I think from a regional stand point Cleveland is an arts mecca more so than Chicago, Detroit, Indi, Milwaukee or St. Louis.  Even more so than DC, Baltimore, Boston.

 

I'm involved in a lot of castings, model, searches. You guys would be amazed at the amount of people from Cleveland proper that are actors, models or stage (theater) performers that are cast from Cleveland.  The city is an incubator.

 

When it comes stage performances, People in and out of the industry know places like Great Lakes or Karamu.

 

When the writers strike was taking place, there were plans to move 5 Broadway musicals and 3 plays to Cleveland.  Not LA, not London, not Toronto...but Cleveland.  Why? because Cleveland is the only city that could handle the productions AND has a well seasoned and knowledgeable theater base which would guarantee sellouts.

 

As 3231 says...people here are quick to place blame on the city as a whole and think the grass is greener elsewhere.

 

Miami would die to have an orchestra like Cleveland and in an attempt to promote culture in Miami said they wanted a world class orchestra and museum district like Clevelands.  Philadelphia and Chicago have often stated they which they had theatres like ours so that (first cast) broadway runs would come to their cities.  Cleveland and LA are the only cities that get to PICK what productions they want.  I could go on, but you all get the picture.

Fascinating stuff

I don't know - outside of certain larger markets, I don't know that ANYONE with a performing arts degree who can say that there are good-paying-jobs-aplenty. It's not exactly a huge industry as it is, and where jobs ARE available (the larger markets) the competition along with the cost of living in those markets is absolutely brutal. Let's face it, there's only so much demand for that kind of background.

 

Sure, certain cities are more geared toward certain industries but I don't see that necessarily as a knock on Cleveland. Your personal experiences seem to have skewed your outlook (not that I blame you), but I think it's also made you less objective.

 

Well, there are a lot of jobs related to the performing arts besides actually performing. Those jobs here are also very few and far between and very low paying compared to similar jobs in other areas. For example, more and more theaters are not employing technical directors and master electricians and carpeters as FT staff positions but instead hire them job by job and only for part time work. Stage managers often go unpaid or receive very little, and it's also PT. Set designer and lighting technician jobs are almost non-existent and forget about the pay for directors or actors. And the arts-related fundraising or office type jobs here really pay poorly. I don't doubt that my experiences (and those of my friends) give me a bias, but the OP asked for personal opinions, and that is my opinion, based on the experiences of those in my social circle.

 

Question, doesn't the hiring have to do with Unions not the theatre itself?

 

No.  Yes, many backstage jobs are union jobs, as are Equity acting positions, but if the theater cannot afford to pay a union contract (and few can any longer), they don't hire professionals, or they only hire them part time.  This is why I've never gone after an Equity membership.  I would never work.  A bigger theater might have the $ for ONE equity contract for their whole season, for one particular show, and who says you'll get that job just because you're in the union.  The only way to survive if you're in the union is to live like a gypsy.

OK, but you do acknowledge that you are in one of THE most brutal and hardest fields to crack in the country, and that it's not necessarily the best indicator of a local economy... right?

OK, but you do acknowledge that you are in one of THE most brutal and hardest fields to crack in the country, and that it's not necessarily the best indicator of a local economy... right?

 

I'm aware of that, but what I speak to is the decline of jobs in the performing arts in the greater Cleveland area, not the general state of having a decent paying job in this industry.  Things are much worse than they used to be here, much different than when I arrived here in 1992.

 

I think that Clevelanders are starting to make changes about how and when they spend their money and that is not good for the local economy either.  People are eating out less, taking fewer trips, buying less consumer goods, making choices at the grocery that are cheaper, etc.

 

 

this is the situation across the US, not just in cleveland, and even for the very rich. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/fashion/01rich.html?em&ex=1212811200&en=3b3f8ca38932045c&ei=5087%0A

I have always thought of Cleveland as having world class arts. Its a shame the local residents aren't more knowledgeable about their city.

I have always thought of Cleveland as having world class arts. Its a shame the local residents aren't more knowledgeable about their city.

 

I am with you there, and will add it's a shame people don't come out to support local theater as much as they do our Cleveland Orchestra, which is indeed world-class.  Spending your money at Playhouse Square where the shows are touring and employ almost no locals is not supporting the theater.

I don't think younger generations have an appreciation for the arts. Before I moved to Cincinnati, I was literally laughed at and ridiculed for at least a week when I mentioned how I missed the opportunity to attend a symphony orchestra & other fine arts.

Symphony Orchestras are sooo boring to me.

I don't think younger generations have an appreciation for the arts. Before I moved to Cincinnati, I was literally laughed at and ridiculed for at least a week when I mentioned how I missed the opportunity to attend a symphony orchestra & other fine arts.

 

Laugh right back at those redneck, sisterloving goobers for being uncultured, unrefined and uneducated.

Yeesh, has this thread skidded off the rails or what?

Maybe this can help get it back on track, a CNN article about urbanism:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/06/16/suburb.city/index.html

 

Nothing we haven't talked about before, here, but it was interesting to see it addressed in mainstream media (urbanism, specifically)...

Decent retrospective.  However, I'd disagree with you about sprawl reaching its climax in the 1980's.  I'd say it was 2007.

Its possible suburban growth could slow in the coming years, but the CinDay Metro sprawl probably won't slow as much as say, louisville, columbus, indianapolis, charlotte or any other city that's not forming a metroplex with another major city. Momentum is at an all time high between these two cities and there will always be people who can afford to endure the high cost of living & traveling. Getting young professionals living downtown is great & it's happening at a quickening pace every year. BUT, there is always those who opt for the suburban lifestyle and there is plenty to be offered between CinDay. Having the best of both worlds can't be all bad. I look at it as being an asset, its happening regardless...

I don't think younger generations have an appreciation for the arts. Before I moved to Cincinnati, I was literally laughed at and ridiculed for at least a week when I mentioned how I missed the opportunity to attend a symphony orchestra & other fine arts.

 

Laugh right back at those redneck, sisterloving goobers for being uncultured, unrefined and uneducated.

 

Watching a grown man giggle when you mention symphony or art museum is enough to make you laugh. It didn't really bother me because like you said "redneck, sisterloving goobers for being uncultured, unrefined and uneducated."  I take pride in being multicultural, I am just as comfortable in a suit & tie at the symphony or art museum as I am under the hood of a car or walking through the woods with a shotgun. I have also been 'teased' by some of my more 'urban' buddies for my knowledge about cars, hunting, fishing, firearms, camping or other recreations not as associated with the urban lifestyle. It works both ways... I just feel lucky to have appreciation for a variety of cultures...

 

Now back to... The Future of America and Its Cities.

Coalescing metro areas are a very complicated component to the sprawl debate. If places grow closer together, the middle points are naturally going to gain value.

The thing with CinDay is job dispersal.  Work relocating to freeway interchange nodes (which has been going on since the 1960s) is what is going to drive growth here, as its actually less expensive and quicker to work if you live near work, which downtowns are (this probably holds truer for the Dayton side than the Cincy side as that downtown is still an employment center, I think).

 

So one see's these nodes develop out along the freeways, which means more subdivision action inland. 

 

I don't think younger generations have an appreciation for the arts. Before I moved to Cincinnati, I was literally laughed at and ridiculed for at least a week when I mentioned how I missed the opportunity to attend a symphony orchestra & other fine arts.

 

Laugh right back at those redneck, sisterloving goobers for being uncultured, unrefined and uneducated.

 

Watching a grown man giggle when you mention symphony or art museum is enough to make you laugh. It didn't really bother me because like you said "redneck, sisterloving goobers for being uncultured, unrefined and uneducated."  I take pride in being multicultural, I am just as comfortable in a suit & tie at the symphony or art museum as I am under the hood of a car or walking through the woods with a shotgun. I have also been 'teased' by some of my more 'urban' buddies for my knowledge about cars, hunting, fishing, firearms, camping or other recreations not as associated with the urban lifestyle. It works both ways... I just feel lucky to have appreciation for a variety of cultures...

 

Now back to... The Future of America and Its Cities.

 

+1. Country friends call me "City Boy" when I call them pussies for avoiding Corryville and OTR and when I make fun of sprawl while city friends jaws drop when I talk about guns, cars, quads and stuff I learned on the farm.

What about the future?

 

2010: Gasoline prices reach $7/gallon average. Suburban development from the 1950s to the 1980s is being targeted for redevelopment for higher densities. While the street grid is not reworked entirely, connections at cul-de-sacs are created, sidewalks are completed, and zoning is modified to allow for new planned-unit/mixed developments. Light rail sees a stronger interest, and funding for Amtrak nears $30 billion a year.

^Funny, I would describe myself the same way. Grew up in the country, love the city.

 

Back on topic!

>he competition along with the cost of living in those markets is absolutely brutal. Let's face it, there's only so much demand for that kind of background.

 

 

Obviously, there isn't.  And it's impossible to know at age 18 if you're really going to have the talent to make it in the arts since over and over again people that show a lot of promise as teenagers burn out and/or don't grow artistically.  Meanwhile the people who were ignored or who come late to a visual or performing art leap past them. 

 

My main beef with the arts is magnet schools like SCPA...the kids are annointed the next big thing when they're 10 and they turn 20 and it turns out they're not really that good after all.  Yet money keeps getting thrown at these schools and SCPA is getting a brand-new building under the guise that the level of education will improve when it just plain won't.  Then arts schools and university programs set their tuition artificially high just so they can give every student a $5,000 "scholarship" so that kid's parents thing Junior really is the next big thing.   

To an extent, isn't this already happening?

 

Back in the 1950s and early 1960s, large-lot ranch houses were all the rage. Especially along the "frontier" of suburban development, and this is a trend that I noticed in areas that could support large lots -- such as Columbus, Ohio. I drove around some areas that were along the exurban fringe, on two-lane back roads, and noted numerous ranch houses that were around 50 years of age that had a normal, suburban-sized width, but the depth extended for what seemed like 500 feet. Perhaps an exaggeration, but the density was very low and the lot design was partially due to the infancy of suburban development. Such as this.

 

I've seen many over time become bought out and redeveloped into a higher density. Usually, several lots are combined to create a subdivision where a mass of homes is constructed. Higher density? Yes. An end-all solution? Maybe not. Unless the other surrounding developments are similarly redeveloped and that there are alternatives to the automobile.

^ Yep, the Columbus area is notorious for that kind of development. I never understand how so many people can live in a suburban-style house way out in the middle of nowhere on only one acre. You can't do anything, not a damn thing, without a car. Talk about being trapped -- way worse than the suburbs. I definitely understand the appeal of owning 10+ acres and living in the boonies, but not one measly acre or a flag lot.

I never understand how so many people can live in a suburban-style house way out in the middle of nowhere on only one acre.

 

These are all over SW Ohio and in the Louisville area too.

 

Interestingly, the only place I didnt see a lot of this was in California.

 

 

 

 

Jeffrey, contrary to popular belief, California contains some of the most dense development in the United States.

Due to very expensive land and higher fuel prices. It's a shame that there is still an enormous amount of sprawl there, though.

California is the best evidence for the fact that you can have sprawl and density at once, it just takes a lot more demographic pressure. The state is still heavily car-dependent even if it is quite high density.

 

California also has far more gated communities than most any other state. A couple of them in San Diego are the size of Lima.

^-----  Since WWII, most Ohio cities have lost density in the core as the suburbs were developed.

 

  Most California cities GAINED density in the core as the suburbs were developed.

 

    The difference is immigration.

I can't figure out how to post an actual link to this specific video, but right now on Yahoo!'s front page, one of the 4 primary links is to a video of a Good Morning America segment called "U.S. Suburbs Losing Residents, Advantages."  Sounds like America is catching up to most of you guys in realizing that the advantages of dense living, public transit, short commutes, etc. are worth coming back to the city for.

 

I'll see if I can find a link to the actual segment instead of just directing you to Yahoo.com for now.

^ I posted it here:

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,5087.msg297184.html#msg297184

Got it.

 

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=8373281&ch=4226720&src=news

I can't figure out how to post an actual link to this specific video, but right now on Yahoo!'s front page, one of the 4 primary links is to a video of a Good Morning America segment called "U.S. Suburbs Losing Residents, Advantages." Sounds like America is catching up to most of you guys in realizing that the advantages of dense living, public transit, short commutes, etc. are worth coming back to the city for.

 

StowCbus,

This was an interesting video but not an all-encompassing journalistic essay on the current decline of American suburbs. I did learn a new term from this video, though, "Ghostburbs". That term conjurs in my mind images of future exurban tract developments with hundreds of McMansions collapsing in ruins, overgrown with weeds, and where trees are sprouting in the decaying streets.

 

Doubtful that will ever happen because the current administration has a vested interest in maintaining the old petroluem-based Economy status quo. Hence, Dubbya's comments about tapping into the vast oil shale deposits and seeking extended off shore drilling. Marketers are talking about "demand destruction" going on in oil right now; that is where prices are so high that consumers of the product are cutting back on their use and looking for cheaper alternatives.

 

I'm afraid the 'Burbs will stay around for a while and may actually pick up where they left off if cheaper energy alternatives are rushed to the market. For now though, high energy/fuel prices are giving a significant boost to the back-to-the-cities movement.  Regardless of the future of energy costs, we live in a time of increasing global scarcity which could only be reversed with a massive global human population decrease. No one wants that to happen, so conservation and sustainability are the only positive paths to the future.

 

John S.

I have a theory that once cheap and clean energy (like hydrogen fuel-cells) becomes ubiquitous, all of the coalescense in the cities is going to dissipate again.  I'd like to think that we, as a society, will have learned our lesson by then, and more suburbs will consolidate and work out walkable communities.

 

I don't think it will kill cities like Cleveland, but I worry that this tremendous growth we're seeing will be shortlived.

 

I should also add that I didn't move JUST to save money on gas.  I hate sitting in traffic every morning, and I love cities, so, I'm staying, fuel-cells or no.  I just hope others share my thoughts.

If cheap and clean energy becomes ubiquitous, we will see.  But I don't think that 2020 or whenever that happens is 1950.  There was alot going on besides cheap energy.  People back then didn't for the most part appreciate diversity, cities were more heavily polluted because of the lack of environmental laws, and the suburbs were a new experiment that was going to solve it all.  I don't think those factors apply the same.  History repeats itself, except when it doesn't.

I'm on your side on that.  I hope you're right.  Like I said, hopefully we'll have learned from our mistakes(?) by then.

 

My friend once described history as a spiral.  Events repeat themselves, but it's slightly different each time.

 

 

I don't like using the word "never" but I will say that I doubt we'll see cheap energy again. The world has grown too much and there's only so many natural resources to go around. And hydrogen is beset with so many problems it will be years, if ever, that it will become practical as an energy carrier (eg: hydrogen is NOT an energy source -- you have to catalyze hydrogen such as by electrolysis or a fossil fuel catalyst like natural gas). Consider the following article....

 

---

The Hydrogen Economy

Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Are No Panacea

By Chris Nelder

Friday, July 27th, 2007

 

I'm going to make a prediction today: you will never drive a hydrogen fueled car.

 

Although hydrogen does indeed have some benefits in certain applications, it's my task today to separate the reality of useful fuel cells from the hydrogen hype.

 

That may seem like a bold statement to you now, but by the end of this article, The Hydrogen Economy, you'll understand why.

 

...

 

http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/hydrogen-economy-fuel+cell/480

 

Fair enough.  I didn't know any of that.

 

I guess I'm going back to rooting for fusion generators the size of a briefcase. :)

If I had to bet on a future alternative fuel source to petroleum, it would be for electricity powering our cars, not by batteries alone but powered by some type of grid connection like subways and trolleys use. In any event, storage batteries of the Lithium Ion type are still improving; Exxon-Mobil, of all companies, is touting in their ads how one of their engineers came up with a major improvement for the battery, so we shall see. The holy grail of electric cars would be one which gets 500 miles or more between charges; that equals about a full day of driving for most people. Both wind and solar generators create electricity, so as a long term sustainable and non-polluting energy source, it is the best. It would not hurt, however, for people to re-discover walking and bicycling, they not only provide fuel savings but are healthy for most folks too,

 

John S.

The other key determinant as to potential for re-urbanization is crime. Middle-class folks will do just about anything to avoid the possibility of being physically assaulted.

"Middle-class folks will do just about anything to avoid the possibility of being physically assaulted."

 

Really? I guess that means the upper-class and working class folks, don't mind the occasional bump on the head from strangers. (lol) Crime is everywhere these days as anyone from rural areas can assure you. The criminal elements in neighborhoods can be encouraged to move to other digs provided law-abiding residents support crime reduction through crime watch and neighborhood patrols. Police storefronts in high-crime areas are another deterrent. Ultimately, finding the cause of high-crime activity and addressing the root cause (drug abuse, alcoholism, domestic abuse, chronic unemployment, hopelessness, mental illness) rather than incarcerating more people will reduce crime. We can only hope that if Barack Obama is the next pres, he will use some of his Chicago street smarts (if he actually has any) to address the social ills of the inner-city and provide the down-and-out with a means to lift themselves out of poverty. The problems of drugs, primarily crack and crystal meth in inner cities is nation-wide and obviously, the so-called war on drugs is not working. Either we need to ramp up penalties for drug use and possession to levels like Malaysia, (where the death penalty is often given) or we need to take a more enlightened approach like Holland and recognize that a certain segment of our population will always be drug-dependent, no matter what steps are taken to curtail that behavior. Drug addiction, like alcoholism, is an illness that is best treated in a medical clinical or hospital setting, not by sending an addict to prison for years only to quickly relapse after being released back into society.

 

No quantity of social remediation programs or anti-poverty programs will ever reduce crime to zero. The problem today is, part of our urban culture glorifies the "outlaw" (or gangster) lifestyle as an acceptable alternative to mainstream culture. People living in urban areas need to find new role models to define themselves, a lot of the destruction and murders in these areas are part of the "tough" inner-city culture, but do nothing to improve the lives of those affected by it. At it's root, the so-called "Gangsta" culture is self-destructive, self-loathing, and negatively impacts impoverished inner-city residents the most. The gangsta rap, hip-hop heros are tough guys ("thugs" some like to call themselves) and sometimes play out their musical images with violent action and fatal results. How can that be viewed as a positive? In its place should be: Love is the answer, now what is the question? This would represent an 180 degree change from the tough "F" you mentality.

 

There certainly are more problems in the inner-cities than high-gas prices. Until the residents feel inclusive in mainstream culture, they will continue to lose hope and turn to criminal activity as a legitimate means to get ahead.

 

John S.

I choose the middle class because the wealthy have the ability to basically live in the city without having to deal with many of the unpleasant aspects of urban life, while the poor who remain in cities have little choice in where they live and unfortunately when the gain residential mobility, their class position holds regardless of where in a region they live. The middle class on the other hand have the ability to be away from high personal crime environments but mostly through suburban living. They cannot often take the risk of urban living in a high crime environment because of the detrimental effect on property values (esp. single family homes and rowhouses) and the higher likelihood of day to day interaction with the criminal element (shared mass transit and the like).

No quantity of social remediation programs or anti-poverty programs will ever reduce crime to zero. The problem today is, part of our urban culture glorifies the "outlaw" (or gangster) lifestyle as an acceptable alternative to mainstream culture. People living in urban areas need to find new role models to define themselves, a lot of the destruction and murders in these areas are part of the "tough" inner-city culture, but do nothing to improve the lives of those affected by it. At it's root, the so-called "Gangsta" culture is self-destructive, self-loathing, and negatively impacts impoverished inner-city residents the most. The gangsta rap, hip-hop heros are tough guys ("thugs" some like to call themselves) and sometimes play out their musical images with violent action and fatal results. How can that be viewed as a positive? In its place should be: Love is the answer, now what is the question? This would represent an 180 degree change from the tough "F" you mentality.

 

We can thank TV for this one. TV is racist and constantly reinforces thug imagery to keep young blacks out of mainstream society.

wow this went from cities to race, once again.

 

John what information did you use to come to that conclusion?  :wtf:

Unfortunatley, racism is one of the key forces in human migration.

I don't like using the word "never" but I will say that I doubt we'll see cheap energy again. The world has grown too much and there's only so many natural resources to go around.

 

We should really start to see the cheap energy era - roughly 1945-2005 as an anomaly, rather than something that could be sustained indefinitely. We should talk to our grandparents and see what life was like before we wasted electricity and fuel so recklessly. That might give us a good idea of what our future will look like.

"wow this went from cities to race, once again.

John what information did you use to come to that conclusion?"

 

 

One cannot ignore race as part of the urban picture. It is but one component of many in the urban experience. Historically, minorities have settled in inner-city areas, not so much by choice but driven there mainly by economic hardship. The middle and upper classes, which have traditionally been predominantly white, have had the economic means to relocate to the more attractive yet also more expensive surburbs to buy their version of the cute cottage with the rose garden and picket fence. I'm not sure what conclusion you were focusing on. I merely claimed crime is mainly born from hardship and despair-people who are well off usually don't rob others just for the fun of it.

 

As for Rap/Hip Hop, I had focused on the "gangsta" genre as being negative because many of it's role models are outlaws and criminals in mainstream society's eyes-it's glorifies the urban ghetto plight and hides the dispair felt from living in a bad 'hood with a sense of anger and toughness. Katrina proved that, if given the means to relocate to better surroundings, many poor inner-city residents would gladly leave their crime-ridden neighborhoods to live in peaceful surroundings with better opportunities. It is true some of those relocated took their criminal activities with them but the vast majority just wanted a better life somewhere else.

 

My opinion (and that's all it was) was to work to alleviate the conditions in urban neighborhoods with high crime rates not by tougher law enforcement (which fills up prisons but doesn't solve the root causes of people turning to criminal activity for economic survival) but rather by trying to educate, organize, and provide the means for neighborhood residents to better their condition. As one old anti-drug campaign slogan used to say: "No young kid says he wants to be a drug dealer when he grows up."

 

As for my credentials, since 1989 my family and I lived in a predominantly minority inner-city neighborhood. College graduate, with experience in the corporate world as well as long-term self-employment. My son (now 23) was the only white kid in 3 of his elementary grades. As a so-called "urban pioneer" I reclaimed a derelict historic house and from day 1 have tried to reach out to my neighbors in fellowship as equals. I too have experienced times of economic hardship and extended unemployment. While that was the exception for myself, for many of my neighbors that has always been the norm. Nightly gunshots from drive-bys were common in the early days and my garage was gang tagged in the first years. Fast-forward to today, we've had a neighborhood association, a crime watch and patrol group, a police storefront, and families with kids happily walk through the neighborhood. The racial demographics have changed very little but development and higher proerty taxes now threaten many of limited means. While I had a furniture/antiques restoration shop, I employed a man, at good wages, who hadn't had a job in 11 years and helped him to learn skills he could use in the future. Now, almost 20 years later, my neighborhood is being carved up by developers (even in these tough times) and my property is for sale. Upon selling, I intend to give Cincinnati a fair look and while crime may be an important factor to consider, race will not be. I agree diversity and race are sensitive issues and there's enough blame to go around from all sides, but united we stand and divided we fall. The ideal urban experience celebrates diversity, different cultures, and provides equal opportunities for all. Sorry if anything previously posted was taken negatively or if anyone was offended.

John S.

 

 

John S., I'll give you points for a fair answer, except in regard to the music industry, that statement is not totally accurate.

"I'll give you points for a fair answer, except in regard to the music industry, that statement is not totally accurate. "

 

Very well, I hereby acknowledge that I'm no expert in urban contemporary music. Therefore, any knowledge to the contrary you may wish to share would be appreciated. Fairness in answers works both ways, of course. Please, if possible, maintain the connection to the topic thread-I tried to show how some forms of music reflect the frustrating conditions, flaws, and inequalities found in urban neighborhoods. These inequalites must be adequately addressed if there is to ever truly be a renaissance in America's larger cities. (which I believe most who post here are wanting)

"These inequalites must be adequately addressed if there is to ever truly be a renaissance in America's larger cities"

 

agree 100%. putting up stucco lifestyle malls up and calling it a rebirth is not the only answer. If the foundation is rotting, the house will fall. But that will be after some parties have taken the money and run.