This is very encouraging. And with all these large projects being talked about as of late, I don't see the trend slowing down. I think we should stop worrying about population loss and start worrying more about built environment loss at this point. Even as the population turns around, there are still A LOT of decaying buildings in our city. We can't sacrifice what makes Cleveland unique. As someone who travels to Texas often. Population growth is never the only answer. Proper planning is more important. Their cities are U-G-L-Y.

Honestly, I wouldn't pop the champagne just yet.  Looking at the numbers nationally, these estimates are just weird.  Almost all cities saw lower than normal growth rates, both versus the previous year as well as against the average annual growth rate for the past decade.  But cities aren't just shown to be growing more slowly, but the cities that are losing are also losing more slowly.  This suggests either that the census estimates are having one of their typically off years which occur in the few years just before the actual census, or that mobility overall is drastically decreasing.  I can't see any reason it would be the latter, so I suspect it's the former.  As for Cleveland, specifically, it's either a glass half full or half empty situation.  Even if the estimates are remotely accurate, you can either see it as a slow down of losses, or a continuation of them.  The city will still lose tens of thousands of people this decade.  It's an improvement, but maybe not time to celebrate just yet. 

Agreed. Cleveland is the only one of the Big 3 to be losing population this decade....

 

 

7 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

Honestly, I wouldn't pop the champagne just yet.  Looking at the numbers nationally, these estimates are just weird.  Almost all cities saw lower than normal growth rates, both versus the previous year as well as against the average annual growth rate for the past decade.  But cities aren't just shown to be growing more slowly, but the cities that are losing are also losing more slowly.  This suggests either that the census estimates are having one of their typically off years which occur in the few years just before the actual census, or that mobility overall is drastically decreasing.  I can't see any reason it would be the latter, so I suspect it's the former.  As for Cleveland, specifically, it's either a glass half full or half empty situation.  Even if the estimates are remotely accurate, you can either see it as a slow down of losses, or a continuation of them.  The city will still lose tens of thousands of people this decade.  It's an improvement, but maybe not time to celebrate just yet. 

 

Cleveland hasn't and won't lose "tens of thousands" this decade. We're on pace to lose around 10k-12k, maybe less. Remember the 2016 estimate numbers were revised UP last year.

Edited May 23, 20196 yr by Clefan98

Another example of how weird these estimates are... the Dallas metro supposedly added over 130,000 people, but the city only added around 2,000.  That's a huge difference.  Sun Belt cities typically attract low percentages of their metro growth, but that's just hard to take seriously.

8 minutes ago, Clefan98 said:

 

Cleveland hasn't and won't lose "tens of thousands" this decade. We're on pace to lose around 10k-12k, maybe less. Remember the 2016 estimate numbers were revised UP last year.

 

Weren't the 2000s also not estimated to be as bad as the census ended up showing, though?  I have a feeling it's going to be the same situation here.  The estimates already show a loss of more than 13,000 through July 1, 2018.  Even if we assumed that the -1,600 from 2017-2018 was accurate, you'd still be looking at a minimum loss this decade of closer to 16,000.  And again, I suspect it's going to be a bit worse.  Where I'm thinking Cleveland ends up in 2020 is a loss around 20K-25K since 2010, and a population between 371K-376K.

Edited May 23, 20196 yr by jonoh81

3 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Weren't the 2000s also not estimated to be as bad as the census ended up showing, though?  I have a feeling it's going to be the same situation here.  The estimates already show a loss of more than 13,000 through July 1, 2018.  Even if we assumed that the -1,600 from 2017-2018 was accurate, you'd still be looking at a minimum loss this decade of closer to 16,000.  And again, I suspect it's going to be a bit worse.

 

There is no proof to support your opinion. Once again, Cleveland will not lose “tens of thousands” as you previously stated.

Edited May 23, 20196 yr by Clefan98

If you look at the five year county estimates, which are stated to be more accurate than 1 year estimates, I think there will be a large revision upwards come 2020. Adding the recent 5 year estimates of counties in Cleveland MSA paints a much rosier picture. Here’s to hoping! 

2 minutes ago, Clefan98 said:

 

There is no proof to support your opinion. Once again, Cleveland will not lose “tens of thousands” as you previously stated.

 

Historical precedent argues in favor of this.  Even if I'm right and the loss was 25,000, that would still end up being the best decade in like 60 years, so I don't think I'm being unfair here.  I think Cleveland is heading in the right direction, I just think people are overestimating how fast that is happening. 

Edited May 23, 20196 yr by jonoh81

I think the evidence on the ground this time around is a lot more promising than in the 2000's. We could arguably count on two hands the level of development in this city between 2000-2010. Sure, historic rehabs downtown were going on, but new construction in the neighborhoods was non-existent. All of us who have lived here through the recession can see the difference. It just feels bigger and more stable this time around. I mean, we are even seeing rehabs and new builds of homes in neighborhoods previously written off.

Just now, jonoh81 said:

 

Historical precedent argues in favor of this.  Even if I'm right and the loss was 25,000, that would still end up being the best decade in like 60 years.  I think Cleveland is heading in the right direction, I just think people are overestimating how fast that is happening. 

 

Cleveland probably won't even lose 15k, your 25k prediction is flat out nuts.

Just now, YO to the CLE said:

I think the evidence on the ground this time around is a lot more promising than in the 2000's. We could arguably count on two hands the level of development in this city between 2000-2010. Sure, historic rehabs downtown were going on, but new construction in the neighborhoods was non-existent. All of us who have lived here through the recession can see the difference. It just feels bigger and more stable this time around. I mean, we are even seeing rehabs and new builds of homes in neighborhoods previously written off.

Exactly, people commenting from other cities have no idea the level of growth we're seeing at ground level. I wouldn't be surprised if Cleveland gains 1k to 2k in 2019 and lands closer to 390k as opposed to 380k.

8 minutes ago, Clefan98 said:

 

Cleveland probably won't even lose 15k, your 25k prediction is flat out nuts.

 

1950-1960: -38,758

1960-1970: -125,147

1970-1980: -177,081

1980-1990: -68,206

1990-2000: -27,213

2000-2010: -81,588

2010-2018: -13,022

 

Average loss this decade: -1,627.  x 2 more years until 2020 = -16,227  This is really the best case scenario for the 2010s. 

However, history shows us that losses actually sped up during the 2000s, and while clearly a lot of good things are happening around Downtown, UC, etc., a lot of the city is still losing and wiping out any gains in those improving areas.  That will take time to reverse, and I just don't see losses being as low as you're suggesting.  I think they'll actually be higher.  My maximum loss projection is still lower than any decade since the 1950s.  I'm not sure why people think that's so off.  I could be wrong, sure, but I guess we'll see soon enough.

 

 

 

 

 

^ we're not losing the same amount of people in 2019 as we did in 2011 tho. Using the average number of 1627 isn't applicable in 2019. 2016 estimates were revised up last year. I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing happened for 2017 and 2018.

Edited May 23, 20196 yr by Clefan98

3 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

Average loss this decade: -1,627.

 

 

 

If you consider that in 2018 there were 560 deaths by overdose, 129 murders, and about 162 suicides (2017 figure), the loss becomes even less significant as a negative economic reflection. It's not the enormous psychological boost any size positive number would be; but the actual damage is very small.

 

I must say I’m rather disappointed that the city continues to lose population no matter how small.  Every year the story is that population loss is flattening.  In a booming economy, and with all the new projects and growth in a select few neighborhoods, it is still not enough to offset the exodus.  Does Cleveland have a holistic approach to stem population loss?  My sense is the city will tread water until the large swaths of vacant neighborhoods on the east side are made more desirable to at least retain residents.  I welcome your thoughts. 

It's a bummer. The city, region really, have tried for decades to make the city more desirable to businesses, residents, tourists, young adults, boomerangs, families, etc, but nothing has really worked. There is some kind of inner city aversion towards bringing in South and Central American immigrants ("they're replacing us!"), and we aren't getting enough Arabs, Africans and Asians outside of a few universities and hospitals.. Europeans certainly aren't coming either. So immigration isn't remotely offsetting the brain drain and population losses.

 

If the city could truly change that mentality, or at least ignore the ignorant sloths who feel threatened by any change, and develop dramatic, and I mean DRAMATIC, changes to bring in immigrants (give them free housing and plots of land, low interest loans for businesses, guaranteed protection in the more dangerous neighborhoods, public schools that forbid gangbanging and disruptions), skilled and unskilled alike, that's probably the most realistic approach to population growth.

 

Better universities would help as well.

Edited May 23, 20196 yr by TBideon

^ It takes many many decades to turn around a city the size of Cleveland. If you think it should've happened by now, you're being unrealistic.

 

We're at the point in time where real growth is near. The 2020s and 2030s are going to be much different around here.

Edited May 23, 20196 yr by Clefan98

5 hours ago, Clefan98 said:

^ we're not losing the same amount of people in 2019 as we did in 2011 tho. Using the average number of 1627 isn't applicable in 2019. 2016 estimates were revised up last year. I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing happened for 2017 and 2018.

 

Annual change:

7/1/2010-7/1/2011: -739 (starting from Census 2010, the loss was -4221)

71/2011-7/1/2012: -1094

7/1/2012-7/1/2013: +239

7/1/2013-7/1/2014: -909

7/1/2014-7/1/2015: -1,602

7/1/2015-7/1/2016: -1,540

7/1/2016-7/1/2017: -2,280

7/1/2017-7/1/2018: -1,635

 

This doesn't show what you're saying.  If anything, the more recent estimates are actually consistently worse.  The greatest loss was the short period between the census and July 1, 2010, which wasn't a full year and is based on the continuing losses of the previous decade.  In any case, this doesn't show a slow down of losses from the start to the end of the decade on an annual basis.

Edited May 23, 20196 yr by jonoh81

^ It doesn't show what I'm saying because your numbers aren't correct.

 

Ex:

2015: 388,072

2016: 387,451

 

How are you getting a loss of 1,540?

Edited May 23, 20196 yr by Clefan98

1 hour ago, Clefan98 said:

^ It doesn't show what I'm saying because your numbers aren't correct.

 

Ex:

2015: 388,072

2016: 387,451

 

How are you getting a loss of 1,540?

 

Check the most recent estimates.  All previous years have been adjusted.  

8 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

Another example of how weird these estimates are... the Dallas metro supposedly added over 130,000 people, but the city only added around 2,000.  That's a huge difference.  Sun Belt cities typically attract low percentages of their metro growth, but that's just hard to take seriously.

I dont see this as strange at all. I've had to work in Dallas A LOT over the past year.  People don't want to live in Dallas, especially downtown, no matter how much they market it.  They want to live in the suburbs.  Garland, Richardson, Carrollton, McKinney, Frisco, Grapevine etc. are where people want to live.  Not in Dallas or DT Dallas.  Downtown Cleveland is much more lively than DT Dallas.  One of the people that reports to me lives in Garland, right near the train but drives everyday, because he thinks the train is filled with "nutcases" and "dirty people".  A friends partner commutes from uptown to Richardson.  I was thinking of buying a condo, downtown and the agent kept telling me I would get more space in Denton.

 

My office is on Akard Street and during the day, there are very few people out and about.  Generally I dont see residents, I see people attending a convention.

 

Anywho, I hope the downward spiral of Cleveland's population is over! 

29 minutes ago, MyTwoSense said:

I dont see this as strange at all. I've had to work in Dallas A LOT over the past year.  People don't want to live in Dallas, especially downtown, no matter how much they market it.  They want to live in the suburbs.  Garland, Richardson, Carrollton, McKinney, Frisco, Grapevine etc. are where people want to live.  Not in Dallas or DT Dallas.  Downtown Cleveland is much more lively than DT Dallas.  One of the people that reports to me lives in Garland, right near the train but drives everyday, because he thinks the train is filled with "nutcases" and "dirty people".  A friends partner commutes from uptown to Richardson.  I was thinking of buying a condo, downtown and the agent kept telling me I would get more space in Denton.

 

My office is on Akard Street and during the day, there are very few people out and about.  Generally I dont see residents, I see people attending a convention.

 

Anywho, I hope the downward spiral of Cleveland's population is over! 

It’s weird because the city limits are so big in Texas.  People make Columbus out to be huge in area, but it’s average for major cities nationally.  You would think there would be places within the city limits that are both suburban and attractive in places like Dallas and Houston, but I guess not.  At least in Columbus, there is both urban and inner suburban growth. 

Edited May 23, 20196 yr by jonoh81

6 hours ago, TBideon said:

If the city could truly change that mentality, or at least ignore the ignorant sloths who feel threatened by any change, and develop dramatic, and I mean DRAMATIC, changes to bring in immigrants (give them free housing and plots of land, low interest loans for businesses, guaranteed protection in the more dangerous neighborhoods, public schools that forbid gangbanging and disruptions), skilled and unskilled alike, that's probably the most realistic approach to population growth.

 

Better universities would help as well.

 

For real? I think the local black population might have something to say about giving away free plots of land to immigrants, seeing how their 40 acres and a mule never materialized...

 

Everything you're describing would be desirable for all people, not just immigrants. If something like guaranteed protection in dangerous neighborhoods and public schools that forbid gangbanging and disruption" was possible, why would the city just reserve these things for new immigrants? Beyond the impossibility of implementing many of these ideas, it seems totally unfair that immigrants would receive these things while people who have been in these neighborhoods for generations would not.This is one of the more head scratching posts I've ever seen on this forum.

4 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Check the most recent estimates.  All previous years have been adjusted.  

I think the losses must be even higher than what you showed in your post.  I see the 7/1/2018 estimate is just over 13,000 people less than the 2010 census population, but adding your numbers up gives a net loss of only about 9,500.

Edited May 24, 20196 yr by jam40jeff

2 minutes ago, jam40jeff said:

I think the losses must be even higher than what you showed in your post.  I see the 7/1/2018 estimate is just over 13,000 people less than the 2010 census population, but adding your numbers up gives a net loss of only about 9,500.

 

I put only annual changes, but the Census 2010 to July 1, 2011 is -4221 people.  It adds up to just over 13,000.

1 minute ago, jonoh81 said:

 

I put only annual changes, but the Census 2010 to July 1, 2011 is -4221 people.  It adds up to just over 13,000.

 

Yep, you're right, I missed the part in parentheses.

6 hours ago, edale said:

 

For real? I think the local black population might have something to say about giving away free plots of land to immigrants, seeing how their 40 acres and a mule never materialized...

 

Everything you're describing would be desirable for all people, not just immigrants. If something like guaranteed protection in dangerous neighborhoods and public schools that forbid gangbanging and disruption" was possible, why would the city just reserve these things for new immigrants? Beyond the impossibility of implementing many of these ideas, it seems totally unfair that immigrants would receive these things while people who have been in these neighborhoods for generations would not.This is one of the more head scratching posts I've ever seen on this forum.

Population gain is conditional on immigration, and Cleveland needs to incentivize people to move to the city. If the existing residents want to sabotage large scale, out-of-the-box approaches to true population growth, then bully for them.

7 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

It’s weird because the city limits are so big in Texas.  People make Columbus out to be huge in area, but it’s average for major cities nationally.  You would think there would be places within the city limits that are both suburban and attractive in places like Dallas and Houston, but I guess not.  At least in Columbus, there is both urban and inner suburban growth. 

All of the major cities in Texas have similar densities to Columbus. The metros of Houston and Dallas are over 3x bigger. Columbus covers a huge area relative to its metro.

43 minutes ago, TBideon said:

Population gain is conditional on immigration, and Cleveland needs to incentivize people to move to the city. If the existing residents want to sabotage large scale, out-of-the-box approaches to true population growth, then bully for them.

This would make more sense if the city wasn’t bleeding African American residents at an incredible rate. I believe the white and Asian populations are actually growing. 

10 hours ago, edale said:

 

For real? I think the local black population might have something to say about giving away free plots of land to immigrants, seeing how their 40 acres and a mule never materialized...

 

Everything you're describing would be desirable for all people, not just immigrants. If something like guaranteed protection in dangerous neighborhoods and public schools that forbid gangbanging and disruption" was possible, why would the city just reserve these things for new immigrants? Beyond the impossibility of implementing many of these ideas, it seems totally unfair that immigrants would receive these things while people who have been in these neighborhoods for generations would not.This is one of the more head scratching posts I've ever seen on this forum.

 

Ya think?

 

Let's keep in mind that T. J. Dow got elected to council.   "What's in it for us?" is a winning platform, and that's not a knock on the current urban population of any race, and it's not even anything that "identity politics" has done more than perhaps exacerbate.

Some wishfully thinking minority "activists" and more naive white people think there's some sort of solidarity among non-white minorities.   But there isn't and never has been.

19 hours ago, newyorker said:

I must say I’m rather disappointed that the city continues to lose population no matter how small.  Every year the story is that population loss is flattening.  In a booming economy, and with all the new projects and growth in a select few neighborhoods, it is still not enough to offset the exodus.  Does Cleveland have a holistic approach to stem population loss?  My sense is the city will tread water until the large swaths of vacant neighborhoods on the east side are made more desirable to at least retain residents.  I welcome your thoughts. 

 

I certainly agree. I know that developers are running up against increasingly hostile block club opposition to ever more density in the hot neighborhoods. And yet we have these vast urban prairies, some of which are near Rapid lines/Opportunity Corridor and yet there atr timid approaches to housing development here by the city, CDCs and developers. If Cleveland is serious about boosting population, then "neighborhood reboot" efforts need to be taken and do so aggressively in areas near the Rapid stations at East 55th, East 79th and East 105th. There are multiple financial tools available and new construction techniques to make mid- to high-rise projects economically viable in these areas.

24 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

I certainly agree. I know that developers are running up against increasingly hostile block club opposition to ever more density in the hot neighborhoods. And yet we have these vast urban prairies, some of which are near Rapid lines/Opportunity Corridor and yet there atr timid approaches to housing development here by the city, CDCs and developers. If Cleveland is serious about boosting population, then "neighborhood reboot" efforts need to be taken and do so aggressively in areas near the Rapid stations at East 55th, East 79th and East 105th. There are multiple financial tools available and new construction techniques to make mid- to high-rise projects economically viable in these areas.

 

That's kind of why I've always said it's best to grow the hot neighborhoods block by block.   Out, not in.

 

Clevelanders are city people, but they are still midwesterners and not too many are going to want coastal levels of density, just as coastal people wouldn't want Asian levels.   

If you can nucleate a new area, great....but it's a lot tougher than growing an existing one.   Growing out also absorbs some of the more questionable areas around the hot ones.  If you can grow two of them into each other like UC and CC did, so much the better.

 

 Does it perhaps qualify as "gentrification"?   Yeah, but in a city like Cleveland the options are that, or more sprawl.    And as you say, we don't lack prairies or near-prairies here.

5 hours ago, bumsquare said:

All of the major cities in Texas have similar densities to Columbus. The metros of Houston and Dallas are over 3x bigger. Columbus covers a huge area relative to its metro.

They’re all lower, actually.  Dallas is the closest, but it’s a few hundred lower per square mile.  Austin is almost 1000 lower. All of the cities are like 100 square miles bigger or more.  Columbus isn’t even near the top of its own metro population peers in terms of city area size. 

2 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

That's kind of why I've always said it's best to grow the hot neighborhoods block by block.   Out, not in.

 

Clevelanders are city people, but they are still midwesterners and not too many are going to want coastal levels of density, just as coastal people wouldn't want Asian levels.   

If you can nucleate a new area, great....but it's a lot tougher than growing an existing one.   Growing out also absorbs some of the more questionable areas around the hot ones.  If you can grow two of them into each other like UC and CC did, so much the better.

 

 Does it perhaps qualify as "gentrification"?   Yeah, but in a city like Cleveland the options are that, or more sprawl.    And as you say, we don't lack prairies or near-prairies here.

 

But we're not necessarily marketing neighborhood reboots to Clevelanders, but to Indians/Chinese/other Asians, Middle Easterners, and others working at the Clinic, their spinoffs, CWRU, light industrial and other growth sectors. Give them quality mid- to high-rise housing next rail stations and bikeways that link them to job nodes and I think these 10-20 story buildings will fill up.

2 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

They’re all lower, actually.  Dallas is the closest, but it’s a few hundred lower per square mile.  Austin is almost 1000 lower. All of the cities are like 100 square miles bigger or more.  Columbus isn’t even near the top of its own metro population peers in terms of city area size. 

Actually, similar doesn’t mean larger. You made the argument that the city limits are so big in Texas in comparison to Columbus. It’s simply not true, especially when you consider them as a % of the metro. Houston and Dallas are just as dense, and Austin isn’t 1,000 lower, it’s 800 lower if you’re going to pick nits. Austin is also significantly more urban in its core than any of the 3 Cs. What do you even mean when you say “peer cities”?  It’s bigger than Cleveland, Cincinnati, Denver, Baltimore, San Jose, Providence, and Milwaukee. Do you specifically mean it’s smaller than Nashville, Charlotte, and Indianapolis?

1 hour ago, KJP said:

 

But we're not necessarily marketing neighborhood reboots to Clevelanders, but to Indians/Chinese/other Asians, Middle Easterners, and others working at the Clinic, their spinoffs, CWRU, light industrial and other growth sectors. Give them quality mid- to high-rise housing next rail stations and bikeways that link them to job nodes and I think these 10-20 story buildings will fill up.

 

Good point, but if that works anywhere new it's going to work around the E. 105th station.   Or by Murray Hill.  Not to the west.

1 hour ago, bumsquare said:

Actually, similar doesn’t mean larger. You made the argument that the city limits are so big in Texas in comparison to Columbus. It’s simply not true, especially when you consider them as a % of the metro. Houston and Dallas are just as dense, and Austin isn’t 1,000 lower, it’s 800 lower if you’re going to pick nits. Austin is also significantly more urban in its core than any of the 3 Cs. What do you even mean when you say “peer cities”?  It’s bigger than Cleveland, Cincinnati, Denver, Baltimore, San Jose, Providence, and Milwaukee. Do you specifically mean it’s smaller than Nashville, Charlotte, and Indianapolis?

 

I really don't get the point you're making here.  There is no correlation between city boundary size and metro size, or NYC would have the largest city boundaries of all instead of Anchorage, Alaska.  The indisputable fact is that Texas cities have some of the largest area sizes in the country, regardless of metro size.

 

And for the record, here are the percentages regarding how much area the city includes of the total metro area.

Austin: 7.13%

Columbus: 7.04%

Houston: 6.75%

Dallas: 4.0%

They're really not that far apart. 

 

Here were the city densities in 2018

Columbus: 4000.6

Houston: 3653

Dallas: 3486.4

Austin: 3160.5

 

And if you think the densities are like this because Texas cities include a lot of suburbia, that may not actually be the case.  Here is the census tract density breakdowns for the entire metro areas and the % of total tracts.

 

30K or More

Austin: 0  0%

Columbus: 0  0%

Dallas: 2  0.15%

Houston: 3  0.28%

 

20K-29,999

Austin: 3  0.86%

Columbus: 3  0.71%

Dallas: 5  0.38%

Houston: 6  0.56%

 

15k-19,999

Austin: 2  0.57%

Columbus: 3  0.71%

Dallas: 12  0.91%

Houston: 9  0.84%

 

10K-14,999

Austin: 5  1.43%

Columbus: 2  0.48%

Dallas: 43  3.3%

Houston: 31  2.89%

 

5K-9,999

Austin: 61  17.48%

Columbus: 91  21.7%

Dallas: 326  24.8%

Houston: 309  28.8%

 

2500-4,999

Austin: 102  29.2%

Columbus: 129  30.7%

Dallas: 447  34.0%

Houston: 332  31.0%

 

Less than 2500

Austin: 176  50.4%

Columbus: 192  45.7%

Dallas: 478  36.4%

Houston: 379  35.4%

 

Total Above 5000

Austin: 21.4%

Columbus: 23.6%

Dallas: 29.6%

Houston: 33.6%

 

Total less than 5000

Austin: 79.6%

Columbus: 76.4%

Dallas: 70.4%

Houston: 66.4%

 

Seems they're not all that different again, with Austin having the lowest densities across the board. 

 

What I meant by peer cities were those with metro sizes within +/- 250,000.  Others may use a different definition.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

Good point, but if that works anywhere new it's going to work around the E. 105th station.   Or by Murray Hill.  Not to the west.

 

Except newcomers don't have the stigma of "Kinsman" or other areas in town that have are in complete reset mode. You and I probably would never consider moving to them because the names have been burned into our memories as places to fear. But newcomers don't have that. Kinsman means as much to them as Hunting Valley does.

Though the city continues to decline, I feel the city is truly positioned for growth in the near future.  One of the reasons, if not the biggest reason why a person will relocate and choose to move here will always be jobs.  The region's economy as of today is much more stable than when compared to the Clinton years, which had the highest levels of regional employment.  The Clinton years were still dominated by manufacturing before NAFTA, which began to affect the regional economy after he left office.  in June of 1990, the Cleveland region had 214,600 employed in manufacturing.  Today, roughly 123,100 are employed in that sector. 

 

After the 2002 recession and NAFTA beginning to have an effect, by 2005 the region lost 50,000 manufacturing jobs which were never recovered. Robotics no doubt played into the job losses as well. Between 2005 and 2010, regional manufacturing employment dropped to 117,500 total jobs.  That's a loss of almost 100,000 jobs in a single economic sector over the course of 20 years.  Of those jobs, to date the region has only recovered 5,600. 

 

In 1990 the manufacturing sector took up 20% of the available jobs within the regional economy.  The number was even larger before 1990, with manufacturing being one of the sectors most affected by global recessions.  Today, the manufacturing sector takes up roughly 11% of the regional economy- which is much healthier for the region in today's world and on par with many other metros.

 

The Education and Health Services sector had roughly 120,200 jobs in 1990, or roughly 11% of the total regional economy.  Today, that sector employs 207,200, or roughly 19% of the regional economy.  Education and Health Care wasn't affected locally by any recession since 1990.  Education and Health Services has taken the place of manufacturing by an almost 1-to-1 basis.    The region IS poised for growth in the future (finally).  There's definitely issues which still need to be addressed- but even with the losses, the sky isn't falling anymore.

 

 

Good data-driven posting! 

Most of Cleveland's 100-year-old-plus factories are obsolete, highly polluted and unwanted. They are obsolete because they are multi-level and lack overhead interior clearances with fewer support columns.

 

Besides, the Warner-Swasey plant has a new destiny:

http://neo-trans.blogspot.com/2019/04/developers-discover-midtowns-other-axis.html?m=1

Edited May 25, 20196 yr by KJP

^ I just comment in another thread about this property not too long ago.  I'm happy to see this will not be razed, these types of structures are just aren't made anymore.

On 5/25/2019 at 8:28 AM, KJP said:

Most of Cleveland's 100-year-old-plus factories are obsolete, highly polluted and unwanted. They are obsolete because they are multi-level and lack overhead interior clearances with fewer support columns.

 

Besides, the Warner-Swasey plant has a new destiny:

http://neo-trans.blogspot.com/2019/04/developers-discover-midtowns-other-axis.html?m=1

 

That gas station concerns me as it certainly has underground storage tanks, the removal of which can be problematic.

On 5/24/2019 at 2:43 PM, KJP said:

 

Except newcomers don't have the stigma of "Kinsman" or other areas in town that have are in complete reset mode. You and I probably would never consider moving to them because the names have been burned into our memories as places to fear. But newcomers don't have that. Kinsman means as much to them as Hunting Valley does.

 

We don't want them moving into areas where they are preyed upon, though.   Any such developments, especially if they are transit oriented, will need assertive policing at least to start.

 

Ever see the Johns Hopkins area in Baltimore?   It may need to be something like that.

Preyed upon? The only ones left to do any "preying" are wildlife.

1 hour ago, KJP said:

Preyed upon? The only ones left to do any "preying" are wildlife.

 

I want to see this area rebuilt as much as anyone, but there is still an absurd amount of violent crime around Kinsman.

On a scale 1 to 10, the Kinsman-East 79th area is ranked at the second-safest level according to neighborhoodscout.com. That area runs north-south between East 79th and East 93rd, north up to Woodland and south to Aetna. It is certainly an oversimplified way to look at geographical crime statistics, but it is show the impact on depopulation on the frequency of crimes.

https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/oh/cleveland/crime

That one small area, which is mostly rail lines, is shown to have low crime.  But it is completely surrounded by high crime areas, including just west of where the E. 79th station is.

 

I'm not saying redevelopment wouldn't help or couldn't be done, but that area certainly still has a lot of crime.

Edited May 28, 20196 yr by jam40jeff

The two rail stations are on the dividing line between the two crime areas. It's so depopulated, that houses barely outnumber churches. Unless the crimes are being caused at the churches, the only crimes that could be occurring here are being imported from nearby areas, including dumping, drug buys, etc. In the areas where the crimes are being caused by the locals, move out the locals. Buy up the few remaining properties that aren't already in the various land banks and start over on a massive scale with no NIMBY repercussions.

 

Holton Avenue at East 79th, 2016

 

Here are the publicly owned properties in two of the areas that are ripe for a "neighborhood reboot"....

 

The East 79th area takes three maps to show everything, from north to south:

 

East 79th publicly owned parcels N by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

East 79th publicly owned parcels M by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

East 79th publicly owned parcels S by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

 

And here's the area north of the East 105th-Quincy RTA station where Knez is buying up land to build houses and the Fairfax CDC is timidly planning a four-story apartment just north of the station. A major lab/research complex is planned on the east side of East 105th by Hemingway Development...

 

East 105th-Quincy TOD-1 by Ken Prendergast, on Flickr

Edited May 28, 20196 yr by KJP