the Declaration of Independence was signed.  For much of America's history, 90% of the population was rural.

They're no more paradoxical (inherently contradictory or impossible) than cities, which were extraordinarily rare until relatively recently in human history: Philadelphia had 40,000 people in it when the Declaration of Independence was signed.  For much of America's history, 90% of the population was rural.

 

Point taken, but cities are not a recent development in human history. The United States might have been founded as an initially agrarian society, but cities have existed for at least 3,000 years, some quite large; ancient census work suggests that Rome had a population of approximately 1,000,000 residents as early as 2000 years ago.

They're no more paradoxical (inherently contradictory or impossible) than cities, which were extraordinarily rare until relatively recently in human history: Philadelphia had 40,000 people in it when the Declaration of Independence was signed.  For much of America's history, 90% of the population was rural.

 

Point taken, but cities are not a recent development in human history. The United States might have been founded as an initially agrarian society, but cities have existed for at least 3,000 years, some quite large; ancient census work suggests that Rome had a population of approximately 1,000,000 residents as early as 2000 years ago.

 

Sure ... and that feat was sufficiently staggering to be worth talking about 2000+ years later.  The feat was singular on the entire planet and not duplicated again for centuries.  Even then, the vast majority of the population was rural: there might have been a million in Rome (and many more in coastal cities on the Italian Peninsula, as well as some of the capitals of kingdoms Rome conquered), but there were many, many millions more working the farms.

 

I was careful to say "extraordinarily rare," not "nonexistent."

Oh for crying out loud!  Give it a rest already.

Thank you. This thread has been so distorted from its original discussion that it had to be separated from it. We already have threads like "The Sprawl of It All" and others about the physical form of cities. Please make use of them.

Even then, the vast majority of the population was rural: there might have been a million in Rome (and many more in coastal cities on the Italian Peninsula, as well as some of the capitals of kingdoms Rome conquered), but there were many, many millions more working the farms.

 

I am not saying every business needs to be downtown.  But they shouldn't be in Mayfield Heights.  Maybe Bucyrus, or Upper Sandusky, but not Mayfield Heights.

 

You see, back in the old days, there was a large non-urban population because there was more work on farms.  Now those people live in the suburbs, where they can't work the land, but they're not close to things either (being 2 miles from the grocery store and 15 miles from work is not "close").  Although cities weren't as large, there were many small towns full of non-farmers.  These towns were small cities.  They were dense, you could walk anywhere to get to your basic necessities, and made it possible for efficient modes of transportation to connect them to each other and to the major cities.  I have absolutely no problem with this pattern of development.  The problem I have is with the suburban wasteland pattern of development, where people spread out simply because the car has made it possible.  It's incredibly wasteful and is ruining the landscape of the country.  As to your geener scenery comment, it also fits in with my argument below about being a result of the temporary aspects of suburbia (the people that currently live there).  The reason people think it's "nicer" has much more to do with the upkeep (mainly due to being newer) than anything about the design, layout, or achitecture.  When suburbs become rundown, they are generally regarded to be far uglier than rundown areas of the city.  And fixed up areas are nearly always regarded to be much nice than newer, "nice" suburban areas.

 

Your reasons for suburbia being "awesome" all revolve around the people that had the means to flee there.  If instead, those people had worked to make neighborhoods in the city better, you may see a different pattern, such as you do in many European cities, where crime is higher and schools are worse in the outlying areas than in the central city itself (Paris, for example).  Your argument is like saying if we took the 5,000 smartest and wealthiest people in the whole country, subsidized their move to the middle-of-nowhere Mississippi and built some new style of development, that the fact that the development has smart and wealthy people and a low crime rate proves it's the best kind of development.

Jeez ... all of this going back and forth over 45 employees! lol

Jeez ... all of this going back and forth over 45 employees! lol

 

and you start the ball rolling again!

Jeez ... all of this going back and forth over 45 employees! lol

 

Ummmm..... nope. 

Hunter Morrison, former director of Cleveland city planning, says the Cuyahoga Port Authority should be thinking regionally and move sooner rather than later.

 

While each of Northeast Ohio's ports has underutilized assets, Ashtabula's is the most promising. Its port is a deepwater facility already served by CSX and Norfolk Southern and well connected to the region's freeway network and the Ohio River port of East Liverpool. Abundant land for port expansion stands adjacent to the docks.

 

Opportunities for maritime development also exist in Grand River and Conneaut. Both have expressed interest in playing a larger role in the region's shipping industry.

 

To ignore these regional assets and to attempt to address the future of Cleveland's lakefront within the narrow confines of the city's boundaries is to condemn Northeast Ohio to another generation of frustration.

 

We should not -- and need not -- wait that long to realize Eckstut's promising plan.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/10/why_not_take_a_regional_approa.html

 

 

The Nobel Prize for economics was in the news because for the first time, a women recieved the honor (and some other award Nobel gave out took a lot of media energy)

 

What really was not reported was what earned her the award.  Her theory is that small and medium sized organizations generally better and more efficient than large or giant organizations.  This got me thinking about regionalism.

 

While looking at ways to combine some services, we should also look at benefits the network of small and medium sized communities are able to offer that a big city like Columbus wouldn't be.

For instance, my Mom still lives in Euclid and recently she was going to put in a new rail on the stairs to the basement.  A neighbor told her that since she is a senior citizen, the city would do it for her.  So my Mom called the city, and requested the service.  A day later the city came, inspected the entire house, put in the rail and handles to assist getting in and out of the bath.  The cost?  A suggested donation of $7.  If you go to the website, the city offers a crazy amount of servies.  Euclid is far from a rich suburb, but they are able to do it.

 

One reason I think regional proponants should also research on the benefits of smaller communites, is the Mary Poppins effect.  "A spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down."  If these communites and its citizens knew that people and decision makers were aware of the good things smaller cities can do, they would be less hesitant at trying some things that a larger, regional group can do.  No slippery slope to a mega-city.

 

 

Just some thoughts.

The Nobel Prize for economics was in the news because for the first time, a women recieved the honor (and some other award Nobel gave out took a lot of media energy)

 

What really was not reported was what earned her the award.  Her theory is that small and medium sized organizations generally better and more efficient than large or giant organizations.  This got me thinking about regionalism.

 

While looking at ways to combine some services, we should also look at benefits the network of small and medium sized communities are able to offer that a big city like Columbus wouldn't be.

For instance, my Mom still lives in Euclid and recently she was going to put in a new rail on the stairs to the basement.  A neighbor told her that since she is a senior citizen, the city would do it for her.  So my Mom called the city, and requested the service.  A day later the city came, inspected the entire house, put in the rail and handles to assist getting in and out of the bath.  The cost?  A suggested donation of $7.  If you go to the website, the city offers a crazy amount of servies.  Euclid is far from a rich suburb, but they are able to do it.

 

One reason I think regional proponants should also research on the benefits of smaller communites, is the Mary Poppins effect.  "A spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down."  If these communites and its citizens knew that people and decision makers were aware of the good things smaller cities can do, they would be less hesitant at trying some things that a larger, regional group can do.  No slippery slope to a mega-city.

 

 

Just some thoughts.

 

Senior citizens get a lot of benefits.  It's not unique to Euclid.  cuyahoga County, Cleveland, Shaker, Cleveland Heights, Beachwood and a host of other cities/counties all have senior programs.

 

Its not that cities are "hiding" these things, it's that some residents do not look for, don't know where to look for these benefits or don't research at all.  Then after the fact they find out they could have paid little to nothing for the service they wanted.

 

 

My point is, it seems to be easier for smaller comminites to offer benefits geared towards thier population than lager, more diverse communites.  That was the point of the Nobel winning reseach.

 

The senior services was an example, not the point.

My point is, it seems to be easier for smaller comminites to offer benefits geared towards thier population than lager, more diverse communites.  That was the point of the Nobel winning reseach.

 

The senior services was an example, not the point.

 

I dont understand.  Seriously.  It sounds like there are people that dont know how or where to look for information, not that it isn't provided.

 

 

I think there is something to that. 

 

Just random speculation, but if a city gets too big, citizens probably start to feel like they don't matter to the big bureaucratic city departments, which in turn reduces citizen participation in the city and its governance.  So even when we have big cities like the 3C's, each neighborhood probably should have it's own "downtown" or central gathering point, and some form of local government that the citizens can participate in and feel like they can make a difference.  Does that make sense to the urban planners and other experts on this site?

 

Council or alderman's offices generally work like that.

Punch:

 

  Honest questions...

 

1.  How do you think Euclid is doing?

2.  How do you think Greater Cleveland is faring overall in our 59 city steal taxes from the community next to you system, versus other cities set up with larger boundaries?