Pittsburgh core feels bigger to me than any city in Ohio, but in terms of urbanized area and metro, Cleveland feels bigger. The lack of density is the reason Cleveland can feel smaller. It is much more destroyed than Pittsburgh (true of all Ohio cities). Pittsburgh is more intact, despite huge population losses that rival Ohio.

 

I think Pittsburgh lacks the large, dense inner ring suburbs like Lakewood and Cleveland Heights. Along Lake Erie, Cleveland metro spreads far. It's pretty much connected to Lorain, which is a good-sized urban satellite in its own right. I don't think Pittsburgh has that. Is there anything like Lorain connected to Pittsburgh?

 

And yeah, don't go by census estimates, not at all. Look what happened last decade. They really under-estimated population losses in Ohio urban areas. I think the reality is worse than what the census is saying. Off and on for two decades, Pittsburgh has had a higher death rate than birth rate! With its general lack of first generation immigration, it's almost impossible the population is growing. It might happen in the future due to the strong economy there and excellent urban stock, but not unless white people start having babies and all the hipsters/yuppies in the world quit moving to Chicago, DC, and New York.

 

Also, keep in mind Pittsburgh just lost steel. Cleveland (and all of northern Ohio) lost a hell of a lot more than steel.

^That's odd.  I find common perception, especially from people who aren't familiar with either area, to be the exact opposite. 

 

I'm talking about (regional) locals who have spent time in both cities, mostly from the Youngstown area.  And when it comes time to visit a museum district, long-established Oakland tends to beat out work-in-progress University Circle.  Think about it, in this age of LOTR/Harry Potter/Game of Thrones, how many commercials have you seen about Cleveland's massive medieval arms collection?  The Carnegie's dinosaurs, meanwhile, are rather heavily promoted and are popular with kids. 

 

I guess what I'm getting at is that a ranking like this should surprise no one.  And one idea immediately jumps out at me-- start promoting the CMA to children.  We get a lot of see-and-be-seen martini events for local bigwigs, but we don't get nearly enough "hey kids, come look at swords."

^^ Driving in Pittsburgh is awful! I would rather drive in DC or NYC (maybe) any day than try to navigate Pittsburgh. Every road is a hill and none of them run in any logical direction (aside from along the valleys and the hillsides). If you are ever lost in Pittsburgh, ask someone for directions. You will not get there by just guessing.

 

Also, none of their highways are more than 3 lanes (most are 2 lanes) because of the space constraints and there is no way to expand them without tunneling. And I can't imagine driving in the winter with the snow...

 

I'm sick of hearing all of these cop-out arguments in an attempt to trump Ohio Cities (especially from Clevelanders) over Pittsburgh. Just give Pittsburgh some credit for God's sake. None of the roads go in a logical direction? That's due to topography and I've heard many people admit that cities like Pittsburgh are much more picturesque and make for a more interesting urban environment due to site-constraints or topography. With those hills and illogical direction of roads, you also get increased density of the built environment and better preservation of green space where it naturally exists.

 

Anyway, my basic point is that there seems to be an extreme bias/skew towards Ohio Cities (especially Cleveland, as this forum is dominated by Clevelanders) preventing you all from appreciating other nearby places.

 

The whole hillbilly thing really irks me. I know some hillbillies that are actually incredibly smart and resourceful, especially when it comes to practical trade-skills, which I doubt the majority of your typical yuppie neighbors possess. They're laid-back, friendly people who are always welcoming and willing to lend a helping hand to their neighbors because in a true hillbilly community--economically distressed and what-have-you, you really have to be co-dependent and work together. That's coming from my personal experience.

 

Another thing I don't understand is why I hear statements about Cleveland being akin to New England, which to me has connotations of being some kind of blue-blood playground or something but then again, it's supposedly a city that takes pride in its blue-collar roots. I suppose it just depends on what you need to argue for on any given day to trump your city over the next.  :-o

There are plenty of people saying positive things about Pittsburgh, myself included.  I even would say I'd rank Pittsburgh ahead of Cleveland at this point.  But 37 spots ahead?  No way.

 

By the way, you're the one who earlier trumpeted Cincinatti over ALL 3 C's AND Pittsburgh earlier.

 

If this thread annoys you so much, stop reading it.

 

Achieving total domination over this forum is only the beginning of a very complex plan you couldn't possibly hope to comprehend, Pinky

 

There are plenty of people saying positive things about Pittsburgh, myself included.  I even would say I'd rank Pittsburgh ahead of Cleveland at this point.  But 37 spots ahead?  No way.

 

By the way, you're the one who earlier trumpeted Cincinatti over ALL 3 C's AND Pittsburgh earlier.

 

If this thread annoys you so much, stop reading it.

 

 

It's not the thread that annoys me, it's certain ignorant comments. I gave my personal opinion on Cincinnati; I wasn't making any clearly defined argument. I could sway either way, especially if I had a chance to live in Pittsburgh for a while.

 

P.S. - You seriously misspelled Cincinnati? Really???

My point is that you do the same thing with Cincinnati that we do with Cleveland.  You live there, so you're proud of it and may have a higher opinion of it than others who don't.

 

And yeah, I seriously did just misspell Cincinnati.  If you go back through my posts, I'll bet you it's the first time I misspelled it.  Don't be such a spelling elitist!

 

Yeah, I knew why you misspelled it. That was incredibly lame, petty and childish.

 

I don't live in Cincinnati! I live in Columbus! You must not read many of my posts. I love and dispise City X or City Y for reason A, B, or C but more importantly --and one of the reasons I was drawn to this site from the beginning, was my appreciation for the uniqueness of every city. What makes them stand out. What makes them interesting. What makes them tick.  I really don't just rank cities in my head. There's too many variables even to form a personal opinion.

 

I'm not trying to start a flame-war though; I've said all I want to--at least on this matter.

Yeah, I knew why you misspelled it. That was incredibly lame, petty and childish.

 

Could you tell me why I misspelled it because as far as I know it was an honest mistake?  When I said it was the first time I misspelled it, I meant it as in "everybody makes mistakes sometimes."  I can't even figure out what you think I would have meant by "cleverly" misspelling Cincinnati.  Come down off your high horse once in a while.

Oh, well...sorry I jumped to conclusions if that's the case. Like I said, I'm done.

You guys are so elitist it's ridiculous.  You all don't like hipsters, don't like hillbillies, who the hell do you like? Just Yuppies or what?

 

I like the only people that elitists are allowed to like: animals.

 

Now I am going to make a serious statement: stop taking everything so seriously. It's a great way to enjoy life more.

^^ Driving in Pittsburgh is awful! I would rather drive in DC or NYC (maybe) any day than try to navigate Pittsburgh. Every road is a hill and none of them run in any logical direction (aside from along the valleys and the hillsides). If you are ever lost in Pittsburgh, ask someone for directions. You will not get there by just guessing.

 

Also, none of their highways are more than 3 lanes (most are 2 lanes) because of the space constraints and there is no way to expand them without tunneling. And I can't imagine driving in the winter with the snow...

 

I'm sick of hearing all of these cop-out arguments in an attempt to trump Ohio Cities (especially from Clevelanders) over Pittsburgh. Just give Pittsburgh some credit for God's sake. None of the roads go in a logical direction? That's due to topography and I've heard many people admit that cities like Pittsburgh are much more picturesque and make for a more interesting urban environment due to site-constraints or topography. With those hills and illogical direction of roads, you also get increased density of the built environment and better preservation of green space where it naturally exists.

 

Anyway, my basic point is that there seems to be an extreme bias/skew towards Ohio Cities (especially Cleveland, as this forum is dominated by Clevelanders) preventing you all from appreciating other nearby places.

 

Just so you know, David, the post I had right before the one you quoted was celebrating Pittsburgh for the progress it is making and the beautiful urbanism it has. One flaw of Pittsburgh is driving in Pittsburgh. No one can deny that driving in Pittsburgh is awful. Though I agree that the topography/winding roads makes for a very unique city (something Pittsburgh has in common with Cincinnati, though Pittsburgh's topography seems much more difficult than Cincinnati's). I am from Cincinnati and I have personally spent very little time in Cleveland (though I would love to explore it more), so my bias is not towards Cleveland as you implied.

 

Even though I have never spent any time in Cleveland, I think it is the second best city in Ohio (behind Cincinnati, of course) from what I can tell from a distance.

I was gonna say, it isn't exactly Cleveland that is "redneck-free" either.  All four cities have high Appalachian populations for obvious geographical reasons.

 

Yes, but Cleveland does the decent thing by trying to herd most of them into a confined part of the metro area where the rest of us can't hear their country music, or see their trucks' Yosemite Sam mudflaps, or smell their grits. You know the place I'm talking about.......

 

Akron.

 

Incoming!!!

 

CDM will be the first to point out that is NOT in our metro.  Now, I have dealt with my fair share of hillbillies and rednecks.  They are a very rare species north of I-80.  I am not sure what you would label the species of folks you find west of the Cuyahoga who wear cut off Def Leopard shirts, still rock the mullets, and spit every 15 seconds.... but they are not rednecks or hillbillies.  You occassionally see their male counterparts with that style too. 

 

Heshers?

Even though I have never spent any time in Cleveland, I think it is the second best city in Ohio (behind Cincinnati, of course) from what I can tell from a distance.

 

Free tours are offered here. PM me anytime.

As always, this is a great discussion. But it makes me wonder....what can the three C's learn from Portland?

^Nothing. Portland is overrated. It makes Toledo look like a cosmopolitan ghetto paradise. Ohio's cities have completely different demographics, especially Toledo and Cleveland. Grand Rapids and Buffalo are what Ohioans should be watching, at least Great Lakes Ohioans. Sandusky should be watching Port Huron.

 

My issue with the Pittsburgh obsession in Ohio is that it overlooks better models that have more similar demographics and geography. Pittsburgh is awesome (blows any city in Ohio out of the water IMO), but it's pretty unique. It might be a good model for Cincinnati if you changed the demographics and politics (and even that is really stretching it), but Great Lakes cities should be looking at successful Great Lakes models. Those are Grand Rapids, Milwaukee, and increasingly Buffalo. If Toledo could turn into Grand Rapids, that'd be a miracle. If Cleveland could turn into Milwaukee, that'd be a miracle. And any city anywhere in the Midwest (including Chicago) that copies Elmwood Village is making the right moves (affordable, but luxurious urban living with only moderate hipster and yuppie penetration).

 

Louisville might be a good model for southern Ohio. The hipster/yuppie scene is really exploding there. That city is making a remarkable turnaround from its ghetto days. As we've hit on before, it's questionable if Pittsburgh really got all that ghetto compared to Ohio's ghetto darlings like Cleveland (decades of losses across multiple industries), Toledo (decades of losses across almost every industry you can think of), Cincinnati (economy is fine, but still really went to hell due to sprawl, concentrated poverty, crime, etc.), etc. No one can deny Louisville and Buffalo got ghetto as hell and lost of a ton of urban structure. That makes their turnaround all the more impressive. Grand Rapids and Milwaukee never got that bad, but even they probably lost more buildings than Pittsburgh.

 

Pittsburgh is the holy grail of Rust Belt recovery. Ohio isn't even close to that yet, nor should it try to be. More attainable goals should be targeted first. The models are out there on the Great Lakes. That's one thing I like about what Detroit is doing. They're not looking at Pittsburgh. They're looking in their own state and at Buffalo.

it's questionable if Pittsburgh really got all that ghetto compared to Ohio's ghetto darlings

 

That is why I consider it the best model. 

 

I think I catch your meaning, but it isn't clear to me why policies toward buildings and businesses are dependent on topography or proximity to a lake.  Culturally, Cleveland and Pittsburgh are practically one metro.  While we can all see the differences, they're closer than anyone seems to want to admit.  Grand Rapids, however, might as well be in the Bible Belt.

Stop. Any city can learn something from another city, especially Portland. Does it always fit hand-to-glove? Of course not.  But Portland's grasp of land use design and its interrelationship with transportation is worth watching and learning.

^ this.

Grand Rapids, however, might as well be in the Bible Belt.

 

The suburbs? Maybe. The city, not at all. It's a great model, one I think is most fitting for Ohio, especially in terms of downtown development. It really is a solid city with some key similarities. While northern Ohio is obviously more liberal, liberal doesn't mean progressive in this case.

 

Any city can learn something from another city, especially Portland. Does it always fit hand-to-glove? Of course not.  But Portland's grasp of land use design and its interrelationship with transportation is worth watching and learning.

 

While there is some sliver of truth in this, we're talking worlds of cultural differences that have always existed. The main thing Ohio can learn from Portland is to rip out waterfront freeways. How did Portland get this reputation as urban planning utopia? It's really not all that impressive from an urban standpoint. Almost everyone there still owns a car...

 

It's not architecturally impressive either. I think Cleveland beats it handily. Just my opinion, but Cleveland has more potential than Portland, and is a vastly superior city.

 

LA is a place no one here is talking about that's making all the right moves. Their mayor is as hardcore about transit as any in the country. Pittsburgh and Portland are not the best, or most realistic models out there. That's all I'm saying.

 

*Also, Oakland is another great model for Toledo and Cleveland. It's much better than Portland I think since it has some demographic/political similarities, got really ghetto, and has a lot of industrial heritage. In many ways, Oakland > Portland. It's developing at warp speed.

Clevelandthor=327 link=topic=17033.msg644481#msg644481 date=1349811160]

it's questionable if Pittsburgh really got all that ghetto compared to Ohio's ghetto darlings

 

That is why I consider it the best model. 

 

I think I catch your meaning, but it isn't clear to me why policies toward buildings and businesses are dependent on topography or proximity to a lake.  Culturally, Cleveland and Pittsburgh are practically one metro.  While we can all see the differences, they're closer than anyone seems to want to admit.  Grand Rapids, however, might as well be in the Bible Belt.

 

I don't see how PBurgh  and Cleveland are the same culturally. A different set of demographics and a different feel all together.

 

Pittsburghs topography forces density, where in Cleveland that doesn't exist. That's where the city should be coming in and regulating how dense a neighborhood should be to limit sprawl and the creation of economic 'donut holes' surrounding the CBD

There are many towns and cities in the Appalacians, and most are less dense than modern Cleveland.  Meanwhile there are cities on flat land that are considerably more dense than modern Cleveland.  No one forced Pittsburgh to be dense, it resulted from a series of policy choices.  Cleveland actively thwarts density through its policies.  I propose we change those policies.  It would certainly be easier than hauling in a mountain range worth of fill dirt. 

^Which written policies?  Not the ones you believe exist behind closed doors.  Specifically, can you point to the written policy here in Cleveland which "actively thwarts density" and the specific counterpart in Pittsburgh which you believe does the opposite.  I bet you can't and that you will respond with some very vague conclusions and leaps of logic that belong in a blog.  And don't try and pass off something you feel is less than forcing an urban utopia as a "policy" which "actively thwarts density"

My theory with northern Ohio is that it's not really a lack of political willpower that's to blame as much as cold, hard economic reality. That seems to be the case in Toledo and Sandusky. I saw that most politicians in the area were in favor of dense urban development and historic preservation (really a lot more preservation support than you'd expect in these kinds of places). They argued their positions well and reached out to the community. Even local media outlets like the Blade showed real support for urban preservation. The problem was lack of private sector investment. That's how historic landmarks were being lost. People would protest demolitions, the media would do great coverage, but no one could pony up the money to save a 300,000 square foot building.

 

I'm assuming Cleveland is dealing with some of the same issues. The reason I'm getting tired of "Pittsburgh this, Pittsburgh that" is because I don't think there is some giant political difference there pushing for urban development as much as major economic differences have prevented disaster. Match Pittsburgh with Toledo or Cleveland's poverty rate, and it'd be a really crappy city. :| Excuses, sure, but these are the excuses developers make when choosing to cancel projects.

 

You saw this all the time in Toledo. Proposals would come in for converting an historic landmark into apartments, but then when the developer saw the median income trends in the metro area and what kind of rents he could bring in, he'd back out. I guess the economy has to come first before anything else. :|

 

Ohio needs to start focusing more on poaching Chicago and Pittsburgh companies!

^Which written policies?  Not the ones you believe exist behind closed doors.  Specifically, can you point to the written policy here in Cleveland which "actively thwarts density" and the specific counterpart in Pittsburgh which you believe does the opposite.  I bet you can't and that you will respond with some very vague conclusions and leaps of logic that belong in a blog.  And don't try and pass off something you feel is less than forcing an urban utopia as a "policy" which "actively thwarts density"

 

--RTA's TOD plans, including the tiny cottages they started building near W65th, also a recent plan featuring "cluster homes" that claimed on its face to be inspired by Mayfield Heights

 

--Midtown Inc... see thread

 

--Overtly suburban zoning citywide

 

--Steelyard Commons, which the city pushed hard for, and which is a suburban plaza competing directly with its own downtown

 

--HQ at 36th and Euclid, which was meant to go (as designed) in Strongsville, and which the city practically begged for

 

--Recent city-supported developments in Hough, Central, and Fairfax

 

--A reg stating that entertainment venues cannot be within X many feet of each other (see PHS thread)

 

--Unchecked influence of anti-height activists in Little Italy and Hessler

 

--A certain councilman (since reformed?) who blocked an apartment development near UC because he considered s-f homes more appropriate

None of those actively encourage your urban fantasy land.... but saying that any of those "actively thwarts density" requires gigantic leaps of logic and total ignorance of how zoning works and its effects.

None of those actively encourage your urban fantasy land.... but saying that any of those "actively thwarts density" requires gigantic leaps of logic and total ignorance of how zoning works and its effects.

 

For clarity... if the city or county supplies funding to a project, that does not count as active encouragement?  And regs that require buildings to be separated from each other and from the street, complete with mandatory lawn buffers, do not actively thwart density? 

 

This is devolving into a Python sketch.  Have I completely mistaken what all these words mean?  I'm a real estate attorney, but I must admit that I did not sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night.  That must be my problem.

 

--Unchecked influence of anti-height activists in Little Italy and Hessler

 

 

Dont forget this also applies to the Warehouse district parking lots, we cant have too much density there......

My theory with northern Ohio is that it's not really a lack of political willpower that's to blame as much as cold, hard economic reality. That seems to be the case in Toledo and Sandusky. I saw that most politicians in the area were in favor of dense urban development and historic preservation (really a lot more preservation support than you'd expect in these kinds of places). They argued their positions well and reached out to the community. Even local media outlets like the Blade showed real support for urban preservation. The problem was lack of private sector investment. That's how historic landmarks were being lost. People would protest demolitions, the media would do great coverage, but no one could pony up the money to save a 300,000 square foot building.

 

I'm assuming Cleveland is dealing with some of the same issues. The reason I'm getting tired of "Pittsburgh this, Pittsburgh that" is because I don't think there is some giant political difference there pushing for urban development as much as major economic differences have prevented disaster. Match Pittsburgh with Toledo or Cleveland's poverty rate, and it'd be a really crappy city. :| Excuses, sure, but these are the excuses developers make when choosing to cancel projects.

 

You saw this all the time in Toledo. Proposals would come in for converting an historic landmark into apartments, but then when the developer saw the median income trends in the metro area and what kind of rents he could bring in, he'd back out. I guess the economy has to come first before anything else. :|

 

Ohio needs to start focusing more on poaching Chicago and Pittsburgh companies!

 

You certainly have the Ghetto-ization of Northern Ohio down.  Thus my non-funny joke that for every neighborhood that sees postive change in Cleveland 3 more go downhill (become ghetto's).  Unfortunately this now also seems to apply to the majority of suburbs there (so maybe it should be 1 to 5 ratio..?)

 

Although Ive recently returned to the area part time and super happy to be on my way back, this much is so blatently obvious just about everywhere.  Thats what happens when all housing becomes affordable (and that usual barrior to neighborhood ghetto-ization has been lifted (attributed to too may factors to list))       

I could just as easily argue that height restrictions, in Cleveland's market, encourages density.  Regardless, is anyone going to make the argument that the height restrictions in the WHD have "thwarted" development on those lots?  Would you argue that the City would not, without hesitation, remove any restrictions if somebody proposed building there.

 

327, my point to you is not that you are totally off-base.  But your foaming at the mouth hatred for everything City Hall causes you to use some descriptors which completely takes away from any point you were trying to make.  I just did the same in the previous sentence.

You certainly have the Ghetto-ization of Northern Ohio down.  Thus my non-funny joke that for every neighborhood that sees postive change in Cleveland 3 more go downhill (become ghetto's).  Unfortiunately this alos applies to suburbs (so maybe it should be 1 to 5 ratio..?)

 

So true. That is the process in northern Ohio. It was called "musical chairs" in Toledo. I really hope for the best in Ohio, but it's tough to maintain a positive outlook when one building is saved, then five are lost. :cry: I don't blame politicians as much as market forces.

 

There is a ruthless ghetto culture that has taken hold in a huge chunk of Toledo and Cleveland that is basically Detroit-level concentrated poverty. Southeast Michigan and Northern Ohio have some of the biggest battles in America. It's a real tragedy what is happening in the Rust Belt...again. The recession, but more importantly, the waves of foreclosures before the recession are taking out a of lot of what was left of working class and middle class neighborhoods. These were the places that survived against the odds in the 80's and 90's. Toledo's Five Points is the best example of this overnight decline from middle class into ghetto. I think we'll be reading about it in history books...so an abandoned warehouse becomes an apartment building in downtown Toledo, while 20 city blocks are emptied out two miles away.

 

The silver lining in this is dirt cheap prices. That's the biggest selling point in northern Ohio, and it needs to be marketed hard to people outside the state. I've found most people outside of Ohio are unaware how cheap buildings are there compared to healthy markets. Ohioans all know this, but do people in Chicago and New York? Start-up costs are incredibly low. I think you'd have to go Mexico to find similar prices!

These people (and/or their tenants) are going to need jobs or else the cheap properties do them no good. As we know, cheap property is a symptom. People don't leave areas with tons of jobs or else the Sunbelt would have half as many people as it does due to it's massive sprawly hellscapes.

Great Lakes cities should be looking at successful Great Lakes models. Those are Grand Rapids, Milwaukee, and increasingly Buffalo. If Toledo could turn into Grand Rapids, that'd be a miracle. If Cleveland could turn into Milwaukee, that'd be a miracle. And any city anywhere in the Midwest (including Chicago) that copies Elmwood Village is making the right moves (affordable, but luxurious urban living with only moderate hipster and yuppie penetration).

 

Louisville might be a good model for southern Ohio. The hipster/yuppie scene is really exploding there. That city is making a remarkable turnaround from its ghetto days.

 

Totally agree that Ohio cities are not paying nearly enough attention to what is going on in their neighbors' backyard elsewhere in the Great Lakes region and that a lot could, and should be learned, like years ago. I would only add that in addition to the Ohio cities you listed that can learn things from other Great Lakes cities as a white-collar, big 10 university inland Great Lakes city that also tends to get forgotten in the mix: if Columbus were to become Minneapolis, that'd be a miracle too. It's telling that Columbus was touting that it was looking to Portland for biking infrastructure improvements several years ago and only around a year ago took a trip to Minneapolis to get ideas for innovative cycling infrastructure (in Downtown alone there are so many variations it kinda gives you a headache). It's like some big surprise that, who knew right here in the Great Lakes we have successes we can look to? Which is pretty surprising considering the umm, what's that thing we're you can find this stuff out in just seconds...oh yeah: the internet. It's not like a lot of this is painstakingly being hidden from Ohioans.

 

Now that list of 50 cities is plain ridiculous: LA way below OKC? I'd like to see how many Businessweek employees would live in OKC over LA if they had to pick.

These people (and/or their tenants) are going to need jobs or else the cheap properties do them no good. As we know, cheap property is a symptom. People don't leave areas with tons of jobs or else the Sunbelt would have half as many people as it does due to it's massive sprawly hellscapes.

 

I think call centers would be perfect to in-fill in distressed inner city neighborhoods with few jobs and a large unskilled labor force. A call center could hire hundreds and train them in a few weeks for their jobs. The pay isn't great, but it IS a job and most offer benefits. But the first part is getting businesses to open call centers.

As for Portland, the problem with copycatting them means you first need to lay the groundwork in order for that to possibly happen. Is your city enacting an urban growth boundary, investing a large percentage of transportation dollars in light-rail, streetcars, and bikes and throwing out existing zoning laws for whatever Portland has? If not, what can be learned isn't going to help and Portland because it has been built on such a unique foundation it really doesn't lend itself to being used as an example for other cities, though I have to say it's not hard to see why it ranks high. I'd really like to check out Alberta St some time despite some forumers' disdain for Portland (the neighborhood was a former drive-by shooting capital turned semi-yuppified hipster-y arts district). I'm rather surprised other cities don't use the, "we're not New York" line but for Portland too. Hell, Denver would make more sense, but we don't hear people here or elsewhere tripping over themselves to emulate that city. Something about not being on the coast I guess.

 

This certainly hints that us flyover country residents have internalized and quietly accepted that progressive good urbanism only comes from the coasts. While a good deal of these cities do pale in comparison it doesn't mean that all of them are Tulsa and that none are progressive, even competitive with the coasts with things that they could learn from us. Even in cities like Indianapolis, to pick on a different city, has things that it can learn from the region and from itself;I'd say the latter is overlooked too a good deal in the Great Lakes.

I'm pretty certain AJ93 was being sarcastic when he asked what we can learn from Portland.

Oy!

 

Clearly I need a clarifying statement somewhere, so I've put it in my signature.

I wouldn't like an urban growth boundary if it keeps us from annexing warehouses that pop up in some township. Then the taxes just go to gold plating ribbon development.

^^ Driving in Pittsburgh is awful! I would rather drive in DC or NYC (maybe) any day than try to navigate Pittsburgh. Every road is a hill and none of them run in any logical direction (aside from along the valleys and the hillsides). If you are ever lost in Pittsburgh, ask someone for directions. You will not get there by just guessing.

 

Also, none of their highways are more than 3 lanes (most are 2 lanes) because of the space constraints and there is no way to expand them without tunneling. And I can't imagine driving in the winter with the snow...

 

I'm sick of hearing all of these cop-out arguments in an attempt to trump Ohio Cities (especially from Clevelanders) over Pittsburgh. Just give Pittsburgh some credit for God's sake. None of the roads go in a logical direction? That's due to topography and I've heard many people admit that cities like Pittsburgh are much more picturesque and make for a more interesting urban environment due to site-constraints or topography. With those hills and illogical direction of roads, you also get increased density of the built environment and better preservation of green space where it naturally exists.

 

Anyway, my basic point is that there seems to be an extreme bias/skew towards Ohio Cities (especially Cleveland, as this forum is dominated by Clevelanders) preventing you all from appreciating other nearby places.

 

The whole hillbilly thing really irks me. I know some hillbillies that are actually incredibly smart and resourceful, especially when it comes to practical trade-skills, which I doubt the majority of your typical yuppie neighbors possess. They're laid-back, friendly people who are always welcoming and willing to lend a helping hand to their neighbors because in a true hillbilly community--economically distressed and what-have-you, you really have to be co-dependent and work together. That's coming from my personal experience.

 

Another thing I don't understand is why I hear statements about Cleveland being akin to New England, which to me has connotations of being some kind of blue-blood playground or something but then again, it's supposedly a city that takes pride in its blue-collar roots. I suppose it just depends on what you need to argue for on any given day to trump your city over the next.  :-o

 

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.  There are a lot of anecdotes about how Pittsburgh has turned things around, but the same can be said about the 3Cs, too.  The difference is that Pittsburgh has achieved some sort of an urban cult status that has led some outsiders to assume that it's a model for other Great Lakes/Rust Belt cities.  Whether or not that's really the case is up for debate, but I think we just want some fair recognition for what's going on in our towns.

This certainly hints that us flyover country residents have internalized and quietly accepted that progressive good urbanism only comes from the coasts.

 

This is so true. Everyone keeps talking about the saltwater coasts while cities like Grand Rapids, Milwaukee, Duluth, and of course Minneapolis barely get any press. Pittsburgh is one big exception to the rule since Forbes is madly in love with it and a lot of other media outlets in New York rant and rave about it. Chicago is the one city people on the salt coasts know about, but even that's kind of in passing ("You mean there are beaches in downtown Chicago?!"). The Upper Great Lakes really are under-estimated outside the Upper Great Lakes region. People don't have a clue.

 

Denver has way more infill right now than Portland. The city is exploding by any measure and the economy is light years better than Portland. If you're going for a career, I think Denver makes a lot more sense (see the hipster thread). Denver gets a lot of positive press, but if it were on a coast, it'd be worshipped like Portland, Seattle, San Francisco, etc. Austin is probably the middle American city the media is obsessed with right now.

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.

^^ Driving in Pittsburgh is awful! I would rather drive in DC or NYC (maybe) any day than try to navigate Pittsburgh. Every road is a hill and none of them run in any logical direction (aside from along the valleys and the hillsides). If you are ever lost in Pittsburgh, ask someone for directions. You will not get there by just guessing.

 

Also, none of their highways are more than 3 lanes (most are 2 lanes) because of the space constraints and there is no way to expand them without tunneling. And I can't imagine driving in the winter with the snow...

 

I'm sick of hearing all of these cop-out arguments in an attempt to trump Ohio Cities (especially from Clevelanders) over Pittsburgh. Just give Pittsburgh some credit for God's sake. None of the roads go in a logical direction? That's due to topography and I've heard many people admit that cities like Pittsburgh are much more picturesque and make for a more interesting urban environment due to site-constraints or topography. With those hills and illogical direction of roads, you also get increased density of the built environment and better preservation of green space where it naturally exists.

 

Anyway, my basic point is that there seems to be an extreme bias/skew towards Ohio Cities (especially Cleveland, as this forum is dominated by Clevelanders) preventing you all from appreciating other nearby places.

 

The whole hillbilly thing really irks me. I know some hillbillies that are actually incredibly smart and resourceful, especially when it comes to practical trade-skills, which I doubt the majority of your typical yuppie neighbors possess. They're laid-back, friendly people who are always welcoming and willing to lend a helping hand to their neighbors because in a true hillbilly community--economically distressed and what-have-you, you really have to be co-dependent and work together. That's coming from my personal experience.

 

Another thing I don't understand is why I hear statements about Cleveland being akin to New England, which to me has connotations of being some kind of blue-blood playground or something but then again, it's supposedly a city that takes pride in its blue-collar roots. I suppose it just depends on what you need to argue for on any given day to trump your city over the next.  :-o

 

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.  There are a lot of anecdotes about how Pittsburgh has turned things around, but the same can be said about the 3Cs, too.  The difference is that Pittsburgh has achieved some sort of an urban cult status that has led some outsiders to assume that it's a model for other Great Lakes/Rust Belt cities.  Whether or not that's really the case is up for debate, but I think we just want some fair recognition for what's going on in our towns.

 

Well I agree that it had become a media darling and whether that has been merited or not has been up to some debate.

 

It really wasn’t long ago at all that they were looking to Cleveland to see what they were doing, wanted to know how they were doing things.  Certainly they hit more of a bottom initially than the 3-Cs did, forcing it to look to the future and adapt or die. 

 

They have several advantages which have been talked about here such as some bigger schools that they learned to harness a bit earlier than N-East Ohio was thinking quite in these terms.  That combined with stronger leadership, some luck (being on the receiving end of some large corporate mergers (ones that Cleveland was on the losing end of), throw in some winning sports teams and lots of media love and they have managed to sustain a positive vibe that has included some nice growth which has also managed to keep more college degrees in the area.

 

So sure there is a degree of manufactured positive press that has occurred over Pittsburgh, and some of that may have even resulted in some of the sustained feel good/positive things coming out of there, but the numbers are indicating that something good is happening there to a degree that it is not yet happening in Ohio.           

 

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.  There are a lot of anecdotes about how Pittsburgh has turned things around, but the same can be said about the 3Cs, too.  The difference is that Pittsburgh has achieved some sort of an urban cult status that has led some outsiders to assume that it's a model for other Great Lakes/Rust Belt cities.  Whether or not that's really the case is up for debate, but I think we just want some fair recognition for what's going on in our towns.

 

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. When they try to make their cities nicer, they don't get a bunch of people in oversize vehicles driving in from 40 miles away telling them that they have to knock it off.

 

Oh, and I can't help but feel that the success of the Steelers has changed the perception of the city on the national stage.

The answer to being sick of unfavorable comparisons is to improve.

 

True. The press loves Pittsburgh because there is a lot to love in Pittsburgh. It's a ridiculously nice mid-sized city with more urbanism than you'd expect at its size. However, I contend Cleveland's main, most visible achilles heel to outsiders is the Lake Erie coast and access to it. I see Milwaukee as the best and most comparable model here.

 

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. Everything from Toledo to Ashtabula has elements that have made for successful tourist towns in Michigan. Ohio really needs to harness its maritime history and use its industrial heritage to the fullest. I think Sault Ste. Marie and Port Huron are good examples of how this "industrial tourism" is done. Instead, Ohio is sort of Muskegon...without the great beaches. Tourism is an industry to bank on. That's private sector that's not publicly-assisted healthcare/education and has real room to grow. People from China are now hitting the UP of Michigan hard. Ten years ago? No way. Ohio needs to try to capture this new tourism market. The state does a terrible job selling itself to outsiders. With the museums in Toledo and Cleveland, there is already a major attraction for people from Europe and Asia. The small towns between the two big cities have elements of New England, and the real key is that everything is close enough together that you can hit it all in one vacation.

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!

Pennsylvania has a massive rural component to its population and an arguably more socially conservative electorate that Ohio, yet they don't tell their cities that they can't have anything nice. They're not constantly telling them to shut up and drive.

These people (and/or their tenants) are going to need jobs or else the cheap properties do them no good. As we know, cheap property is a symptom. People don't leave areas with tons of jobs or else the Sunbelt would have half as many people as it does due to it's massive sprawly hellscapes.

 

That's why I'm specifically thinking start-up businesses. It's easy to find an abandoned building in Toledo for Cleveland for 1/10th to 1/100th the cost of the Bay Area. Detroit is launching this start-up culture right now and pulling San Francisco money into the city. It's the whole "Woodward Tech Corridor" thing. In terms of economic development, Detroit is a place to be watching too.

 

*The current median sale price of a home in Toledo is $57,840. In Cleveland, it is $55,000. In San Francisco, it's $705,000. These stark economic differences are a reminder of not only the extreme inequality/concentrated poverty in this country, but also a reminder that at some point, places get so cheap, it makes sense to move your company to them. It's happening in Detroit. Sure, there is already a massive, talented engineering community due to the auto industry, but the rock bottom prices are the real reason. No one is banging down the doors to move to Ohio, but Detroit?

 

Cheap property is a symptom of a place people don't want to live in, but every healthy, desirable place has a crushing point where it gets so expensive, people and businesses start looking elsewhere.

Pennsylvania has a massive rural component to its population and an arguably more socially conservative electorate that Ohio, yet they don't tell their cities that they can't have anything nice. They're not constantly telling them to shut up and drive.

 

I agree.  We built BRT, they built subway.  We starve our transit agencies, they don't. 

 

Market forces do not have volition.  They are reflections of choices made by people.  Design a cruddy car and market magic will reject it.  Design a good one and the opposite happens.  But the variable here is the car, not the market. 

 

In the end, I think my theory is the same as C-Dawg's, except that I consider "market forces" to be less of an actor and more of a measurement.

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. 

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.