I looked for another thread to paste this, but didn't see one directly on point.  Please move/merge as appropriate...

 

http://www.cleveland.com/economy/images/stagnant0928.gif

 

 

Ohh i had no clue greater Cincinnati was fading. I would not call 9% growth a decade fading.

Cleveland's population, 478,000 in April 2000, is projected to fall to 425,00 by 2010 and slip beneath the 400,000 threshold in 2020.

That's a scary thought; however, call it optimism, but I think things will turn before the population shrinks to these levels. 

 

Cleveland's suburbs are not big enough to build big-city amenities. And the city is evolving into something smaller and weaker. But the combined strengths are impressive.

The simplest argument for regionalism.  I couldn't agree more.

This seems as good a place as any to ask...

 

Is there an estimated peak population for Cleveland that occurred either before or after the 1950 Census?

250,000 seems very low for 15 years from now...as does a flat 400,000 for Cleveland.

I think Cleveland and Toledo are the metros that have stagnated the most in Ohio. I always thought metro Cincy grew over the last decades, but maybe I was wrong....

 

Cincinnati Metro grew at 9%.

 

Columbus- 875,000

Cleveland- 400,000

Toledo- 275,000

Cincinnati- 250,000

Akron- 190,000

Dayton- 115,000

Youngstown- 60,000

 

I doubt Dayton will hit 115,000 by 2020.  If anything, by projection, it would be 140,000.  Cincinnati and Toledo probably in the 290,000s.  Cleveland, probably at 400,000.  Youngstown might be 60,000, never know.  Akron, I can see at 200,000 or 190,000.  Columbus will probably be at 825,000.  Columbus will level off soon, unless Gahanna is going to be annexed :D.

 

My understanding of metro Cincy is that northern Kentucky is a major center of growth. It seems that the Kentucky side is sucking the blood out of the Ohio side for the most part. Maybe it's just me, but the Kentucky suburbs seem to be loaded with all sorts of entertainment and dining options that should be in downtown Nati. I have no idea why or how Kentucky has this stuff.

 

No, Boone County in Kentucky is booming, don't get me wrong, but northern suburbs of Cincinnati are booming the most, people-wise.  southern Warren and Butler counties are exploding (Warren is Ohio's second fastest growing county, behind Deleware in Columbus Area).  It has nothing to do with entertainment and such; strictly jobs.

And just out of curiosity, are all of Cleveland's inner-ring suburbs incoporated?

 

that i know of, since it is a city with racism, thus an older city, thus less likely to be unincorporated

When did Columbus last annex land?

I don't have the real answer to this question, but a Dispatch feature in 2003 had a chart showing annexation through the decades, and it showed six square miles gained in the 2000s to that point.  Whenever the last annexation was, it can't have been too long ago, and I wouldn't be surprised if land has been annexed since that article was published.

 

As far as stagnancy goes, the Dayton metro is pretty stagnant, too.  The official MSA will show a small loss in population, but if you include northern Warren and Butler Counties it evens out, or possibly posts a small gain.  In any case, there is close to zero population change, but more and more land is becoming sprawl.

 

Metro Columbus obviously has the most growth, but it really is a lot of sprawl, too.  I think Franklin County has a net out-migration; it's just not as bad as the other urban counties.  As far as I know, birth rates are the only thing causing population growth in Franklin County.  I'm sure the rate of sprawl in the Columbus area outpaces population growth.

Metro Columbus obviously has the most growth, but it really is a lot of sprawl, too.  I think Franklin County has a net out-migration; it's just not as bad as the other urban counties.  As far as I know, birth rates are the only thing causing population growth in Franklin County.  I'm sure the rate of sprawl in the Columbus area outpaces population growth.

 

Bingo.  Particularly Union, Fairfield, and Delaware Counties.

 

    Ohio Population Summary

 

    Ohio has 11,500,000 people according to the 2000 Census.

 

    There are four components to population change. They are births, deaths, immigration, and emigration.

 

    The formula is: Population change from year A to year B = births - deaths + immigration - emigration.

 

    In Ohio, the birth rate is low and dropping; the death rate is low and rising; immigration and emigration are fairly small and about equal.

 

    The birth rate is still higher than the death rate. That means that we had more babies this year than funerals. But, since we are having fewer and fewer babies every year, and at the same time more and more funerals every year, at some point those two numbers have to meet.

 

    The Census has estimated that year as 2018.

 

    That's right: in 2018 the State of Ohio will peak in population. In 2019 we will begin losing population. Rounding off to the nearest Census year, Ohio will peak in 2020.

 

    Since we are only 13 years from the peak, and are on the flat part on the top of a very gradual curve, you might as well say that we are peaking now. We are only 400,000 people, over the whole state, from our all-time high, at least for the foreseeable future.

 

    Go to the Census web site yourself and look it up.

 

-- ----------

 

    The next question is a more detailed look at cities. Within Ohio, people are moving from one place to another. The general statement is this:

 

    People are moving from the cities to the suburbs. People are also moving from the rural areas to the suburbs.

 

    "Moving" does not necessarily imply that a family packed up their stuff, sold their house, and moved to a new one. It could also mean that the birth and death rates are not constant across the state. The birth rate will be higher in places with lots of young couples, such as new subdivisions. The death rate will be higher in places with lots of old people.

 

    Of the 88 counties, roughly half lost population between 1990 and 2000. About 1/4 gained, and 1/4 were stable. We know where the "growth" areas are, but is this "growth" beneficial when it is accompanied by decline somewhere else? I guess it depends on who you are.

Ohio and Cleveland will grow again. The cost of living and doing business will be much lower here, than in places like  California and Florida. Texas has ALOT of room so i expect that place to keep on growing with cheap land.

    That's right: in 2018 the State of Ohio will peak in population. In 2019 we will begin losing population. Rounding off to the nearest Census year, Ohio will peak in 2020.

 

    Since we are only 13 years from the peak, and are on the flat part on the top of a very gradual curve, you might as well say that we are peaking now. We are only 400,000 people, over the whole state, from our all-time high, at least for the foreseeable future.

 

    Go to the Census web site yourself and look it up.

That is a projection, not a destiny.  I don't think we should operate on the assumption that it will come true, or else it will come true.

 

    The next question is a more detailed look at cities. Within Ohio, people are moving from one place to another. The general statement is this:

 

    People are moving from the cities to the suburbs. People are also moving from the rural areas to the suburbs.

 

    "Moving" does not necessarily imply that a family packed up their stuff, sold their house, and moved to a new one. It could also mean that the birth and death rates are not constant across the state. The birth rate will be higher in places with lots of young couples, such as new subdivisions. The death rate will be higher in places with lots of old people.

 

    Of the 88 counties, roughly half lost population between 1990 and 2000. About 1/4 gained, and 1/4 were stable. We know where the "growth" areas are, but is this "growth" beneficial when it is accompanied by decline somewhere else? I guess it depends on who you are.

You can get some idea of where "growth" is growth and where it is just shifting of people by looking at Census migration statistics, which record people's residence five years prior to the census.  For instance, of the 109,000 people in the sprawling hell of Delaware County in 2000, 20,000 of them lived in Franklin County in 1995.  That accounts for nearly half of the county's population increase from 1990, if I'm not oversimplifying the calculation.

Let's take a step back through all of this and remember -these are 30 year PROJECTIONS.  No one has a crystal ball.  The key is to take this as a "worst case" scenario, and continue to build the areas of our economy that are growing, thus reversing the trend.  Cleveland can buck these projections and regain population (city and metro), but the worst thing we can do is say "screw it, there's no chance" and resign ourselves to becoming a mid-size metro. 

yeah, how many 30 year projections of phoenix and las vegas (etc.) are so far off its not even funny

^I agree. Even places in the Southeast U.S. are seeing water problems, as salt water from the ocean is being drawn into freshwater aquifers hundreds of miles inland.

 

As for energy, I recall that the rejuvenation of German Village in Columbus got its first boost during the 1970s oil crises from people wanting to live closer to work downtown. The same can be said for Ohio City in Cleveland, which saw its first bits of gentrification in the 1970s.

 

Think about a city like Cleveland, where some parts of its appear more rural than urban. I'm thinking of areas on the East Side, such as along Kinsman, the Red Line, and the combined Blue/Green lines around the East 79th station. What keeps these rural are the numerous EPA Superfund sites that await costly cleanup. But it can be done. Battery Park was an EPA Superfund site, due to all the battery acids and chemicals buried in rusting drums on the former Eveready property. Now, ground has been broken on the large housing redevelopment. More funding is needed to clean up a hundred or more sites like it, just in Cleveland.

 

The problem is, metropolitan planning organizations like the Northeast Areawide Coordinating Agency (or Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission in Columbus, or Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission in Dayton, etc.) use past trends to guide future public investments for roads, transit and other infrastructure. They need to develop a regional vision through consensus on what people want their region to look like in 20, 50 even 100 years from now, since the infrastructure investments of today will still be on the landscape (if we build well!) that far into the future.

 

Using past trends to guide investments for the future has been one of the biggest failings of our cities, our state and even our country. It's time to put a stop to it if we want to stop throwing away the neighborhoods we've already built for new ones farther out.

 

KJP

Cleveland (along with Pittsburgh and Buffalo) industrialized first... become obsolete first... and is now overcoming obsolescence first...

 

Cleveland's ahead of the game... it's already acheived ZPG (Zero Population Growth).  ZPG has been acheived by many of the greatest European cities for decades now... and they're more vibrant and successful than ever.  The US is headed towards a grim fate if its third-world-esque explosive growth rates (heavily weighted towards unsustainable desert environments) continues unabated.  Cleveland, Pittsburgh and Buffalo will be well-positioned as healthy alternatives to the inadequate carrying capacities of the Sunbelt sprawlers. 

far as i know the most recent annexation for columbus was for polaris along I-71 on the far northside. not sure tho maybe something after that too? easton maybe?

 

ev i wish it were true but reaching zero pop growth is not very good news for cleveland. it works in europe because those are the big cities in their own individual countries and get all the attention and support they need. cleveland cannot even get anything like that from it's own state, much less washington. so good health will be only be found via an influx of immigration and added jobs. nobody is going to help the city/region so it has to be done internally and via regional cooperation, a doable but very difficult task. indeed rust belt cities are well positioned for re-birth & growth but i dont see it happening anytime soon energy crisis or not -- everyone is still running south and west. charlotte's and phoenixes are still boom towns --- but forget them cleveland should be looking to the denvers and milwaulkees for inspiration.

 

I don't know if any of you saw this in the 10/15/05 PD.  Any thoughts?

 

 

Planners see benefits in cities getting smaller

Saturday, October 15, 2005

Tom Breckenridge

Plain Dealer Reporter

 

For centuries, it seemed a law of nature: Cities grow.

 

That's why so many people fret over the shrinking populace of Cleveland and other cities wallowing in post-industrial misery.

 

But a handful of planners explored an alternative, even blasphemous, view Friday at Cleveland State University: It's OK to be smaller, if you embrace the vision of a cleaner, greener and leaner city...

 

 

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1129368946179170.xml&coll=2

 

This was also discussed this morning on NPR. Discussants were Morrison, Terry Schwartz of Kent State's UDC, and Jerry Egan of the Comprehensive Planning division of Akron's planning department.

One caller brought up the idea of turning vacant urban land into small farms to supply local restaurants. Schwartz said it was a nice idea but difficult in practice because most urban soil is contaminated. Morrison said Youngstown is looking at reforestation, rather than farms, for its vacant property.

Morrison suggested less emphasis should be placed on infill development for vacant property -- that we should instead concede that our cities' population continues to decline, create more density on less land, and convert other land over to public parks and greenspace.

Interesting discussion.

I think Morrison is right.  I think that we should especially target things like the Cuyahoga Valley, Kingsbury Run, and Walworth Run for "un-development" and then redevelop them as parkland as part of our Metroparks system.  I'd also like to see a policy of urban stream restoration that would include buying up and demolishing houses that are built over culverted streams as they become vacant or are put on the market.  That land could be banked until a sizeable portion of the stream could be uncovered, thus creating a neighborhood greenbelt.  Ideally, I think that we would have a city of dense urban villages defined and connected by greenbelts.

 

I'd hate to see this done scattershot, however, like was done in the 70's and 80's when they would just give over individual lots to the people next door so they could have sideyards or try to turn any old vacant lot into a random park.

I like the idea of reforestification near urban streams. But after all these years of being built up and over, and with a possible lack of good mapping system back in the old days, would we be able to find these old streams? There would also be the logistics of opening thre creeks that became sewer lines underneath roads. I also disagree with morrisons point on infill. Infill is good in alot of areas, its filling up the areas that should have something there ,to make a more cohesive vibrant neighborhood. Can we honestly say infill in the tremont area is bad?

Yeah, they can find underground streams, although sometimes they don't find them until you try to build on top of them.  Then you aren't aloud to build!  So all that's left is assembling the sites, and of course uncovering the stream.  That is expensive, certainly.  But if it's done under the aegis of parkland development, I would think there are resources out there.

I was wondering about the Cleveland MSA and CSA population figures. From 1990-2000 the CSA including Akron gained around 86,000, and I am not sure about the Cleveland MSA ( I think it held steady). What are the latest CSA and MSA populations? Is the economy of northeast Ohio improving? I have heard some postive stories.

Back in January I overheard the following and posted on cleveland.com

 

Returning to Cleveland yesterday via plane, and overheard a majority of a conversation by three people about the POSITIVE increase in population!

 

I could clearly see one person was from the census, I think the other two were from HUD, but I cannot be sure. The woman from the census clearly stated, "There has been a 6.5 - 8% population growth in the city of Cleveland itself and 3-4% growth in the burbs" (yet she did not say what the "burbs" boundaries were. So I don’t know if they meant just the Cuyahoga county burbs or the burbs in all the counties adjacent to Cuyahoga county).

 

They also mentioned the "housing boom" the inner city is experiencing and they would like to inquire what the city/state/real estate leaders will come up with for better retail options. The job market is finally rebounded (not sure if they were speaking about our region or in general) and is a good location for corporate and regional headquarters.

 

They also stated that the city is a good investment because of our low cost of living compared to Boston, Wash., DC, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Dallas, Phoenix & Miami and safer!

 

The city is leader in medical, insurance and banking and now there is a high demand for service and luxury goods. Stating that this is the top area for buying luxury goods in either New York or Chicago! The one downfall they felt the city had is inadequate transportation via rail and air and that public transit is ok, but they don’t see any positive plans for growth. They also liked the "positive interest" about a possible casino.

 

I'm searching all over to see if the population information has been published anywhere but I thought this might be a good Tuesday morning read.

^naughty evesdropper

How could you tell where they were from?  Were they wearing "HUD" baseball caps or something?

^naughty evesdropper

 

The thought of just "getting all up in their business" crossed my mind several time.  I took a lot of will power to restain myself to turn around in my seat and just rattle off questions!  You have no idea how hard i was "dipping".  these people were in the two seats behind me and one accross the aisle. 

 

At one point i did ask, "are you talking about Cleveland".  The guy next to me said, "he can see how this is true as he moved from Solon to tremont, and that all of his neighbors we're transplants from other cities".  He mentioned the tax abatement and the undiscovered energy of the city makes Cleveland new and exciting for young people.

 

In addition, I had a friend from Indi, who came to Cleveland for the football classic, in September, fell in love with Cleveland because he felt it was the most progessive place in the midwest (outside of Chicago).  He got a job the last week of October and moved to Cleveland on November 5.  So for people who say there are no jobs here...thats BS!

 

**  this was my 500th post  & Oh my God, I got another star.  I feel, like, sooooooooooo special - like, OK! **  :drunk:

How could you tell where they were from?  Were they wearing "HUD" baseball caps or something?

 

Business Card

Cool story, TwoSense! Thanks for posting.

Man, that is some wonderful news.

I think we should worry about jobs first, then the population will come.

 

From Nov 1990- Nov 2000 the Cleveland metro gained 113 thousand  jobs, but from Nov 2000- Nov 2005 Cleveland lost 56 thousand jobs.

 

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/outside.jsp?survey=sm

 

Cuyahoga County has been losing population at a pretty rapid pace.  But it would not surprise me at all to see the 2010 census show an increase.  There is no doubt in my mind there will be a bump in the county's population.  Cleveland's is one I'm not so sure about.  Should the development continue, it should be possible for Cleveland to make a gain when 2010 comes around. 

 

In 2003-04, the Census estimated that Cuyahoga had lost 10,000 people in that span. From 2000-04 , it is estimated the county lost 45,000 people.  So, it makes me wonder what changed that now it came back up.    It was also estimated that the area as a whole lost 3,000 residents in that four year span.  These numbers came out in April.  I still believe that the county with make this up before 2010 but I wonder just when this time of "growth" occured.  The latest estimates released to the public show the opposite. 

 

And unusualfire is completely correct.  To attract people, you must have jobs.  It is just that simple.  Cleveland gets shafted somewhat in the population numbers as there are plenty of transient people who are in  the area but are not counted by the Census.  These are students, professionals training in the hospitals.  These are people listed as being from their home state although all their time and money is being invested here.  I'm just guessing but I believe Cleveland has plenty of these transients thanks to UH and the Clinic. 

well we also have to remember the last census there were problems in cleveland and many other areas of cuyahoga county as people and elected officials complained the areas they represented did not get counted. 

Almost every urban area in the country complains to the Census about being undercounted.  The census has serious problems counting everybody, but almost every leader from every  urban area that lost population complains about the same thing.  Undercounts, they should include homeless, etc.  NEO is no different than any of those.   IMHO, it all evens out since every other city complains about that as well :)  That still doesn't change their estimates they put out in April though.  Remember, that  this is a estimate, there is no actual counting going on.  The whole undercounted thing really doesn't apply here unless they totally missed their estimates.  The prior complaints were in 2000, where they were actually counting.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the seven-county CMA and the City itself show increases in 2010. However, I'd be very surprised to see Cuyahoga County as a whole show growth. Most Cuyahoga County suburbs are now entering the phase Cleveland was in 50 years ago, where people abandon obsolete housing and retail options for newer stuff. Ironically, a good share of that newer stuff is now being built in the City (as well as in places like Medina, Lake and Geauga counties).

^ You are right about that? Newerthings. I think it's in our blood to like something new and not rundown.

I don't know that much of it has to do with abandonment.  I think most of the population loss is caused by declining household size.  People's children grow up and leave.  They move somewhere else because there is little land for their new household to create a new housing unit in Euclid or Willowick.  Pretty soon a house that held 4 holds 2 and a couple of other houses had to be built somewhere where there was developable land available.  That's a 50% drop in population for the original community, and a gain for the new communities.  Yes, new families move in to the old suburb but statistically they have fewer children than the generations before. 

 

Multiply that whole process by 1,000's of families and you have a significant population drop. The only way to keep a constant population in an era of declining household sizes is to redevelop the same land with more housing units.  Household sizes have been almost been cut in half since the 1950's.  This is where most of Cleveland's and its inner suburb's population has been lost.  Highways and demolition make up a much smaller portion.  So if Cleveland, for example, wanted to regain its 1950 population of almost a million people, it would need to have twice as many housing units as it did in 1950.  You're talking apartments and townhouses instead of singles and doubles.

^ Excellent point

Definitely true about household size -- an important factor. Still, I doubt it accounts for all (or even most) of the estimated population drop of most cities in Cuyahoga County. Parma, for example, went from about 85,600 people in 2000 to 82,600 in 2004, according to Census estimates -- a drop of 3.5%. Seems too rapid to be explained purely by family demographics, though I suppose it's possible.

Regardless, the ability of Cuyahoga County cities to regain population depends on how well they can build new housing -- or better yet, adapt old housing -- to meet the needs of contemporary households (including single people and couples without children). I think the City of Cleveland is doing that better and in greater volumes than any other municipality in Cuyahoga County. Lakewood and Cleveland Heights are starting to catch on too.

Well, if the average household size was say, 3 people, then a drop of approx .1 person in household size would account for the change in population.  That would be the equivalent of 1 in 10 houses going from say, one child to none.  Add in families going from 2 children to 1 or 3 to 2 or spouses dying off, single mothers, etc. and it isn't hard to see that causing a population drop.

 

  ^ X is absolutely correct. The first phase in population loss is a decrease in the number of people per house, which is essentially the same as the number of people per family. Ultimately, if buildings are outright abandoned, the number per house goes down to zero. That problem occurs in some of the worst core neighborhoods. But, overall, the biggest change at present seems to be the decrease in family size in the first-ring suburbs, while new subdivisions in the suburbs are gaining both in young couples who moved there from an older neighborhood as well as their new kids.

 

    Keep in mind that the Census is a night-time count. Essentially, they are counting beds in residential areas rather than workers in employment areas. 

 

    Birth rates continue to drop. It was common for pioneer families of the 1820's to have 10 kids. By contrast, the baby boom of the 50's averaged about 3.5 children per family! Now it's close to 2.0.

 

    This comes as a surprise to a lot of people, but there were more children born in the United States in 1955 than in any other year. In Ohio, there are fewer and fewer children born each year. We are only increasing in population (barely) because old people are getting older instead of dying, while new people are being added to the system by birth. In the big picture, immigration and emmigration to and from Ohio from outside the state are about equal, and small. Census projections show that when the baby boomers really start dying in their 70's and 80's, our population is going to drop. This is based on current trends, with assumptions with regard to future birth rates, death rates, and migration. Of course, they could be wrong, but they could be wrong in either direction!

 

    This is the third time that I've mentioned this on this site. If you don't believe it you can look it up.

 

    REALITY CHECK: Census projections show that Ohio will reach peak population in 2018, and then decline for the forseeable future. That's just 12 years away!

 

    So, if the city is losing population to the suburbs while people move around within the state, what do you think is going to happen when OHIO AS A WHOLE is losing population? We could have people move back from the suburbs to the city and STILL have our cities lose population!

 

    I'm just trying to be realistic here, not alarmist. It's not necessarily bad to lose population. Times change, and we change with them. Time does not move backwards, and the 1950's are gone forever. It is unrealistic to try to re-create the 1950's. In my humble opinion, quality of life is more important than the number of bodies you can count. The 2010 Census promised to be interesting, to say the least.

 

    I find The Banks project in Cincinnati interesting in that the premise is that new residential buildings will attract new people. But, where will these people come from? If they come from another place within the city, then there is no net gain. The same goes for projects in Cleveland, or anywhere else in Ohio. About one fourth of the counties in Ohio are losing population, one fourth are gaining, and one half are stable.  Ultimately, to get new people, you need immigration or births. In Japan, where population of the entire country is peaking now, the politicians are calling for women to have more kids!

 

   

 

   

 

   

With healthcare and College tuition, as high as it is now, we'll never have more kids than we had in the past.. NEVER EVER.

Cleveland still losing people

City could drop below 400,000 next July, projections show

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

Robert L. Smith

Plain Dealer Reporter

 

Seemingly just yesterday, former Mayor Jane Campbell announced a crusade to push Cleveland's population back above the 500,000 plateau by attracting jobs, housing and immigrants.

 

Forget about it. It's even getting late to rally for 400,000.

 

A U.S. Census Bureau survey released today shows that Cleveland's fortunes continue to slide. The city's population is on track to dip below 400,000 by next July -- a number last seen in the early 1900s...

 

 

To reach this Plain Dealer reporter:

 

[email protected], 216-999-4024

www.cleveland.com/census/index.ssf/archive/index.html

 

I really cant believe these estimates, its a bit crazy to think the city is losing population at the same rate as the 1970s... i mean by next year we'll be under 400,000??  does that mean we'll be the size of Toledo by the time 2010 comes??

I believe there was a similar discussion here when these estimates first came out.

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php?topic=8956.0

Alot of people believe these to be way off (You can't just look at data estimates and say this is the population of X city.), especially since these are only estimates.

We spend all this time moaning about the city and inner-ring suburbs losing population, when the solution couldn't be clearer: start regulating new development. Draw a growth boundary, or come up with a new approach. Why is this never seriously discussed in this region? Sure, Republicans  control the state and they're not amenable to regulation. But that's starting to become a tired excuse. Let's band together and demand responsible development. Our regional economy and future depend on it.

 

Can Voices and Choices help? Would a Democratic sweep of the state government help? I'm hoping so.

I agree that we need to have serious discussions about smart growth/development regulation in the region and am surprised that we haven't heard more about it, what with the civic old guard's being suddenly enamored with regionalism concepts. But most of those conversations hinge on making sure that the region as a whole has access to development, infrastructure, etc. Given our historical reluctance to cooperate across municipal lines, it seems that Cleveland's leaders are very hesitant to discuss anything that appears to draw resources toward the central city (whether those resources be education dollars, infrastructure dollars, residents or businesses). In all of the Voices & Choices discussions I've heard, I don't think development regulation has come up a single time.

 

Meanwhile, I think smart growth strategies only get us halfway. It seems that property rights issues tend to draw strong emotions/visceral reactions from a lot of NEO'ites and Midwesterners at large (think eminent domain, residency requirements, etc.). Something tells me that there would be a citizen uproar if we set up an artificial line south of Lodi ... God forbid someone doesn't get to build a McMansion in southern Medina county. I doubt that this uproar would translate to people moving out of the region, but then again, who knows? While I'm all about creating a Cleveland-based smart growth strategy, I think our energies are best invested in strengthening school systems, business growth and amenities that will draw people back to Cuyahoga (or maybe some new people). Sigh. All and all, a pretty depressing article, even after seeing the data a while back.

According to the last figures I saw Cleveland has an estimated population of 440,000 as of 7/1/05. Rand McNally publishes a book with the census estimate that had places like Parma, Euclid and Elyria gaining population albeit by a few hundered people, but growth none the less. Lakewood only lost 500 people. It had the 5 county metro losing .5 percent for the first half of the decade...and .5 percent loss projected for 2005-2010. The entire 7 county Cleveland-Akron metro losing .1 percent for 2000-2005 and projecting a .1 percent loss for 2005-2010.

 

Probably the most shocking numbers were from San Fran. Even counting the North Bay burbs...it's losing population at a rate as fast as the Pittsburgh metro. San Fran-San Jose-Oakland is only going to grow 3-4 percent this decade. WAY below the 1990's/1980's average. While LA grows at it's usual 15-20 percent clip.

Both Boston and Chicago are bleeding as well.

But 8SOG, that's exactly the kind of thinking I'm talking about: Dismissing the idea of regulation out of hand because people won't like it. Sure people won't like it -- unless we begin to market the idea as something important to the region as a whole. Which it is, IMO. Also, I'd argue that we can't strengthen Cuyahoga's schools and business scene *without* creating policies that encourage development in already-developed areas, rather than on greenfields in Medina and Geauga.

 

On a side note, this PD article is pretty lazy. It just rehashes every gloom and doom piece that's been written about the city in the past 50 years, without mentioning, for example, that the central city is becoming marginally more affluent even as it loses population, and that households are smaller today than they were 50 years ago. Population totals themselves are not the end-all-be-all of a region's health. (These points are probably already made in the other thread.)