Ohioans need to push for transit to make shared economies happen and vote for politicians who support it. I do agree the collision of interests in cities outside Columbus versus the statehouse has really been holding back "other Ohio" (classic example is Mark Mallory versus Kasich). The Three C's are not linked to each other except for Columbus people visiting family back in the other Ohio cities. They're each their own cultural and economic islands and the rising gas prices just make things worse. To have some sort of shared economic development, there needs to be excellent inter-city transit and heavy rail between the cities. Until that happens, each Ohio city will continue to be its own island fighting for diminishing resources and fighting against cities outside the state with a lot more resources.

 

The thing about transit is it won't happen until the population density is there to make it viable. If the cores can get a couple contiguous square miles together with over 10,000 people per square mile, then I think it's possible (but only if people vote for it). There is a long way to go before that happens. Most cities hold off on building transit until they see this critical mass on the corridor, rising population/property values, and horrible freeway congestion. Transit is built out of need, not want. Los Angeles only got serious about transit when its population density got high enough to support it and freeway congestion greatly reduced quality of life:

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_pivot/2012/09/l_a_metro_how_los_angeles_is_becoming_america_s_next_great_mass_transit_city_.html

 

Ten years from now, no one will be talking about Pittsburgh, Portland, Seattle, etc. Everyone will be talking about LA. There was always this belief that no new subways would be bored in established in US cities due to the disruptions it would cause. LA is throwing that to the wind. The subway to the sea is major game changer. It might suck to live there while all these projects are being built, but once it's done, you'll have the first big auto-centric to transit-centric conversion in America. It will be a true model for heavily sprawled place like Ohio with terrible transit.

 

Ohio needs more population density, more solid leadership supported by the majority of the public, and the kicker, more freeway congestion before it really gets serious. Driving around Columbus is bad, but compared to LA or the Bay Area? It's nothing.

Well, I think that there's only one major difference between Pittsburgh's potential and ours: Ohio's state government allows sprawl to bully cities while Pennsylvania's does not.

 

We can debate this to death but is it as more state government or market forces? Keep in mind who is voting for the elected officials in Columbus...

 

I used to buy into this argument, but I think the majority of Ohioans support sprawl. They keep voting for it and moving to it!

Ohioans need to push for transit to make shared economies happen and vote for politicians who support it. I do agree the collision of interests in cities outside Columbus versus the statehouse has really been holding back "other Ohio" (classic example is Mark Mallory versus Kasich).

 

Not just Mallory vs. Kasich, but Mallory vs. Shannon Jones and Steve Chabot, too. The suburbs are actively trying to undermine the city. And it's not because Cincinnatians are supporting pro-sprawl politicians. If that were true, there wouldn't be a super-majority of streetcar supporters on city council.

And this may sound crazy, but I think northern Ohio could become tourist heavy (not just PIB and Cedar Point) if Lake Erie is cleaned up and beaches are replenished.

 

Tourism is an industry to bank on.

 

Absolutely.

We do have to keep in mind that the vast majority of people never think of this "urban vs. sprawl" stuff at all -- at least outside of their subconscious.

 

That's a leadership vaccuum.  Those on the pro-sprawl side don't need to bring it up, because it's the status quo already.  Meanwhile, density and planning have no vocal advocates, certainly not among the running-for-office crowd.  I think a lot of people are persuadable, or at least open to the concept, but they just haven't been exposed to it.  The narrative they accept is urban decline and inevitable, necessary sprawl... not because they like it but because they're unaware of alternatives.  It's a function of inertia and that can be overcome. 

 

 

Well, I think that there's only one major difference between Pittsburgh's potential and ours: Ohio's state government allows sprawl to bully cities while Pennsylvania's does not.

 

We can debate this to death but is it as more state government or market forces? Keep in mind who is voting for the elected officials in Columbus...

 

I used to buy into this argument, but I think the majority of Ohioans support sprawl. They keep voting for it and moving to it!

Ohioans need to push for transit to make shared economies happen and vote for politicians who support it. I do agree the collision of interests in cities outside Columbus versus the statehouse has really been holding back "other Ohio" (classic example is Mark Mallory versus Kasich).

 

Not just Mallory vs. Kasich, but Mallory vs. Shannon Jones and Steve Chabot, too. The suburbs are actively trying to undermine the city. And it's not because Cincinnatians are supporting pro-sprawl politicians. If that were true, there wouldn't be a super-majority of streetcar supporters on city council.

 

I'll contend Cincinnati's situation is unique and pretty extreme. What I think has happened is that the city has had a political tidal shift (Mallory was a huge difference from past mayors) while the suburbs are just as bad as they've always been or have even gotten worse. The city-suburb Cincinnati deathmatch people talk about on here is all too real. It also doesn't help that a lot of suburban politicians in the area not only have big influence in Columbus, but also in Washington. The city of Cincinnati has changed for the better, but the region has not. This is creating major political problems in a region so heavily populated by fire-breathing suburbanites. I wish Cincinnati could somehow be isolated from its suburbs or take them over...

 

*I don't know what the solution to this is other than regional government a la Louisville, but that might be a huge risk given what surrounds Cincinnati. I think Cincinnati's city/suburb political divide has become the most extreme in America. Maybe a transit tax like LA did is the way to go.

Still, if Cincinnati keeps going: OTR will be filled in for the most part, have a streetcar running through, and another "Northside" will hopefully emerge or perhaps see a few good neighborhoods become great. In a way, I think the extra pressure in Cincinnati from blatantly hostile anti-urban forces has made it realize more than any other Ohio city that if you want to get pro-urban development done the city itself needs to step up to the plate and get it done and not bank too much on outside entities, from the county up to pay for x,y, or z.

^^ I think you're spot-on. The attacks from the suburbs, suburban-elected politicians, and suburban-financed groups like COAST has led to a lot of pro-city organization and forced people to choose sides in the debate. Progressive urbanism has been a hot-button, front-and-center issue in the city for a few years now, and Cincinnatians do not show any sign of backing down from their pro-progress agenda.

 

There is, of course, a long way to go. And the suburban interests have, indeed, proven relentless and somewhat resourceful. And as progressive as city government is at the moment, they are still tearing down our historic building stock at a breakneck pace. Still, the progress and the hunger for more is palpable, and as successes pile up it should only grow.

And as progressive as city government is at the moment, they are still tearing down our historic building stock at a breakneck pace.

 

This is an issue everywhere in Ohio. It seems a lot of great buildings were abandoned at the worst possible time for them to be saved. I can't believe what happened and is still happening in Toledo. There isn't a city-suburb deathmatch in that area, but just a regional decline/depression that's taking out landmarks everywhere. Northwest Ohio got hit the hardest, no doubt.

I haven't been to Pittsburgh since 1992 (or somewhere around then, I'm not keeping track because I don't care), but I'm sure it's a wonderful city.  I just think that most people are just sick of hearing about how much better it is than Ohio's major cities because quite frankly the data does not really support the argument. 

 

Not sure what data you mean, and I suggest a visit soon.  Check out the recent photo thread.  People who uphold Pittsburgh as a model are doing so for reasons that are observable and verifiable. 

 

And I agree it's important to recognize gains made in Ohio, just not to the extent of false equivalency.  If a comparison case really is that much better, and it's possible to for us to make similar gains with similar approaches, this seems like extremely valuable information. 

 

The answer to being sick of unfavorable comparisons is to improve.  10 years from now, the differences could be even more stark if changes are not made here.  We cannot ignore our problems and we cannot ignore that some of them are not universal to Rust Belt cities.  I mean, I keep wanting the Browns to move up in Power Rankings, but that's not a reasonable expectation given their record.  The problem is not the columnist doing the rankings, the problem is the decisions made by the Browns front office.

 

What data?  Simple, MSA population growth (or decline).  For all we hear about Pittsburgh, I'm still not sure that people are banging down the doors to relocate to the region.  Cleveland obviously isn't doing that well in that category, but Cincinnati and Columbus are both doing better than the Steel City. 

 

And I have to mention this although no one wants to hear it: I don't buy into Minneapolis, Portland, Seattle, Denver, or Austin as models for Cleveland.  There was an excellent blog post on the Urbanophile a year or two back about this issue, but the crux of it has to do with significant differences in history and demographics, that latter being a hugely divisive issue in metros like Cleveland, Detroit, and a few other Midwestern/Northern cities.  I think an argument can be made that because of demographics, in a lot of ways Cleveland is viewed differently by state and regional leaders (who aren't residents of the city proper) than those cities mentioned above.  I also think that residents themselves may be less charitable or sympathetic towards other residents because of the racial and economic differences.  I'm certainly seeing and hearing some of this divide in discussions by residents about the upcoming CMSD levy.  There may be policy divisions in these "model" cities, but I'd be shocked if they cut anywhere nearly as deeply along demographic divides as you'll find in this region.  Just my opinion, though, but this is only a small sliver of the unique challenge that Cleveland faces that are different from challenges faced by those cities.

I see what you're getting at, and I think you're right.  But I think it's a bigger issue in Cincinnati than in Cleveland.  That's not a who's better comparison, I'm just talking about recent history and current controversies.  And then there's LA.  I just don't see it as an excuse for anything.  It's 2012.  If we can't move past that, we probably don't deserve good fortune.  And I think we do.  So we need to move past that.

I haven't been to Pittsburgh since 1992 (or somewhere around then, I'm not keeping track because I don't care), but I'm sure it's a wonderful city.  I just think that most people are just sick of hearing about how much better it is than Ohio's major cities because quite frankly the data does not really support the argument. 

 

Not sure what data you mean, and I suggest a visit soon.  Check out the recent photo thread.  People who uphold Pittsburgh as a model are doing so for reasons that are observable and verifiable. 

 

And I agree it's important to recognize gains made in Ohio, just not to the extent of false equivalency.  If a comparison case really is that much better, and it's possible to for us to make similar gains with similar approaches, this seems like extremely valuable information. 

 

The answer to being sick of unfavorable comparisons is to improve.  10 years from now, the differences could be even more stark if changes are not made here.  We cannot ignore our problems and we cannot ignore that some of them are not universal to Rust Belt cities.  I mean, I keep wanting the Browns to move up in Power Rankings, but that's not a reasonable expectation given their record.  The problem is not the columnist doing the rankings, the problem is the decisions made by the Browns front office.

 

What data?  Simple, MSA population growth (or decline).  For all we hear about Pittsburgh, I'm still not sure that people are banging down the doors to relocate to the region.  Cleveland obviously isn't doing that well in that category, but Cincinnati and Columbus are both doing better than the Steel City. 

 

And I have to mention this although no one wants to hear it: I don't buy into Minneapolis, Portland, Seattle, Denver, or Austin as models for Cleveland.  There was an excellent blog post on the Urbanophile a year or two back about this issue, but the crux of it has to do with significant differences in history and demographics, that latter being a hugely divisive issue in metros like Cleveland, Detroit, and a few other Midwestern/Northern cities.  I think an argument can be made that because of demographics, in a lot of ways Cleveland is viewed differently by state and regional leaders (who aren't residents of the city proper) than those cities mentioned above.  I also think that residents themselves may be less charitable or sympathetic towards other residents because of the racial and economic differences.  I'm certainly seeing and hearing some of this divide in discussions by residents about the upcoming CMSD levy.  There may be policy divisions in these "model" cities, but I'd be shocked if they cut anywhere nearly as deeply along demographic divides as you'll find in this region.  Just my opinion, though, but this is only a small sliver of the unique challenge that Cleveland faces that are different from challenges faced by those cities.

 

You cant just pick one thing and say it isn't true.  Things like regional indicators, job and income growth and just today a listing on educational attainment, which puts Pittsburgh well above Cleveland or Cincinnati. 

I see what you're getting at, and I think you're right.  But I think it's a bigger issue in Cincinnati than in Cleveland.  That's not a who's better comparison, I'm just talking about recent history and current controversies.  And then there's LA.  I just don't see it as an excuse for anything.  It's 2012.  If we can't move past that, we probably don't deserve good fortune.  And I think we do.  So we need to move past that.

 

Just to muddy the waters a bit, I will point out that whites still make up a plurality of Cincinnatians (for now). I agree about there being a greater level of tension in recent years (and probably part of that is due to whites still wielding more power), but my point is that in a democracy even a small majority/plurality can make a comparison become apples-and-oranges. Obviously, Cincinnati is far from being the "white city" arenn was talking about in his blog post.

 

Interesting side-note: we now have a majority-black city council (first ever, I think), and the only two non-Democrats on council are black: a Republican and a formerly-Democratic independent. Additionally, the current mayor, city manager, chief of police, and fire chief are all black. Hopefully this helps heal some of the recently gaping wounds.

 

 

Meanwhile, Pittsburgh just might qualify as a "white city":

 

As of the American Community Survey Three-Year Estimate of 2006–2008, the city's population was 67.0% White (65.8% non-Hispanic White alone), 26.5% Black or African American, 1.0% American Indian and Alaska Native, 3.5% Asian, 0.1% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, 0.7% from some other race and 2.1% from two or more races. 1.8% of the total population were Hispanic or Latino of any race.[74] Non-Hispanic Whites were 64.8% of the population in 2010,[75] compared to 78.7% in 1970.[76]

(via Wikipedia)

You cant just pick one thing and say it isn't true.

 

Neither can you.

 

Here is a more complete comparison of statistics between the two metro areas:

 

Unemployment Rate 8/2012

Cleveland - 6.9

Pittsburgh - 7.5

 

Median Household Income

Cleveland - $42,215 (85 of 280)

Pittsburgh - $37,467 (153 of 280)

 

Median Per Capita Income

Cleveland - $22,319 (47 of 280)

Pittsburgh - $20,935 (90 of 280)

 

Share With College Degree

Cleveland - 27.7%

Pittsburgh - 29.1%

 

MSA Population Change from 2000 to 2010

Cleveland - -3.3%

Pittburgh - -3.1%

 

I fail to see where Pittsburgh is so much better and "doing things right" and a model for the rust belt, etc.  It's marginally better in a couple areas, and worse in a few others.  My original point is that, even if you consider it to be better than Cleveland, it surely shouldn't be ranked 37 spots ahead of Cleveland in the Top 50 list.

According to the list we're talking about (which is 4 pages back-- great discussion), economic stats were only one of the factors they used.  Other factors were more subjective, and of course, debatable.  Clearly the economy favors Cleveland, hence the number of Steelers fans living there.  But then again, we're told the economy here is too weak to build high rise apartments and subways while Pittsburgh is simply building them.  This feeds into my point that the deficiency highlighted by such lists isn't the Cleveland community but its leadership, which has left that community with a built environment and retail scene far below what it deserves.

You cant just pick one thing and say it isn't true.

 

Neither can you.

 

Here is a more complete comparison of statistics between the two metro areas:

 

Unemployment Rate 8/2012

Cleveland - 6.9

Pittsburgh - 7.5

 

Median Household Income

Cleveland - $42,215 (85 of 280)

Pittsburgh - $37,467 (153 of 280)

 

Median Per Capita Income

Cleveland - $22,319 (47 of 280)

Pittsburgh - $20,935 (90 of 280)

 

Share With College Degree

Cleveland - 27.7%

Pittsburgh - 29.1%

 

MSA Population Change from 2000 to 2010

Cleveland - -3.3%

Pittburgh - -3.1%

 

I fail to see where Pittsburgh is so much better and "doing things right" and a model for the rust belt, etc.  It's marginally better in a couple areas, and worse in a few others.  My original point is that, even if you consider it to be better than Cleveland, it surely shouldn't be ranked 37 spots ahead of Cleveland in the Top 50 list.

 

Um, first I never said it was better, and over the past few posts I mentioned I believe 5 things that are what I and many believe to be some of the more positive indicators of growth and turnaround.

 

Trust me Im the last one that would point to Pittsburgh as being better, but that doesnt mean places can't learn from each other. 

 

Just ask Baiju Shah who came from Pittsburgh to head Bioenterprise, and used what he learned there to help jumpstart Clevelands bioenterprise sector.  As a result Cleveland is only about 3 years behind Pittsburgh in this growing sector.     

Willyboy, thanks for posting those income stats. It's true Pittsburgh is a beautiful, intact city with great urbanism, but the numbers aren't good enough. But it's important to keep in mind this is MSA, not city limits. Those differences are more stark. Pittsburgh has one of the lowest poverty rates for a big city. Cleveland has one of the highest. Pittsburgh has managed to maintain more middle class in the city even though the region is not nearly as healthy as you'd expect. Maybe Pittsburgh has a lot of working poor just above the line?

 

Pittsburgh is not the economic utopia many media outlets paint it out to be. That's the real reason so many kids who were born in Pittsburgh leave Pittsburgh. It always comes down to money. People move to places where they think they've got a good shot of making it in the middle class. Without the incomes to support population growth, you're not going to see it (people won't have babies).

 

*But I also agree with articles when they say Pittsburgh has turned the corner or about to really take off. The urbanism is a big reason for it. It will be interesting to see what it's like in ten years. Hopefully all of the Rust Belt cities will be doing well.

CDawg, I posted those and do realize they're metro stats.  But again, it's always hard to compare cities.  Pittsburgh happens to have Shadyside and Squirrel Hill and Dormont in its city limits, but they are no more urban than Lakewood, Cleveland Heights, and Shaker Heights.  Add those inner rings into Cleveland's city limits and I bet the city stats are more comparable.

You'd call Shaker Heights "urban?"  I can see a case for Lakewood and Cleveland Heights but I wouldn't exactly put Shaker Heights in the same league as a Shadyside or a Dormont.

I would say Shaker Heights is as urban as Squirrel Hill, Cleveland Heights and Lakewood more comparable to Shadyside and Dormont.

I can't co-sign that either.  Shaker Heights has nothing like a Murray Avenue or Forbes.  Even residentially Squirrel Hill is a bit more varied (from denser single-family homes to Shaker Heights-esque Tudor mansions in hills).  Of course, you could say "Shaker Square" but you-know-who will be the first to tell you that that's in Cleveland.

I never said Shaker Square.  Shaker Heights is quite varied.  It's not all Shaker Lakes.  The areas along Chagrin and the southern part of Lee are more dense, as well as there being many apartment buildings along Van Aken.  The neighborhoods south of Van Aken are hardly "tudors on a hill".

 

But if you want, we can take Shaker Heights out of the equation because I'd bet that Cleveland Heights and Lakewood combine for a higher population than Squirrel Hill, Shadyside, and Dormont.

 

OK, looking up populations, each city individually is bigger than all 3 of those neighborhoods combined.

I think this discussion is misleading on both Cleveland and Pittsburgh.  Both regions are in fact equal when you look at them regionally.  Pittsburgh the city certainly is better along than Cleveland the city, but that's because of how industry was laid out decades ago...take them regionally however and it's a wash.  I've studied this both at Pitt as an undergrad and at CSU at Levin, and here's how I see it:

 

Cleveland's industry was all concentrated in the city proper, largely along the river or lakefront.  Pittsburgh's industry was also along it's riverfront, mostly the Mon or the Ohio, but not exclusively in the city.  In fact more of their industries were in a dozen or so of mill towns that exist OUTSIDE the city proper.  This means that when each city experienced industrial collapse, the impact was different.  As jobs left, regional poverty was concentrated in Cleveland proper, while in Pittsburgh a great number of their regional poverty largely exists outside of the city.  Example...look at the steel towns of Aliquippa, McKees Rocks, McKeesport, Duquesne (where I use to work with youth before moving home to Cleveland...a town WAY worse than East Cleveland), Homestead...need I go on.  These cities and other suburbs of Pittsburgh are hit with great economic challenges and disinvestment and poverty...not unlike you'd find on Cleveland's east side.  Conversely, besides East Cleveland you'd be hard pressed to find a suburb of Cleveland in such bad shape.  Cleveland has some working class suburbs (Parma, Euclid, etc...but only E.C. approaches the level of despair of a Wilkinsburg or Braddock or a half dozen or so former steel towns that make up the Pittsburgh Metro.

 

In my view this skews the economic realities of Pittsburgh, as much of their economic challenges are isolated outside of the city.  I say this to take nothing away from Pittsburgh...it's a great city that has done AMAZING things in the past decade.  I say that so that everyone can keep this discussion in context...Pitt is doing well but it's not floating on a cloud...and Cleveland has challenges but it's not falling off a cliff.  Our economic spatial history impacts our cities differently today. 

I never said Shaker Square.  Shaker Heights is quite varied.  It's not all Shaker Lakes.  The areas along Chagrin and the southern part of Lee are more dense, as well as there being many apartment buildings along Van Aken.  The neighborhoods south of Van Aken are hardly "tudors on a hill".

 

I wouldn't exactly call that "dense" in an urban sense either.  Streetcar-suburban, sure, but Squirrel Hill density, no.

 

This (south of Cedar, east of Lee) in Shaker Heights:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Shaker+Heights&hl=en&ll=41.468104,-81.553187&spn=0.000064,0.026779&hnear=Shaker+Heights,+Cuyahoga,+Ohio&gl=us&t=m&z=15&layer=c&cbll=41.46048,-81.561349&panoid=57Hx6Pj92xZ_s6zdim2Itw&cbp=12,134.24,,0,1.97

 

Or this in Squirrel Hill:

 

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Shaker+Heights&hl=en&ll=40.430601,-79.923413&spn=0.007758,0.01339&hnear=Shaker+Heights,+Cuyahoga,+Ohio&gl=us&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=40.430601,-79.923413&panoid=lG2UR3rqB6OgFAme3Flk2g&cbp=12,281.54,,0,-1.15

 

But if you want, we can take Shaker Heights out of the equation because I'd bet that Cleveland Heights and Lakewood combine for a higher population than Squirrel Hill, Shadyside, and Dormont.

 

OK, looking up populations, each city individually is bigger than all 3 of those neighborhoods combined.

 

I'm sure you know by now that having a larger population doesn't equal 'density,' especially when talking about built-environment.  Lakewood is a structurally denser city than Cleveland even though the latter has a larger population.

I can't see your street views (they don't show up for me), but if you took Lee just south of Cedar, you were on the northern edge of Shaker Heights by the Shaker Lakes.

 

The southern half of Squirrel Hill is more dense, yes, but the northern half isn't any more dense than the southern half of Shaker Heights (your street view of Lee is the northern end of Shaker Heights).

 

Squirrel Hill:

 

http://goo.gl/maps/2I6DV

 

http://goo.gl/maps/3vybV

 

http://goo.gl/maps/48aFF

 

Shaker Heights:

 

http://goo.gl/maps/jGsj9

(By the way, the gap on the right is now Avalon Station, a TOD condo complex.)

 

http://goo.gl/maps/urUD1

 

Yes, I'm cherry picking a bit here, but so were you.  And I had just said that you could exclude Shaker Heights and my point still stands, but you chose to ignore that.

 

I'm sure you know by now that having a larger population doesn't equal 'density,' especially when talking about built-environment.

 

No need to resort to being a condescending pr1ck.  My point was that even if you only consider one of those cities (lets say Lakewood), it is a dense city AND has more population than all 3 of those neighborhoods combined, which was the original point (that Cleveland's stats would look better if some of its dense inner rings were part of the city, which is the case in Pittsburgh.)

South of Cedar and East of Lee?  That is all Cleveland Heights until you hit get South of Fairmount and East of Taylor.  Even then, you are going more towards the Shaker-Beachwood border where Shaker is less dense.  For the purposes of this discussion, you want to look at the parts of Shaker which are adjacent to the City proper where you will find much more density

According to the list we're talking about (which is 4 pages back-- great discussion), economic stats were only one of the factors they used.  Other factors were more subjective, and of course, debatable.  Clearly the economy favors Cleveland, hence the number of Steelers fans living there.  But then again, we're told the economy here is too weak to build high rise apartments and subways while Pittsburgh is simply building them.  This feeds into my point that the deficiency highlighted by such lists isn't the Cleveland community but its leadership, which has left that community with a built environment and retail scene far below what it deserves.

 

The subjective factors are the ones I take issue with because I see these as the ones creating that 37 spot difference and being at least partially influenced by the cult movement of some urbanists to label Pittsburgh as a huge success story.  It seems like a positive feedback cycle, one that may not be entirely supported by objective data, as Jeff pointed out above.

 

The leadership here is pretty bad, but economically we're doing okay and we have a nice list of assets (which is still growing) that is competitive with anything you'll find in any similar-size metro area.

But if you want, we can take Shaker Heights out of the equation because I'd bet that Cleveland Heights and Lakewood combine for a higher population than Squirrel Hill, Shadyside, and Dormont.

 

OK, looking up populations, each city individually is bigger than all 3 of those neighborhoods combined.

 

Pittsburgh has many other healthy neighborhoods with urban density though, such as Bloomfield, Friendship, South Side Flats, Oakland, Polish Hill, Lawrenceville, Morningside, Mexican War Streets, and Regent Square. Not to mention that Pittsburgh has a few of its own urban suburbs such as Millvale, Sharpsburg, and Aspinwall.

 

I know with Cleveland you have to throw Little Italy, Tremont, Ohio City, University Circle and Edgewater into the mix, but I think Pittsburgh has the edge when it comes to livable urban neighborhoods. Pittsburgh also has the advantage of them being within closer proximity to each other rather than having the doughnut hole effect that Cleveland has. People who visit Pittsburgh are likely to venture to these areas since they're closer to the urban core. Visitors coming to Cleveland are not going to be heading off to Lakewood and Cleveland Heights, where much of Cleveland's best urbanism exists, because they're off the beaten path. I think this has a lot to do with the perception of these cities.

 

 

I think this discussion is misleading on both Cleveland and Pittsburgh.  Both regions are in fact equal when you look at them regionally.  Pittsburgh the city certainly is better along than Cleveland the city, but that's because of how industry was laid out decades ago...take them regionally however and it's a wash.  I've studied this both at Pitt as an undergrad and at CSU at Levin, and here's how I see it:

 

Cleveland's industry was all concentrated in the city proper, largely along the river or lakefront.  Pittsburgh's industry was also along it's riverfront, mostly the Mon or the Ohio, but not exclusively in the city.  In fact more of their industries were in a dozen or so of mill towns that exist OUTSIDE the city proper.  This means that when each city experienced industrial collapse, the impact was different.  As jobs left, regional poverty was concentrated in Cleveland proper, while in Pittsburgh a great number of their regional poverty largely exists outside of the city.  Example...look at the steel towns of Aliquippa, McKees Rocks, McKeesport, Duquesne (where I use to work with youth before moving home to Cleveland...a town WAY worse than East Cleveland), Homestead...need I go on.  These cities and other suburbs of Pittsburgh are hit with great economic challenges and disinvestment and poverty...not unlike you'd find on Cleveland's east side.  Conversely, besides East Cleveland you'd be hard pressed to find a suburb of Cleveland in such bad shape.  Cleveland has some working class suburbs (Parma, Euclid, etc...but only E.C. approaches the level of despair of a Wilkinsburg or Braddock or a half dozen or so former steel towns that make up the Pittsburgh Metro.

 

In my view this skews the economic realities of Pittsburgh, as much of their economic challenges are isolated outside of the city.  I say this to take nothing away from Pittsburgh...it's a great city that has done AMAZING things in the past decade.  I say that so that everyone can keep this discussion in context...Pitt is doing well but it's not floating on a cloud...and Cleveland has challenges but it's not falling off a cliff.  Our economic spatial history impacts our cities differently today.

 

Thanks for this analysis!

Streetviews rarely embed properly on any site. You usually end up having to take screenshots.

No need to resort to being a condescending pr1ck. 

 

Now come on, CDM wouldn't have it any other way, plus how else do you think he can get HIS point across (which is pretty much always predictable btw).

 

Thanks for that thoughtful analysis MidwestChamp!

 

 

All these things being used as excuses for Cleveland... you have to include suburbs, the industry is misplaced, there's a hole in the middle... these are the results of poor choices, not acts of God.  They don't excuse anything.  They're what's holding us back.  Can't move the steel mills, obviously, but we can fix some of the ridiculous borders and we can approach inner-city development in a new way.  But first we have to decide to do those things.  We can't keep throwing up these negative facts as reasons not to try new policies, when they're the very reasons that we've got to try new policies. 

Can we just rename this thread "Another dumb-a$$ discussion"?

We could rename you.

 

This discussion has entertained and enlightened a lot of people, nothing wrong with that.

All these things being used as excuses for Cleveland... you have to include suburbs, the industry is misplaced, there's a hole in the middle... these are the results of poor choices, not acts of God.  They don't excuse anything.  They're what's holding us back.  Can't move the steel mills, obviously, but we can fix some of the ridiculous borders and we can approach inner-city development in a new way.  But first we have to decide to do those things.  We can't keep throwing up these negative facts as reasons not to try new policies, when they're the very reasons that we've got to try new policies. 

 

I don't make those statements as excuses for Cleveland, just to say this is where we are, particularly relative to Pittsburgh for the purpose of this discussion.  I flat out said city proper to city proper their is more happening today than in Pittsburgh.  And you're right we need to be very innovative and strategic if we're going to move forward.  We have to deal with a central level of poverty that's among the highest in the nation, a foreclosure crisis that's emptied streets and left homes and business districts rotting, particularly on the east side.  But new policies can turn vacant lands into productive farms that employ low skilled workers, skilled trades can make a comeback as people learn skills to reuse abandoned houses.  The revived energies at Case and CSU can attract and retain college students... convincing them there's a future if they stay here with all of the spin-off development and health / tech start-ups

 

I make no excuses for the past...they make each city what it is today.  We have to leverage our assets to move us forward, that's all I'm saying.  And I'll end with this: In 1997 when I graduated high school and went to Pitt the paper there was praising Cleveland and asking what can Pitt do to catch up.  When I returned home in 2004 the Cleveland PD was pondering the same thing...roles had reversed.  City fortunes are cyclical, especially for midsize cities.  The one thing that did happen in the late '90's was Pitt removed corruption when they went from 3 County Commissioners to 1 County Exec.  They also had laid a great eds/meds and tech foundation.  I see Cleveland in the same space they were at in the late '90's.  We face some different challenges than they did at the time, but I see great momentum building here as they have there.

And I'll end with this: In 1997 when I graduated high school and went to Pitt the paper there was praising Cleveland and asking what can Pitt do to catch up.  When I returned home in 2004 the Cleveland PD was pondering the same thing...roles had reversed.  City fortunes are cyclical, especially for midsize cities.  The one thing that did happen in the late '90's was Pitt removed corruption when they went from 3 County Commissioners to 1 County Exec.  They also had laid a great eds/meds and tech foundation.  I see Cleveland in the same space they were at in the late '90's.  We face some different challenges than they did at the time, but I see great momentum building here as they have there.

 

Hey, I mentioned these things on the previous page!

Great minds think alike!  :wink2:

We could rename you.

 

I am willing to listen to any suggestions that are not grossly incompetent.

We could rename you.

 

I am willing to listen to any suggestions that are not grossly incompetent.

 

I propose Hts44121.

The Breathtaker

So, just to show how dumb these city comparisons are...

 

What do you think the public perception of Cleveland would be if nothing changed except the nominal borders?  How about we make all of Cuyahoga County the City of Cleveland.  We could even keep each city as a "borough" and let them each keep their own police department, fire department, "borough council", "borough mayor", "borough pride", whatever.  School districts would stay the same.  Basically what Indianapolis did.  Nothing else changes.  Overnight we would become the 9th largest city in the country (and still 4 cities in the top 10 would have a larger land area than us).  We would have the lowest murder rate in the entire country (9 times lower than New York City's lauded murder rate and slipping just under El Paso, Texas and Lincoln, Nebraska into the #1 spot).  We would have a median household income of $45,000, and a city unemployment rate under 7%.  We would have huge "livable city neighborhoods" like the "borough of Cleveland Heights" and the "borough of Lakewood" and the "borough of Shaker Heights" and the "borough of Rocky River" and the "borough of Chagrin Falls", etc.  We would have multiple major employment centers, all within the city limits.

 

We would be the new hotness!

 

But nothing would be different.

I've said it many times, but a strength and major impediment for Ohio and its cities is that we have so many kids in the sandbox.  Illinois goes as Chicago goes..... Michigan goes as Detroit goes.... Indiana goes as Indianapolis goes..... Goergia goes as Atlanta goes...... Portland.....Phoenix....  Minneapolis/St Paul..... Seattle.... Milwaukee... etc.  Other states may have more than one major player, but there is much more clear of a pecking order (Philadelphia-Pittsburg.... Charlotte-Raleigh).  The three C's present a dynamic unlike any other, and worse yet, we refuse to recognize it.  You will never convince Cleveland that it is not the big cheese here in Ohio.  I would've never guessed it, but my experiences with this board have taught me C-bus and Cincy think much the same way about their own standing.  We don't share well and that causes nothing but infighting and disdain from other parts of the states and our rural areas.  Keep in mind too that this is a relatively new dynamic.  C-bus has just recently emerged on equal footing..... Cincy was the clear mecca of Ohio for many years until Cleveland's industrial boom.  But now, at present, everything has just about leveled.  When we learn to embrace and capitalize on that, our cities will benefit.  Until then, expect more of the same. 

 

This is a good point.  I think it's why every once in a while some jerk starts a Cleveland sucession (i.e. State of Erie) discussion. ;)

 

But all joking aside, too much of the decision-making process for Cleveland is occurring in Columbus, far from the realities on the ground.  I'm not a particular fan of the way Jackson and his predecessors have run this town, but at least they really know what's going on here.  Perhaps the state needs to increase autonomy and the power of the purse for counties with over 500,000 residents (or some other semi-arbitrary number).

So, just to show how dumb these city comparisons are...

 

What do you think the public perception of Cleveland would be if nothing changed except the nominal borders?  How about we make all of Cuyahoga County the City of Cleveland.  We could even keep each city as a "borough" and let them each keep their own police department, fire department, "borough council", "borough mayor", "borough pride", whatever.  School districts would stay the same.  Basically what Indianapolis did.  Nothing else changes.  Overnight we would become the 9th largest city in the country (and still 4 cities in the top 10 would have a larger land area than us).  We would have the lowest murder rate in the entire country (9 times lower than New York City's lauded murder rate and slipping just under El Paso, Texas and Lincoln, Nebraska into the #1 spot).  We would have a median household income of $45,000, and a city unemployment rate under 7%.  We would have huge "livable city neighborhoods" like the "borough of Cleveland Heights" and the "borough of Lakewood" and the "borough of Shaker Heights" and the "borough of Rocky River" and the "borough of Chagrin Falls", etc.  We would have multiple major employment centers, all within the city limits.

 

We would be the new hotness!

 

But nothing would be different.

 

This!  I vote for this.  But I disagree that nothing would be different.

I think this discussion has run its course. Anyone got a new list/ranking to share so we can rip it apart?

I think this discussion has run its course. Anyone got a new list/ranking to share so we can rip it apart?

Here ya go. The 3 C's all on a positive top 10 list from Forbes? What is this world coming to?

 

NEW YORK, Oct 10 (Reuters) - Women seeking the best place to work and raise children in the United States may want to head to Ohio, where three of its cities have been voted among the 10 best for working mothers.

 

Columbus topped the ranking by Forbes, edging past New Orleans and Hartford, Connecticut and their surrounding areas. Cincinnati and its suburb of Middletown came in fourth, just ahead of Providence and neighboring towns in Rhode Island.

 

With a population of 1.8 million, Columbus scored high marks for its higher than average salaries for women, who make up 44 percent of the city's workforce.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/11/best-cities-for-working-mothers_n_1956216.html

 

 

^I'd say that's a great way to wrap up this thread. Folks, you don't have to like the Admins and Mods and if you disagree with how something is handled, you're free to send a private message. If you decide that you'd rather blatantly disrespect them, or decide to add a 'peanut gallery' comment to someone else's blatantly disrespectful comment - you will have some time off.

Yay, my city ranks #7!!

 

The 10 Most Exciting Small Cities In America

Movoto RANDY NELSON, MOVOTO

DEC. 18, 2013, 6:03 PM

 

How Do You Measure Excitement?

Whenever we put together one of these Big Deal Lists, we’re faced with a new challenge: How do we measure the thing we’re trying to rank cities on? In this case, that thing is excitement, something people are used to feeling, not quantifying with numbers. Numbers are kind of what we do around here, though, so we had to figure out a way to do just that.

 

What we came up with is a combination of six criteria designed to put excitement into a tangible form:

 

Nightlife per capita (bars, clubs, comedy, etc.)

 

Live music venues per capita

 

Active life options per capita (parks, outdoor activities, etc.)

 

Fast Food restaurants per capita (the fewer the better)

 

Percentage of restaurants that are fast food (the lower the better)

 

Percentage of young residents ages 20 to 34 (the higher the better)

 

With these picked out, we compiled a list of small cities across the country with populations between 50,000 and 60,000 residents, which came to a total of 140. We then researched our six criteria within each city and awarded a score from one to 140 in each criterion, with the best possible score being one.

 

 

 

Read more: http://www.movoto.com/blog/top-ten/most-exciting-small-cities/#ixzz2nzaBOoeP

Snow can be beautiful in Cleveland sometimes. This publication sure thinks so...

 

Most Beautiful Snowy Cities – Top Winter Towns

 

Snow can be seen as a blessing or a curse. Most of us like the idea of a White Christmas but prolonged snowfall usually turns into a nightmare – transportation gets affected and the winter wonderland quickly disintegrates into a slushy and dangerous mess. Here’s a list of the world’s top 10 snowiest cities but be aware that they are constantly changing.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://globe-travelling.com/most-beautiful-snowy-cities-top-winter-towns/

Speaking of Cleveland and snow here is a cool shot from the peedee.

20 Awesome U.S. Cities You Need To Visit In Your 20s

 

Noticeably missing is any city in Ohio.

 

Based on their apparent criteria for inclusion (hippies and smoking pot) I'm not surprised. Maybe Yellow Springs could have made it if it was a little more excited and not as layed back?

However there's this...

 

http://money.cnn.com/gallery/news/companies/2013/12/19/2014-predictions.fortune/

 

....See page 10 for a nice little prediction for 2014.