^^I doubt there's a meaningful pattern either way. The least subsidized projects of any size in recent years are all outside of downtown and the most heavily subsidized are obviously the Hilton and CC/MM.

No, I don't think downtown gentrification is bad per se.  Indeed, I think we need it.  But the OP here is not alone in questioning it.  And maybe there are some issues as to degree... I don't know that we want such extreme concentration, such extreme contrast with the rest of the city, as a long term trend.

 

How does that relate to outlying neighborhoods?  Opportunity cost.  Our finite resources have been concentrated into support for residential construction and conversion, much of which has been downtown.  The cost of the work requires most of this residential to be high-end.  And as Hts121 noted, the numbers work better downtown.  It has momentum and demand, which obviously add additional enticement for developers.  Not enough to obviate the need for subsidies though.  Thus the city's lower-income residents are helping to pay rent for higher-income newcomers, while also supporting profitability for developers. 

 

In that sense, "market realities" are what we make them.  As explained in the Steelyard article above, an unprofitable venture becomes profitable when enough subsidies are applied.  This is pretty basic to modern urban development, and it's how local governments get to play a kingmaking role.  Support can take any number of forms, but in the end, money is money.  Cities choose which projects will receive the money necessary to make the numbers work, which means cities largely decide which projects will get built.  And in setting forth their policies, cities also influence what sort of proposals developers will even make.  If you know a city has mechanisms in place to fund A and not B, you're far less likely to approach that city about B. 

 

Anyway, when it came time to renew Cleveland's residential abatement program a few years back, this was raised as the main point against doing so-- that it's essentially the poor subsidizing the rich.  I see validity in that point, though I also see a strong counterpoint in favor of doing it anyway.  So did City Hall, which is why the abatement program was renewed. 

 

The point I haven't seen raised as much, the point I feel strongly about myself, is that residential alone only gets us so far.  Moreover, much of the benefit from residential subsidies is restricted to the new residents.  The essential privacy of residential units limits the trickle-down effect.  I would rather see that same economic force diverted into developments which would benefit everyone. 

 

To me that means addressing the city's retail shortage, with a focus on walkable and transit-oriented options.  To the extent that the city has supported retail, those principles have been ignored.  So... favoring residential so heavily over retail, combined with ignoring mixed-use/TOD principles, has resulted in less liveable, less marketable outlying neighborhoods.  City support is a limited resource and it plays a key role in determining the course of future development.  As such, everything happens at the expense of something else.

No, I don't think downtown gentrification is bad per se.  Indeed, I think we need it.  But the OP here is not alone in questioning it.  And maybe there are some issues as to degree... I don't know that we want such extreme concentration, such extreme contrast with the rest of the city, as a long term trend.

 

How does that relate to outlying neighborhoods?  Opportunity cost.  Our finite resources have been concentrated into support for residential construction and conversion, much of which has been downtown.  The cost of the work requires most of this residential to be high-end.  And as Hts121 noted, the numbers work better downtown.  It has momentum and demand, which obviously add additional enticement for developers.  Not enough to obviate the need for subsidies though.  Thus the city's lower-income residents are helping to pay rent for higher-income newcomers, while also supporting profitability for developers. 

 

In that sense, "market realities" are what we make them.  As explained in the Steelyard article above, an unprofitable venture becomes profitable when enough subsidies are applied.  This is pretty basic to modern urban development, and it's how local governments get to play a kingmaking role.  Support can take any number of forms, but in the end, money is money.  Cities choose which projects will receive the money necessary to make the numbers work, which means cities largely decide which projects will get built.  And in setting forth their policies, cities also influence what sort of proposals developers will even make.  If you know a city has mechanisms in place to fund A and not B, you're far less likely to approach that city about B. 

 

Anyway, when it came time to renew Cleveland's residential abatement program a few years back, this was raised as the main point against doing so-- that it's essentially the poor subsidizing the rich.  I see validity in that point, though I also see a strong counterpoint in favor of doing it anyway.  So did City Hall, which is why the abatement program was renewed. 

 

The point I haven't seen raised as much, the point I feel strongly about myself, is that residential alone only gets us so far.  Moreover, much of the benefit from residential subsidies is restricted to the new residents.  The essential privacy of residential units limits the trickle-down effect.  I would rather see that same economic force diverted into developments which would benefit everyone. 

 

To me that means addressing the city's retail shortage, with a focus on walkable and transit-oriented options.  To the extent that the city has supported retail, those principles have been ignored.  So... favoring residential so heavily over retail, combined with ignoring mixed-use/TOD principles, has resulted in less liveable, less marketable outlying neighborhoods.  City support is a limited resource and it plays a key role in determining the course of future development.  As such, everything happens at the expense of something else.

I suspect the retail aspect is going to prove to be lagging rather than missing.  How Heinen’s does during its first few months will be telling.  If it does as well as most of us suspect, others will move in.  Out of all the aspects of what makes a community, retail is more dependent on private choices and the private sector than business or residential.

 

I don’t think it’s being elitist or insensitive to say that a downtown, in particular one that is gaining affluent residents, is somewhat more important than other parts of town.  Just as a successful neighborhood has a focal point or two, so does a successful city.  In addition, it is the public face of the city.  It’s the part of it outsiders see far more than the rest.  It’s how we’re perceived.

 

This is true for even the most sprawl-conducive city.  As much as I would maintain that a city is better off embracing sprawl, to maintain identity it needs a focal point.  This is not to say that all important events need to happen there.  But the highest profile ones should.

 

I don't know that we want such extreme concentration, such extreme contrast with the rest of the city, as a long term trend.

 

Why?

 

How does that relate to outlying neighborhoods?  Opportunity cost.  Our finite resources have been concentrated into support for residential construction and conversion, much of which has been downtown.  The cost of the work requires most of this residential to be high-end.  And as Hts121 noted, the numbers work better downtown.  It has momentum and demand, which obviously add additional enticement for developers.  Not enough to obviate the need for subsidies though.  Thus the city's lower-income residents are helping to pay rent for higher-income newcomers, while also supporting profitability for developers. 

 

I'm gonna push you a little bit to define "our" again as I think its important.  The City of Cleveland has very little, if any, to contribute to these projects.  The vast majority comes from State and Federal Tax Credits.  The historic tax credits come with the explicit goal of historic preservation, which some consider to be a worthwhile public good in itself.  When we consider that the main funders are the tax bases of the State and Federal Government, this becomes much much less true:

Thus the city's lower-income residents are helping to pay rent for higher-income newcomers, while also supporting profitability for developers. 

Furthermore, I think the net transfer payments flow much heavier in the other direction.

 

In that sense, "market realities" are what we make them.  As explained in the Steelyard article above, an unprofitable venture becomes profitable when enough subsidies are applied.  This is pretty basic to modern urban development, and it's how local governments get to play a kingmaking role.  Support can take any number of forms, but in the end, money is money.  Cities choose which projects will receive the money necessary to make the numbers work, which means cities largely decide which projects will get built.  And in setting forth their policies, cities also influence what sort of proposals developers will even make.  If you know a city has mechanisms in place to fund A and not B, you're far less likely to approach that city about B. 

 

I think this is what happens when we end the analysis at the word "subsidy."  "Market realities," are not just what we make them, at least not as can be dictated by local government.  This operative factor left out here is the scale of the subsidy.  The City's, as well as State funds have been used to close financing gaps in projects that would otherwise be unprofitable or not profitable enough to be built (at least is claimed by the developer: this also excludes the Med Mart and CC).  So while a project downtown may need a tax credit worth 7% of its overall project cost, the other 93% which will be financed by project money - the project in Mt. Pleasant may need 70% of the project cost to be subsidized while only 30% may be financed with private money.  Assuming downtown redevelopment pulls from outside of City borders, the net tax return usually will far outweigh whatever subsidy was provided - especially if the subsidy was not provided by the City at all!

 

So in short, yes public money does distort markets.  But is public money best spent to give a large private investment a proportionally small boost to make it happen or is it best spent trying to nearly completely subsidize projects in seriously battered outlying neighborhoods, many of which have a totally uncertain future?  I think the former.  In many ways its about return on investment.  Public actors want to see an increase in tax base and make an investment in a stable project that going to somewhat reliably function.  If this is your goal, I think investing in Downtown properties is a good gamble but the same cannot be said for investments in Kinsman.

 

These are not even mutually exclusive choices by the way.  The State Historic tax credit program has awarded plenty of money to neighborhood level projects - the City of Cleveland has subsidized plenty of neighborhood projects too - but well applied subsidies usually ride the coat tails of private investment.  Ohio City, Tremont, and Detroit Shoreway have all made great use of tax credits, including LIHTC.  So there is nothing about the tax credit programs that discriminates against neighborhood level projects.  But like I said before, the subsidies most often follow the lead of private market actors who respond to largely private market conditions.

SixthCity, I think we agree for the most part.  I favor downtown development at this stage, for the same reasons as you.  I would still suggest modifying the residential abatement program though, for all the reasons I've described here.  And I would suggest tying all forms of city planning and development assistance to mixed-use and TOD principles.  Those changes would help the rest of the city better capitalize on downtown's success, and help answer some of its critics.

And I would suggest tying all forms of city planning and development assistance to mixed-use and TOD principles.  Those changes would help the rest of the city better capitalize on downtown's success, and help answer some of its critics.

 

I agreeski.

Some population aspects to this article. I've been hearing for decades that growth on the coasts is unsustainable for the same reasons as cited in this article....

 

How Cleveland and the Rust Belt can come back through tech, manufacturing

By Marcia Pledger, The Plain Dealer

on April 22, 2015 at 3:24 PM, updated April 22, 2015 at 4:55 PM

 

...States like Texas, Ohio and Louisiana, offer a combination of embedded skills necessary for new technologies and advanced manufacturing jobs, and that's attracting an influx of young college-educated individuals interested in low-cost, urban living.

 

They're also attracting aging millennials who are choosing to live in suburbs and areas with populations the size of about 1 million to 2 million people, as opposed to places like New York, Los Angeles and Chicago.

 

A recent analysis of 2010 Census data by the Brookings Institution found that the percentage of middle incomes in metropolitan regions such as those three cities has been in a decline for the last 30 years, in part because of high housing and business costs.

 

MORE:

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2015/04/how_cleveland_and_the_rust_bel.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Some population aspects to this article. I've been hearing for decades that growth on the coasts is unsustainable for the same reasons as cited in this article....

 

How Cleveland and the Rust Belt can come back through tech, manufacturing

By Marcia Pledger, The Plain Dealer

on April 22, 2015 at 3:24 PM, updated April 22, 2015 at 4:55 PM

 

...States like Texas, Ohio and Louisiana, offer a combination of embedded skills necessary for new technologies and advanced manufacturing jobs, and that's attracting an influx of young college-educated individuals interested in low-cost, urban living.

 

They're also attracting aging millennials who are choosing to live in suburbs and areas with populations the size of about 1 million to 2 million people, as opposed to places like New York, Los Angeles and Chicago.

 

How do we compete for this latter group with the warmer weather places?  By being a city, region really, that embraces rather than fighting "sprawl".

 

Many say that millenials have an affinity for density.  While I know them better than most "boom-x cuspers" for personal reasons (my girlfriend and the bulk of our friends qualify), I'm not one, so I'll defer on that point.  But I do see that most opt for suburbs.

 

If that's true, it will remain true on a more residual basis.  So what you want to be is a city where people can easily visit the density, perhaps on an increasing basis, without necessarily needing to live in it.

^You're describing the exact strategy the region's been trying for the last few decades. Why will it magically start working now?

Some population aspects to this article. I've been hearing for decades that growth on the coasts is unsustainable for the same reasons as cited in this article....

 

How Cleveland and the Rust Belt can come back through tech, manufacturing

By Marcia Pledger, The Plain Dealer

on April 22, 2015 at 3:24 PM, updated April 22, 2015 at 4:55 PM

 

...States like Texas, Ohio and Louisiana, offer a combination of embedded skills necessary for new technologies and advanced manufacturing jobs, and that's attracting an influx of young college-educated individuals interested in low-cost, urban living.

 

They're also attracting aging millennials who are choosing to live in suburbs and areas with populations the size of about 1 million to 2 million people, as opposed to places like New York, Los Angeles and Chicago.

 

How do we compete for this latter group with the warmer weather places?  By being a city, region really, that embraces rather than fighting "sprawl".

 

Many say that millenials have an affinity for density.  While I know them better than most "boom-x cuspers" for personal reasons (my girlfriend and the bulk of our friends qualify), I'm not one, so I'll defer on that point.  But I do see that most opt for suburbs.

 

If that's true, it will remain true on a more residual basis.  So what you want to be is a city where people can easily visit the density, perhaps on an increasing basis, without necessarily needing to live in it.

 

As a millenial I will attempt explain my generation through my admittedly anecdotal experience. There are a large portion of millenials who want to live in the suburbs, especially those who grow up here in Ohio. Possibly a larger portion in sheer numbers, than the 'urban-loving' millenials we are always hearing about in the news. However, the majority of the creative/ambitious/entrepreneurial segment is very into urban living. (And for most of them, it's not because they consciously love density or transit or walkability or anything like that. It's because they like the attractions that happen to flourish in places that have these features. Like - Lots of choices of restaurants, bars, gyms, etc. Big social/dating pool. Beautiful old houses, parks.)

 

The high school bubble types and white picket fence ASAP types like the suburbs. Ohio will never have problems attracting those types of people. We have a huge supply of them who are born here and are mostly going to stay here just by default. Our suburbs our doing fine.

 

Most of the top notch students of my HS class are off in Chicago or NY or Boston working for startups or big corps or whatever. Better urban areas will help retain and even attract more creative entrepreneurial types, to fuel our economy and keep us competitive with the coasts. This does not mean we need to 'fight' the existence of suburbs, it is not a zero sum game. The city and suburb can coexist just fine. It does mean fighting government favoritism of suburbs though, especially in our state. (Some of that is intentional but some of it is just the inertia of governments.)

Many say that millenials have an affinity for density.  While I know them better than most "boom-x cuspers" for personal reasons (my girlfriend and the bulk of our friends qualify), I'm not one, so I'll defer on that point.  But I do see that most opt for suburbs.

 

Many still do, perhaps even a majority.  But what people usually talk about is the increasing amount who opt for urban living..... at least compared to us Gen-Xers.  I also think that we have established on here that your specific circle of friends has caused you to have some serious misconceptions about the leanings of millenials.

I also think that we have established on here that your specific circle of friends has caused you to have some serious misconceptions about the leanings of millenials.

 

THIS.

I also think that we have established on here that your specific circle of friends has caused you to have some serious misconceptions about the leanings of millenials.

 

THIS.

Many say that millenials have an affinity for density.  While I know them better than most "boom-x cuspers" for personal reasons (my girlfriend and the bulk of our friends qualify), I'm not one, so I'll defer on that point.  But I do see that most opt for suburbs.

 

Many still do, perhaps even a majority.  But what people usually talk about is the increasing amount who opt for urban living..... at least compared to us Gen-Xers.  I also think that we have established on here that your specific circle of friends has caused you to have some serious misconceptions about the leanings of millenials.

 

Or yours have.  The study referenced above talks about two specific groups.

Or yours have.  The study referenced above talks about two specific groups.

 

The proof is in the pudding. If you're sprawling more, you're growing less. So many resources are used to support duplicative sprawl that it sucks the economic life of out your region, creates population donut holes, forces the poor to travel farther to find available jobs, etc. Report after report shows the least sprawling cities are typically the fastest growing in terms of population, economic growth, wealth, etc.

 

Doesn't mean we're forcing suburbanites to live in high-rises. But it also doesn't mean we're forcing people who want to live in high density walkable neighborhoods to choose between Ohio's drive-or-die suburbs and urban areas in other states.

I don't know if that's entirely accurate when concerning some of these southern boom towns KJP. Atlanta, Houston, Dallas are all sprawling and doing decent urban infill while still growing at a fast clip.

 

I think its the younger millenials fresh from school living in the urban areas, then moving to the burbs as they age and start families when things like school district quality become important.

I don't know if that's entirely accurate when concerning some of these southern boom towns KJP. Atlanta, Houston, Dallas are all sprawling and doing decent urban infill while still growing at a fast clip.

 

I think its the younger millenials fresh from school living in the urban areas, then moving to the burbs as they age and start families when things like school district quality become important.

 

KJP may be making a distinction between 1) sprawl as in suburban growth, and 2) spreading out a population that isn't growing, or spreading out a population at a higher rate than the rate of population growth.

 

In NEO we have been losing population yet still expanding outward, that creates the problems he refers to.

Some population aspects to this article. I've been hearing for decades that growth on the coasts is unsustainable for the same reasons as cited in this article....

 

Cost of living....it's what sent me and my family from NJ to the rust belt the Great Lakes.

 

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2015/04/7_of_the_10_counties_in_america_with_the_highest_property_taxes_are_in_nj_study_says.html

I don't know if that's entirely accurate when concerning some of these southern boom towns KJP. Atlanta, Houston, Dallas are all sprawling and doing decent urban infill while still growing at a fast clip.

 

I think its the younger millenials fresh from school living in the urban areas, then moving to the burbs as they age and start families when things like school district quality become important.

 

Yes, exactly, and that’s not really a new trend.  It was happening, to some degree, during the heyday of the Flats. The numbers have increased, but how much of that is an increasing delay in the beginning of families?  It’s hard to say, as it’s an aggregate of individual decisions.

 

However, note that the original story made a reference to older millennials who prefer the suburbs.  As in new people, as well as those “from here” who gave up in advance on CMSD or simply decided they want their kids to grow up with a little more space and a little less cultural diversity. 

 

My point is, and always has been, that there’s plenty of demand and plenty of room (pun intended) for both density and sprawl, and a city than can combine both smoothly is going to have an advantage over others.  It’s Cleveland’s best chance to be a great metropolitan area again. 

 

The key for our region is to keep offering both, so we can attract everyone.  Without lifting a finger, we can easily offer a full buffet of sprawl options.  The other requires a bit more effort, sometimes more than it should.  That's why I like to focus on maximizing the city's urbanity and avoiding sprawl-type development in the wrong places.

We've got lots of great suburbs thanks to billions of government subsidies and interference in the free market, making it artificially cheaper to live sprawling lifestyles while disemboweling the urban land use that was developed largely by the private sector prior to the New Deal era. Now I realize that since we won't be able to take all these government programs away from building the next new outer ring of community which renders passe, outdated or even obsolete the inner ring of communities that came before. But can we at least provide community reinvestment subsidies (rather than feeding, housing, policing, incarcerating, etc subsidies) to existing communities -- both suburban and urban -- until we start growing in population again?

Hmm, all day and no one has posted this yet?

 

http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2015/05/detroit_cleveland_toledo_lead.html

Detroit, Cleveland, Toledo lead U.S. in population loss; San Jose now among 10 cities above 1 million

By Rich Exner, Northeast Ohio Media Group

Email the author | Follow on Twitter

on May 21, 2015 at 12:05 AM

 

...Cleveland's population is now estimated at 389,521, down about 7,000 from the census in 2010.

 

...Cleveland, though sustaining the second biggest drop at 7,176 residents, shrunk by just 1.8 percent. That's a slower loss rate than many other cities nationwide.

 

 

The census estimate has the city declining by 1,635 between 2013 and 2014 from 391,156 to 389,521

While that is more of a decline than the last couple year to year estimates (and we know to take the estimates with a grain of salt), we are still looking at a much smaller decline this decade as compared to the last. These year on year declines could easily be erased by adding just a couple more large apartment projects!

^Yes, good not to read too much into these estimates.  Yes, they said CLE as of 2014 had 389,521 people and in 2013 it had 391,156.  But LAST YEAR, it said, in 2013, CLE had 390,113, so they're clearly low-balling Cleveland. For all we know, CLE could have more people today than in 2013.  But what's more interesting---if you accept the Census numbers as accurate, Cleveland lost LESS people percentagewise than Lakewood, Shaker Hts, Cleveland Hts, and a bunch of suburbs.

^Yes, good not to read too much into these estimates.  Yes, they said CLE as of 2014 had 389,521 people and in 2013 it had 391,156.  But LAST YEAR, it said, in 2013, CLE had 390,113, so they're clearly low-balling Cleveland. For all we know, CLE could have more people today than in 2013.  But what's more interesting---if you accept the Census numbers as accurate, Cleveland lost LESS people percentagewise than Lakewood, Shaker Hts, Cleveland Hts, and a bunch of suburbs.

You can rationalize this any way you want, but it's moreso the trend, and not the exact numbers that need to be considered.  It's unfortunate that the city continues to show decline in population, along with the region as a whole based on MSA figures released a couple months ago.  What needs to be done is anyones guess, but I sure hope to see better job growth and an influx of people in the next decade.  My opinion has always been, jobs and opportunity eventually make cities cool and attractive, not people.  People follow opportunity, and relavant opportunity at that. 

^The trend has been improving, has it not?  Trends like the one we experienced over the last half century take at least as long to fully reverse.

 

My take has consistently been to put an emphasis on quality over quantity.  The region won't thrive until the City thrives.  The City won't thrive without repairing the taxpayer base.  10 high earners > 100 low income dependents from the perspective of the City's overall health.  A better taxpayer base leads to better leaders, better schools, better services...... and all that helps attract jobs.

As long as so much of the suburban stock remains so cheap and relatively intact, I'd expect the city's poorest neighborhoods to continue depopulating. Some of this is just building lifecycle. With such low housing costs in the city, it makes no sense to invest in structural or system replacement of 100 year old doubles and small apartment buildings in most neighborhoods. At some point the backfill of new market rate and affordable housing might be enough to make up the difference, but I think we're still a ways off from that.

Darn! All we needed was for NuCLEus to had been completed, as well as the FEB apartment and we would have been golden.

 

Also to answer the articles question "New York and Chicago are older cities that are growing, what do we need to do to grow?" One word IMMIGRATION. Those 2 cities seem to have much better immigration policies and efforts in place that causes whatever amount of people move out of the city to be offset, not completely but a good part of it. If Cleveland improved our immigration efforts this conversation wouldn't be necessary. I forget which article I read which stated Cleveland does a great job of keeping it's homegrown residents. So once again immigration is key.

Darn! All we needed was for NuCLEus to had been completed, as well as the FEB apartment and we would have been golden.

 

Also to answer the articles question "New York and Chicago are older cities that are growing, what do we need to do to grow?" One word IMMIGRATION. Those 2 cities seem to have much better immigration policies and efforts in place that causes whatever amount of people move out of the city to be offset, not completely but a good part of it. If Cleveland improved our immigration efforts this conversation wouldn't be necessary. I forget which article I read which stated Cleveland does a great job of keeping it's homegrown residents. So once again immigration is key.

 

And Philadelphia is the poster child Cleveland should look to emulate.

Does anyone have an estimate of the number of units added to Detroit-Shoreway since the 2010 census? (or even the entire near westside in general).

Darn! All we needed was for NuCLEus to had been completed, as well as the FEB apartment and we would have been golden.

 

Also to answer the articles question "New York and Chicago are older cities that are growing, what do we need to do to grow?" One word IMMIGRATION. Those 2 cities seem to have much better immigration policies and efforts in place that causes whatever amount of people move out of the city to be offset, not completely but a good part of it. If Cleveland improved our immigration efforts this conversation wouldn't be necessary. I forget which article I read which stated Cleveland does a great job of keeping it's homegrown residents. So once again immigration is key.

 

And Philadelphia is the poster child Cleveland should look to emulate.

Why not be different and do things yourself and be unique?

We're reaping a harvest of bad leadership, bad planning, bad development.  Corruption and fiefdom-orientation remain major problems here, across the city and the metro area.  The good news is that all of these issues have shown improvement in recent years.  Some more than others.  As we continue to fix our problems, more and more people will vote for us with their feet.

 

And yes, immigration is probably our biggest missed opportunity right now.  That needs to become a priority with a visible focus.  Cleveland's mayor has made embarrassing anti-immigrant comments and I just can't see him ever leading the city toward growth. 

Some remarkable data in this article. The full report is available at the end.....

 

Mapping brain gain and loss: New study charts changing faces of Cleveland, Cuyahoga County

By Steven Litt, The Plain Dealer

on June 20, 2015 at 6:05 AM, updated June 21, 2015 at 6:53 AM

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio – Twin migrations are shaping the future of Cleveland and the rest of Cuyahoga County, according to the latest demographic study from the Center for Population Dynamics at Cleveland State University.

 

The new patterns are reversing the "white flight" of the 1960s and '70s, when middle-class residents fled cities and the poor and minorities concentrated in neighborhoods that became isolated from regional economies.

 

The research, which analyzed Census data on income and race from 2000 to 2013, shows that downtown and other burgeoning neighborhoods are attracting well-educated newcomers, often whites, who are drawn by the city's growing medical, service and high-tech sectors.

 

They are, as the study says, part of Cleveland's globalizing, knowledge-based economy, instead of the heavy industries of yesteryear.

 

MORE:

http://www.cleveland.com/architecture/index.ssf/2015/06/twin_migrations_of_residents_w.html

This is interesting and worth the read.  I was surprised that my neighborhood had so many college graduates (Jefferson).  Also, it was surprising that Lakewood has experienced such a population loss since it's retail area seems so busy.  Some of this could be smaller households.  There are a lot more households of one, two or three rather than large families. Some areas are "destinations" and may attract a lot of visitors and shoppers who don't necessarily live in the area. It will be interesting to see how Cleveland develops in the coming years.

This is interesting and worth the read.  I was surprised that my neighborhood had so many college graduates (Jefferson).  Also, it was surprising that Lakewood has experienced such a population loss since it's retail area seems so busy.  Some of this could be smaller households.  There are a lot more households of one, two or three rather than large families. Some areas are "destinations" and may attract a lot of visitors and shoppers who don't necessarily live in the area. It will be interesting to see how Cleveland develops in the coming years.

Very true, and same with Cleveland.  Many of the homes that were built in the City 100 years ago housed a family of maybe 6 or 7 people.  Sometimes more.  Now, a single person, or a couple buy it and renovate.  Either way, that's 3x less people per house today versus the time it was built.  This translates to amenities needed along commercial corridors, or lack there of.  It makes it that much more important that we develop high density housing at key intersections or commercial corridors to increase population in these neighborhoods. The single family homes with 1 or 2 people living in them just won't cut it.

This is interesting and worth the read.  I was surprised that my neighborhood had so many college graduates (Jefferson). 

 

I'm not.  My niece lives over there.  A lot of the Palestinians in the area have degrees, to start with.

I'm not.  My niece lives over there.  A lot of the Palestinians in the area have degrees, to start with.

 

Lots of Middle Easterners, Latinos, Albanians and Vietnamese. I think it's one of Cleveland's most diverse neighborhoods and it's where many immigrants who were middle-class in the old country first settle because it's affordable and pretty safe. Lakewood too.

Not sure if this has been posted yet....

 

How Millennials Are Reviving Cleveland

 

http://www.citylab.com/work/2015/06/how-millennials-are-reviving-cleveland/396572/

This is interesting and worth the read.  I was surprised that my neighborhood had so many college graduates (Jefferson).  Also, it was surprising that Lakewood has experienced such a population loss since it's retail area seems so busy.  Some of this could be smaller households.  There are a lot more households of one, two or three rather than large families. Some areas are "destinations" and may attract a lot of visitors and shoppers who don't necessarily live in the area. It will be interesting to see how Cleveland develops in the coming years.

Very true, and same with Cleveland.  Many of the homes that were built in the City 100 years ago housed a family of maybe 6 or 7 people.  Sometimes more.  Now, a single person, or a couple buy it and renovate.  Either way, that's 3x less people per house today versus the time it was built.  This translates to amenities needed along commercial corridors, or lack there of.  It makes it that much more important that we develop high density housing at key intersections or commercial corridors to increase population in these neighborhoods. The single family homes with 1 or 2 people living in them just won't cut it.

 

That's how a lot of people prefer to live.  Are you saying they should stick to the suburbs if they feel that way?

Considering the vast majority of Cleveland's housing units are in single family homes, where are you getting that idea? Not only that, but in the old first ring neighborhoods (Lakewood, etc.) you find street after street of great single family homes in an urban layout and still very much walkable and connected.

 

The suburbs you're referencing aren't the only place single family homes exist.

I think he was referring to family size. When those houses were built, and even when my dad was growing up, each of those single family homes may have held 6-7 people. Those same houses now are probably only holding a family of 2-4.

I'm responding to E Rocc who asked that if a person wants to live either alone or with only one other person in a single family home that they should stay out in the suburbs.

Considering the vast majority of Cleveland's housing units are in single family homes, where are you getting that idea?

 

Minor point, but it's more like a slight majority.  About 45% of the city's housing units are in multi-unit properties, with a plurality of those in doubles:

http://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ACS/13_5YR/DP04/0600000US3903516000

 

^Thanks for the correction. I was remembering a bigger percentage but couldn't recall where to look that up. I need to remember to go there for stats in the future.

I'm responding to E Rocc who asked that if a person wants to live either alone or with only one other person in a single family home that they should stay out in the suburbs.

 

I'm asking if the OP is saying that.  Because as has been said, that's most homes in Cleveland proper.  We're not NYC or SF and I don't think we should expect to be.

Major U.S. cities experience significant growth in white population, but Cleveland is an exception

September 25, 2015

SCOTT SUTTELL 

MANAGING EDITOR

 

The white population is growing in many big U.S. cities for the first time in years, The Washington Post reports, but Cleveland is a major exception to that trend.

 

Data from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey show that among the 50 largest cities in the United States, “nearly half (24) gained a statistically significant number of whites from 2010-2014,” according to The Post.

 

The change wasn’t significant in 21 of the 50 cities. Just five cities lost white residents, led by Cleveland, with a loss of about 14,000. Other cities with declines in white population were Sacramento, Tucson, Tulsa and Philadelphia.

 

MORE:

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20150925/BLOGS03/150929863/major-u-s-cities-experience-significant-growth-in-white-population

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/09/24/the-white-population-is-growing-in-many-u-s-cities-for-the-first-time-in-years/

 

https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/

Not surprising, given the city's overall shrinkage. 

^Not good... I'm a little encouraged that the declines have slowed a bit from the deep losses of the 80s, 90s and 00s, but the fact we're still losing and leading the pack in losing, is discouraging.  And even though there is growth in areas like Downtown, Ohio City, and University Circle, it's not enough to offset losses in the larger swath of Cleveland... And if we can't arrest deterioration and decline in what should be strong, dense, walkable, transit-friendly areas like Shaker Square and even places like (lower) Detroit-Shoreway, Cudell and Edgewater, the road back to population growth and concomitant economic health will be steep, indeed.

Many neighborhoods are still in free fall.  I don't see race as a major aspect of this, since blacks are leaving in droves too.  I do see a glaring need to reassess the plans and policies that brought us to this moment-- serious course corrections are needed.

Many neighborhoods are still in free fall.  I don't see race as a major aspect of this, since blacks are leaving in droves too.  I do see a glaring need to reassess the plans and policies that brought us to this moment-- serious course corrections are needed.

 

Good point.  Middle class blacks, Latinos and others are just as quick to run from deterioration as whites.  It's a tough nut to crack... I've felt that pols bear a brunt for not being proactive in stemming neighborhood decline, but the people do, also... Stronger areas like Larchmere and Kamms have people who are willing to put up a fight to stop deterioration, even if it's in the form of a Townwatch or similar organization... Sadly, though, in too much of  the city the instinct has been simply to run; and run further and further from the core..

 

I can't discount the loss of jobs or services, too,  such as public education, ... although really, as much as we complain about Cleveland schools, it's really hard to name a city, esp in the older NE or Midwest that's any significantly better off that Cleveland in terms of their schools.

One other thing that's hurt Cleveland is that the adjacent communities that had home values crushed in the recession are now renter communities.  People can leave Cleceland and get a leg up for the family by moving to Parma, Euclid, Lakewood, etc.  better schools, better housing, safer communities, closer to employment...