NPR discusses how young adults are moving back to #Cleveland. http://t.co/mwbefepMVh

 

thats a link to pintrest.  Where is the article? 

NPR discusses how young adults are moving back to #Cleveland. http://t.co/mwbefepMVh

 

thats a link to pintrest.  Where is the article?

 

Here's a recording of the broadcast: https://soundcloud.com/alternate-routes/episode-1-why-young-people-are-moving-back-to-cleveland

 

*Note: Above anything else, I wish people would realize how useless population statistics by municipal boundary are.  The "2nd largest City in Ohio" doesn't mean anything.

^SixthCity--and I apologize to the board--if your name refers to the city's size, Cleveland was actually the country's FIFTH city after the 1920 Census. I've heard the reference to "6th city" before/elsewhere, but we were actually 5th.

 

 

^SixthCity--and I apologize to the board--if your name refers to the city's size, Cleveland was actually the country's FIFTH city after the 1920 Census. I've heard the reference to "6th city" before/elsewhere, but we were actually 5th.

 

You're correct but for some reason, the nickname "The Sixth City" stuck and was adopted by many local businesses and the public at large during the former half of the 20th century.  Obviously being "The Fifth City" would be slightly more impressive but "The Sixth City" has a certain ring to it - don't ya think?

yeah there a lot of postcards from that era with the sixth city moniker

Cleveland was the sixth-largest city for twice as long as it was the fifth city. It was sixth-largest in the 1910s and the 30s, but fifth-largest in the 1920s. Amazing to think that LA didn't surpass Cleveland until the 1930s -- in my parents' lifetime.

Gives an idea where demand is within the City.  Tremont and Edgewater clock in with higher median sales prices than suburban Cleveland.

 

Home prices up across most of Cleveland, strongest in Edgewater, Tremont, Central, Kamm's Corners

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio - Single-family home prices increased across most of Cleveland last year, with two of the sharpest jumps in the Edgewater area on the West Side side and Central to the East Side.

 

These two areas, and a few other sections of Cleveland, rivaled some suburban locations for pricing.

 

The Northeast Ohio Media Group reported earlier that suburban prices in Cuyahoga County increased 3 percent last year to a median of $120,000, based on a NEOMG analysis of county real estate records.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2015/03/home_prices_up_across_most_of.html#incart_river

 

Citywide Property Survey to Begin in May

http://www.clevescene.com/scene-and-heard/archives/2015/03/10/citywide-property-survey-to-begin-in-may

Gives an idea where demand is within the City.  Tremont and Edgewater clock in with higher median sales prices than suburban Cleveland.

 

Home prices up across most of Cleveland, strongest in Edgewater, Tremont, Central, Kamm's Corners

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio - Single-family home prices increased across most of Cleveland last year, with two of the sharpest jumps in the Edgewater area on the West Side side and Central to the East Side.

 

These two areas, and a few other sections of Cleveland, rivaled some suburban locations for pricing.

 

The Northeast Ohio Media Group reported earlier that suburban prices in Cuyahoga County increased 3 percent last year to a median of $120,000, based on a NEOMG analysis of county real estate records.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2015/03/home_prices_up_across_most_of.html#incart_river

 

 

Great news.  Love the comments from the out ring basement dwellers.  Always filled with intelligent insight.

There's a school of thought in the Midwest that Midwestern cities should replicate East Coast cities in every way, including streetscaping and the styles of housing that exist in the downtown neighborhoods.  This is called the Rust Belt School of Ignorance.  Columbus' downtown areas are very dense AND they are very similar to the reaches of Queens and Brooklyn.  Cleveland and Cincinnati's housing stock resemble niches of New York housing even more than Columbus' does, and far more plentiful and diverse, especially in Cincinnati. 

 

It’s true that Cleveland should not seek to emulate NYC et al, but that extends a little bit further to the very concept of density itself. 

 

I’ve become convinced that different people have different tolerances for constant dense surroundings. For most of us it becomes an imposition at some point, the question is “what point?”.  Is it enough to take an occasional break from it, or does the “break” need to be the norm?  Culture and even heredity likely play a role.

 

If I’m right, that means that each urban area’s population will have a different average affinity for density, and therefore a different percentage of its population potentially interested in dense neighborhoods.  This does not impact the effects of poverty, but may make those poorer dense areas more violent.

 

A city being historically dense will have a role.  New Yorkers of course consider crowding routine to a degree that even the most urbanist Clevelander might find uncomfortable. They were brought up that way.  Likewise, some of those who come from other parts of the world don’t have the same concepts of personal space that we do.  This is particularly true in Asia, and Asian immigrants congregate where?  New York, San Francisco, LA, and to some degree Seattle.

 

A city like Cleveland, with a lot of rural influence and a historically established tendency towards sprawl, will have a more limited number of people interested in denser areas.  What that means is its best to build on the areas where it’s working, and embrace and work with lower densities elsewhere.  Otherwise neighborhoods cannibalize each other and blight sets in.

 

What rural influence?? Neighborhoods aren't cannibalizing each other. The demand for them per recent demographic shifts is as yet unmet. There's lots of growing left to do.

 

The only cannibalizing going on are new developments in exurban areas siphoning off residents from older suburban areas which are now filling up with lower-income residents from urban neighborhoods that are being rebuilt for Millennials seeking low-mileage lifestyles and empty nesters looking to downsize. Put development restrictions on to save our established communities and our protect our pocketbooks from over-taxation to support duplicative, overbuilt infrastructure. Such restrictions don't have to say "you can't build here." Instead, they say things like "our priority for spending tax dollars is to maintain what we have already built."

As much as a mouthful this statement is KJP, I couldn't have said it any better. 

 

The only cannibalizing going on are new developments in exurban areas siphoning off residents from older suburban areas which are now filling up with lower-income residents from urban neighborhoods that are being rebuilt for Millennials seeking low-mileage lifestyles and empty nesters looking to downsize.

 

 

What rural influence?? Neighborhoods aren't cannibalizing each other. The demand for them per recent demographic shifts is as yet unmet. There's lots of growing left to do.

 

The only cannibalizing going on are new developments in exurban areas siphoning off residents from older suburban areas which are now filling up with lower-income residents from urban neighborhoods that are being rebuilt for Millennials seeking low-mileage lifestyles and empty nesters looking to downsize. Put development restrictions on to save our established communities and our protect our pocketbooks from over-taxation to support duplicative, overbuilt infrastructure. Such restrictions don't have to say "you can't build here." Instead, they say things like "our priority for spending tax dollars is to maintain what we have already built."

 

You're putting the cart before the horse.  For the most part, people are leaving the inner ring because of the influx of residents whose culture  (as opposed to income or race) they find uncomfortable.  The developments exist because there is demand.  They are not creating the demand.  Homeowners don't tend to move casually.

You're putting the cart before the horse.

 

I took a verbal snapshot of what's going on. Sorry to hear you don't like what's happening.

"Homeowners don't tend to move casually"

 

 

Tell that to 1970s Cleveland, which lost 3 households a day the entire decade for a multitude of reasons.

 

I'm encouraged by the numbers for Central, which I wouldn't have expected.  Central was one of the neighborhoods during the 2010 census which actually grew in population as well.  There is a ton of newer construction in the neighborhood, including for sale housing.  For what the neighborhood has been through in the previous decades, it may have finally turned a corner.  And if Central can, the same may be true for other  perpetually struggling neighborhoods in the city.

^

Tell that to 1970s Cleveland, which lost 3 households a day the entire decade for a multitude of reasons.

 

 

More like 15 households per day, no?

"Homeowners don't tend to move casually"

 

Tell that to 1970s Cleveland, which lost 3 households a day the entire decade for a multitude of reasons.

 

There were a multitude of reasons to move, which were  hardly casual.  Busing tops the list, but there were others such as job losses/transfers.

Or things like the city unable to provide basic services like garbage pickup, working sewer systems, police not responding to emergencies (they're still unable to respond to low-priority calls), frequent property crimes, widespread and open drug dealing, prostitution and other crimes. The schools were spotty, with east-side schools dysfunctional and west-side schools competitive with suburban schools. Busing aside, I worked with people who lived on Cleveland's west side but moved out of the city when school board members canceled all sorts of extra-credit and extra-curricular programs at west-side schools because east-side schools didn't have them or couldn't effectively carry them out. They were concerned with the legal issues of offering unequal educational opportunities, so they reduced everything to the lowest common denominator. Very different today. Schools are encouraged to compete with other.

 

Indeed, as much as we still rip on the city of Cleveland. It is at least able to provide basic services or some local CDCs provide an overlay extra services including security, property maintenance, etc.

So I think this would be the best place to post this...

 

Anyway, I am currently working on a research essay for my English composition class, and you guessed it, my topic is Cleveland. I am playing the devil's advocate in this essay even though I love the city, but this is a problem I believe needs to be addressed.

 

I sent a variation of an email to several people at the city office and at DCA. I'll post below what I sent to Marrinucci at DCA. I haven't heard back from anyone yet.... Any ideas on who else to contact? Or could any of you suffice as credible sources voicing your opinions, or does anyone have any extra facts that may be useful? I posted this here because the problem in my paper has to do with the city's recent population trends.

 

 

 

Mr. Marinucci:

 

Hello, my name is N*** J****. I am a student at Riverside High School in Painesville and Lakeland Community College in Kirtland. Currently, I am working on a paper for my English composition class at Lakeland, and I am hoping that you may be able to answer a few questions for me as well as share your opinion on the subject.

 

Our papers are problem and solution research papers, and we were free to pick the subject to write about. I chose to write about Cleveland. I consider the city of Cleveland to be my home, and when I am out of town and people ask where I am from, I tell them "Cleveland with pride." I love this city, and it is easy to tell that the DCA does too. The work your organization has put into downtown is truly astonishing. The downtown is so much more than I remember it being ten years ago when I was younger. DCA's "You & Downtown Cleveland" video just goes to show how far downtown has come, and I am sure you can agree.

 

Earlier this year when your organization released the downtown population estimate and showed that downtown's population has increased nearly 70% in the last decade and is still expected to exponentially grow further, I was absolutely elated. I thought; Cleveland is finally becoming a "big city" once again, with a growing population and booming commercial activity. 

 

However, I also read the forums on UrbanOhio.com quite frequently, and one thread sparked my curiosity and made me think deep and hard about Cleveland's future. http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,28533.0.html This thread is on income inequality, and Cleveland is mentioned quite often throughout the entirety of the discussion. This made me think with the young professionals and commercial development moving to downtown and a few select neighborhoods like Tremont, Ohio City and University Circle; little development is being seen in the surrounding, poverty-stricken areas of the city where the majority of the population resides. It also talks about the city's declining population as a whole. Could the declining population and the big-city costs that won't change with population, affect the downtown negatively?

 

My thesis for this paper is: If the rapid development of Cleveland continues to be contained to the downtown and a few select neighborhoods, then this gentrification and growth could begin to harm the city as a whole.

 

Could it be possible if the downtown keeps growing and the surrounding neighborhoods keep shrinking that the city could no longer support its vibrant new areas in the near future? Or do you think that the development will radiate out further into these neighborhoods from the downtown? I remember reading about Cleveland's last heyday, and the downtown was supported almost entirely by its strong neighborhoods. Cleveland also appeared to have a much more efficient rapid transit system that reached further into these neighborhoods at this time, with a very impressive streetcar network. If the RTA were to build a better rail system once again, could that encourage growth into other neighborhoods, as the Healthline has done on Euclid Avenue? Currently, are there any other orginizations similar to DCA that work to better Cleveland's other neighborhoods? If so, do you think they could become as successful as DCA? And my final question; where do you see the city of Cleveland as a whole in ten years?

 

Thank you so much for taking your time to read this and I would very much appreciate your answers and your opinions on these topics.

 

-N*** J****

 

*I blocked out my name. you never know who is online...

I see you're new so welcome to UO!

 

Here are some thoughts to your letter:

 

First, your thesis is "If the rapid development of Cleveland continues to be contained to the downtown and a few select neighborhoods, then this gentrification and growth could begin to harm the city as a whole."

 

I wouldn't say that any rapid development is being actively "contained" to downtown and the select neighborhoods you mentioned.  Instead, the development in the improving neighborhoods and downtown is the result of a confluence of factors mostly beyond any central planning effort.  The development you see, while encouraged by the public and nonprofit sectors, is more factor of private demand and the private real estate market responding.  So while there have been some strategic public and nonprofit investments in these neighborhoods, the near west side and downtown faced a very different history than other parts of the City that continue to lose population - mostly, these areas didn't completely reach war-zone level destruction and social problems like the east side.  This, in turn has made it easier to "gentrify" existing west side neighborhoods with good bones than starting from scratch like you would have on the east side.

 

Next, I would take issue that any of the "gentrification" (I don't think it can truthfully be called that) on the west side and downtown can be said to "harm the City as a whole."  The improving market in certain areas can happen largely independent of the worsening of the other areas but I can't think it would serve any role in harming the City.  I would make the other claim, that improving neighborhoods improve the City as whole, through increased tax base, the stabilization of real estate markets, the increase in purchasing power to attract vital retail, etc.

 

You posed this question:"...are there any other organizations similar to DCA that work to better Cleveland's other neighborhoods? If so, do you think they could become as successful as DCA?"  The answer is yes, yes, and yes.  Are you familiar with Community Development Corporations ("CDCs")?  Nearly every neighborhood in Cleveland has a CDC that focuses on neighborhood level issues such as planning, development, and community outreach.  Given the needs of each neighborhood, each CDC focuses on vastly different things.  Some CDCs actively develop property (Detroit Shoreway) while others facilitate real estate development without owning developing anything themselves (Ohio City Inc., University Circle Inc.).  Others are focus on event planning and social outreach (Union Miles, Stock Yards Clark Fulton, St. Clair Superior).  Some do all of this and more, like Slavic Village Development Corp.  Cleveland Neighborhood Progress is also a non-profit that funds CDCs and provides certain strategic services that would otherwise be too costly for CDCs to do on their own.  So the short answer is: yes.  While the DCA does great work, the neighborhood CDCs are second to none in their diversity of goals, resourcefulness, and accomplishments.

 

The reality of (re)development in Cleveland is and will be unevenly spread.  This is not inherently bad or good.  Cleveland is still a big City with strong markets, improving markets, stable markets, weakening markets, and completely dysfunctional markets within its borders.  Some neighborhoods seem to have days of smooth sailing ahead and are seeing clusters of $300k+ town homes developed and sold easily.  Others will almost certainly get worse before they improve at all, which may not be in our lifetime.  There aren't many things you can do within the bounds of a rights-based capitalist democracy with limited funding to fundamentally change this.  We may be able to smooth and sharpen some edges with tweaks to public policy but barring an economic boom or massive population influx, redevelopment will remain a game of inches - which hopefully will get easier and I suspect already has.

 

Uneven urban development is much more of a norm than an exception in similar systems.  All of this largely carries over with regards to population projections.  The near west side, downtown, and greater University Circle population stabilize and grow while most of the east side will probably see population loss within the foreseeable future.  I think however, that development (or lack thereof) and population trends are reactions to a larger basket of factors rather than casual factors themselves.  Most of these factors are well outside any immediate or even long term government or non-profit's (DCA included) ability to do much about - instead, they are tied to much larger social, macroeconomic, and cultural trends.

 

Last, I would say it's important to remember the scope of work certain folks are tasked with.  Jim Marinucci certainly has done a great job with Downtown Cleveland and the DCA.  But his job and mission is focused on just that, Downtown Cleveland.  So while I'm sure he would love to have Downtown surrounded by healthy, vibrant neighborhoods, creating said neighborhoods is not really within his scope of work - and, to me, that's a totally ok division of labor.

 

Also, I think I speak for everyone that an expansion of our RTA rail system would be great - this is largely dependent on..err..hindered rather, by State funding through ODOT.  Currently, ODOT's per capita spending for public transit systems within Ohio ranks among the lowest in the nation.  If I remember correctly, we are in the same cohort as like Montana and Wyoming....  Meanwhile, the vast majority of our tax money goes to highway infrastructure, particularly EXPANDING highway infrastructure!  That's a whole 'nother can of worms with its own thread though.

 

Hope this helped.  I'm exhausted and can barely see straight.  I'll clear up anything half-baked I said tomorrow.

 

Thank you for your help!

My take on downtown, as it relates to the rest of the city, is that it's fine to focus efforts there if those efforts result in a fully functional downtown for the rest of the city to utilize and enjoy.  I worry at times that Cleveland has over-emphasized developing a colony of affluent residents in its downtown, while ignoring downtown's crucial role as a retail hub for the areas around it.  In that sense, yes it is possible for downtown growth to come at the expense of the city at large.  A major city's downtown needs to fill many roles for many residents, not just nightlife and dining for its own, and I believe that providing retail access is a core function of downtown that we have too long ignored.

 

I believe strongly in subsidizing urban redevelopment, but it becomes a bit icky when the entire community's funds are used to create private spaces that are restricted to their own wealthy residents.  These residents have no problem driving to Beachwood or Avon to meet their retail needs, or they may take advantage of numerous online options. 

 

Meanwhile, residents of the rest of the city-- and functionally speaking, its inner ring of suburbs-- comprise the logical market for traditional downtown retail.  These residents continue to face diminishing retail options both downtown and in their neighborhoods.  While some of these areas range from middle-class to affluent, others aren't, and those residents may lack reliable access to transportation and/or internet.  They are dependent on the public transit system that converges downtown.  Regardless, all are told that the city is too poor for any subsidies that might alleviate their comparative lack of retail. 

 

In the one recent exception, the city's leadership chose to pass over downtown and instead create the inappropriately car-centric Steelyard Commons project.  This sharply reduced any incentive major retailers may have had to locate downtown-- now they can put a big box nearby instead, with tons of free parking.  No sense in utilizing our existing transit hub, which connects downtown to the rest of the city and inner ring.  No sense in utilizing any of our grand historic downtown retail structures, many of which are now being "repurposed" away from public access just as quickly as public funding will allow.

Can we at least wait until Cleveland stops losing population before we worry about gentrification? Investment radiating outward from downtown is exactly what has happened. Keep in mind just 20 years ago all of the neighborhoods you mentioned were still in decline. Just follow the development path from downtown to Gordon Square.

 

The east side has been slower to see this growth, but it's also in worse shape.  There are glimmers of hope in neighborhoods adjacent to UC. And a nucleus in places like S. Collinwood that aren't entirely dead yet.

 

My take on downtown, as it relates to the rest of the city, is that it's fine to focus efforts there if those efforts result in a fully functional downtown for the rest of the city to utilize and enjoy.  I worry at times that Cleveland has over-emphasized developing a colony of affluent residents in its downtown, while ignoring downtown's crucial role as a retail hub for the areas around it.  In that sense, yes it is possible for downtown growth to come at the expense of the city at large.  A major city's downtown needs to fill many roles for many residents, not just nightlife and dining for its own, and I believe that providing retail access is a core function of downtown that we have too long ignored.

 

I believe strongly in subsidizing urban redevelopment, but it becomes a bit icky when the entire community's funds are used to create private spaces that are restricted to their own wealthy residents.  These residents have no problem driving to Beachwood or Avon to meet their retail needs, or they may take advantage of numerous online options. 

 

Meanwhile, residents of the rest of the city-- and functionally speaking, its inner ring of suburbs-- comprise the logical market for traditional downtown retail.  These residents continue to face diminishing retail options both downtown and in their neighborhoods.  While some of these areas range from middle-class to affluent, others aren't, and those residents may lack reliable access to transportation and/or internet.  They are dependent on the public transit system that converges downtown.  Regardless, all are told that the city is too poor for any subsidies that might alleviate their comparative lack of retail. 

 

In the one recent exception, the city's leadership chose to pass over downtown and instead create the inappropriately car-centric Steelyard Commons project.  This sharply reduced any incentive major retailers may have had to locate downtown-- now they can put a big box nearby instead, with tons of free parking.  No sense in utilizing our existing transit hub, which connects downtown to the rest of the city and inner ring.  No sense in utilizing any of our grand historic downtown retail structures, many of which are now being "repurposed" away from public access just as quickly as public funding will allow.

 

I was in San Diego this past week and stayed the weekend.  During the workday Friday, Downtown was bustling...and bars and restaurants were packed after work...it was great!  Saturday morning felt more like a ghost town Downtown.  Even with a seeming high residential population, most of Downtown felt empty during the late morning and early afternoon.  Back again to around dinner time it began to pick up, especially in and around the Gaslamp District.  It was packed again lby ate evening/Saturday night.

 

To me Downtown Cleveland mirrors this activity.  I did not notice much retail in Downtown San Deigo, which really extends this comparison for me. 

 

On the order hand, I currently live in Portland, OR.  Downtown Portland has people on the streets all day, everyday.  What is the major difference?  Portland has very strong retail all throughout downtown.  In fact, I would argue it's their nightlife that is lacking. 

 

My conclusion -- retail brings in feet on the streets for a higher daytime population.

My take on downtown, as it relates to the rest of the city, is that it's fine to focus efforts there if those efforts result in a fully functional downtown for the rest of the city to utilize and enjoy.  I worry at times that Cleveland has over-emphasized developing a colony of affluent residents in its downtown, while ignoring downtown's crucial role as a retail hub for the areas around it.  In that sense, yes it is possible for downtown growth to come at the expense of the city at large.  A major city's downtown needs to fill many roles for many residents, not just nightlife and dining for its own, and I believe that providing retail access is a core function of downtown that we have too long ignored.

 

I believe strongly in subsidizing urban redevelopment, but it becomes a bit icky when the entire community's funds are used to create private spaces that are restricted to their own wealthy residents.  These residents have no problem driving to Beachwood or Avon to meet their retail needs, or they may take advantage of numerous online options. 

 

Meanwhile, residents of the rest of the city-- and functionally speaking, its inner ring of suburbs-- comprise the logical market for traditional downtown retail.  These residents continue to face diminishing retail options both downtown and in their neighborhoods.  While some of these areas range from middle-class to affluent, others aren't, and those residents may lack reliable access to transportation and/or internet.  They are dependent on the public transit system that converges downtown.  Regardless, all are told that the city is too poor for any subsidies that might alleviate their comparative lack of retail. 

 

But the government of the City of Cleveland has had very little if anything to do with these trends.  For some reason, I've noticed that a lot of Clevelanders think that the City government has waaay more power and money than it really does.  The City of Cleveland has not created a colony of affluent residents.  The City has and will offer small pieces of financing for larger private redevelopment projects if than can show, through a pretty high burden, that it is crucial to their financing.  This usually comes by way of no-interest or a low interest loan that the City make money on.  Sometimes, the City will give a small forgivable loan that can be discharged if the project creates enough permanent jobs.  Very small grants are often available too for brownfield remediation, storefront improvements, etc. - but verifiably, these are very small pieces to larger projects that are financed by private money.  And these are very small portions of the larger budget for the City, who is more concerned with providing basic services.  All of these funding mechanisms are also available to neighborhood projects and are often deployed there.  The vast majority of public money that has gone to the redevelopment of downtown has been through the historic tax credit program - but that is State money.  And State money well spent.

 

As for downtown retail, I'm not sure what the City is supposed to do about that.  Downtown is awash in retail space, it's not like we need to create more.  Tower City is a full fledged mall on our rail hub - yet they struggle to sign and retain tenants.  This is a market issue that the City government has very little, if any control over.  Outside of Tower City there are still vacant retail spots on Euclid and the other thoroughfares.  Things are much much much better than they used to be but the City can't force retailers to locate in the City core to serve residents - this must be the retailer's choice.  The City could subsidize retailers but such a scheme would be way more costly and risky than the City has the stones for.  This essentially would have to be a year over year subsidy- unlike the developer loans or grants which are given upfront.  Also, could you imagine the political backlash the City would face if it gave a year over year subsidy to retailers?  The cacophony would be earsplitting.

 

What you see downtown and on the near west side, in terms of growth and decline, is mostly the function of private market actors, not the City of Cleveland's government.  The City's core has lost population, and with exceptions of the nascent affluence and growthn in some core areas, most of the inner city residents are still quite poor.  That is the reality retailers look at.  Also, retailers are more focused on located around centers of wealth and population - this is what leads them to the suburbs.  So, the best chance we have at getting vital retail downtown is to increase our household count and purchasing power.  Luckily this is happening.  Getting retailers in the core will be benefit to everyone but they will not locate there because the government does anything for them - in this way, the "gentrification" helps and does not hurt.

 

In the one recent exception, the city's leadership chose to pass over downtown and instead create the inappropriately car-centric Steelyard Commons project.  This sharply reduced any incentive major retailers may have had to locate downtown-- now they can put a big box nearby instead, with tons of free parking.  No sense in utilizing our existing transit hub, which connects downtown to the rest of the city and inner ring.  No sense in utilizing any of our grand historic downtown retail structures, many of which are now being "repurposed" away from public access just as quickly as public funding will allow.

 

I'm not understanding this.  This was a private development project.  The City didn't pick the site, finance construction, or maintain it.  Of course there is land downtown to build retail but this is land owned by private parties who have to decide what to do with it - City leadership can't do much about that.  The feasibility of Steelyard is that it was close to Highway access and had room for parking.  Sucks that that would be so important, but it is.

Significant city funds are used to subsidize development projects.  In addition to construction funding, the city helps developers with land acquisition and environmental issues.  Choices are made as to what types of projects get these funds and what requirements are made (or not made) of the developers.

 

Are you saying the Campbell administration had nothing to do with Steelyard, or the White administration had nothing to do with FEB?  There are signs all over town announcing direct city support for various development projects currently underway.  There are also funding programs used in other cities, which may not be as developer-friendly, that are not favored here.  Alternative choices do exist and they're worth exploring.  I think it's also worth exploring the effects that current and past choices have had on our population trends. 

Significant city funds are used to subsidize development projects.  In addition to construction funding, the city helps developers with land acquisition and environmental issues.  Choices are made as to what types of projects get these funds and what requirements are made (or not made) of the developers.

 

Care to show some examples?  In the past, the bulk of enviro clean up was provided by the Feds, the State, with small help from the County and minuscule (if any) help provided by the City.  Almost all of this has evaporated post-recession.  Where has the City put money into land acquisition, at least on a large scale?  The City and County maintain a land bank to capture vacant and abandoned land - they will give this to developers who want to develop but they will almost always sell if for a price.  The City just doesn't have much money to facilitate development.  95% of development is done by the private market.  The City may set the table but they have very little capital to contribute.  For some reason, City government looms larger in peoples mind that is almost ever really the reality.  City government DOES have great power to obstruct, but develop?  No.

^^What city money went into Steelyard Commons?

FEB does not happen without city intervention, period.  The same is true of Steelyard and, I would venture, of the vast majority of developments happening in Cleveland today.  Many federal and state dollars are directed through the city in the form of block grants.  The uses of these technically non-city funds are chosen by the city.  Again, there are literally signs all over town announcing direct city support for numerous development projects.  None of them are happening in a private sector vaccuum.

The city also is able to tap into federal funds given to projects that meet certain criteria. The 9 for instance was given $6 million from HUD via The city of Cleveland since it has a low income residential aspect.

^^What city money went into Steelyard Commons?

 

Steelyard Commons phase two construction will start soon, after Cuyahoga County OKs bond issue

 

By Michelle Jarboe McFee, The Plain Dealer

Email the author | Follow on Twitter

on September 30, 2013 at 10:40 AM, updated October 01, 2013 at 7:12 AM

 

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2013/09/steelyard_commons_phase_two_co.html

 

"The recession basically killed the growth of every national retail chain in the country," Schneider said Friday. "Burlington had expressed interest, and they were one of the few stores that were growing. The economics of the lease are not very strong economics. We decided it would be worth it to get this thing moving, even though the economics wouldn't be justified on a totally privately financed basis."

 

That's where Cleveland and Cuyahoga County stepped in.

 

The city, which approved a tax-increment financing deal for the project years ago, adjusted that agreement to support another wave of retail building. Tax-increment financing allocates a portion of the new property-tax revenues generated by a project to paying off construction debt. The city added 10 years to the existing agreement, which also spins off cash for the Towpath Trail and nearby neighborhoods.

The city also is able to tap into federal funds given to projects that meet certain criteria. The 9 for instance was given $6 million from HUD via The city of Cleveland since it has a low income residential aspect.

 

So, subsidized housing.  Hardly creating a enclave of affluence.

^^Thanks.  TIFs are definitely a subsidy, but not the kind the city or county could have allocated to a different type of project.  I thought you were complaining about the city's picking some types of projects over others, but I may have misinterpreted. FWIW, there's nothing Steelyard got that the city wouldn't eagerly offer any other project more to your liking. 

The city also is able to tap into federal funds given to projects that meet certain criteria. The 9 for instance was given $6 million from HUD via The city of Cleveland since it has a low income residential aspect.

 

So, subsidized housing.  Hardly creating a enclave of affluence.

 

Well if you knew what the average rents for apartments in The 9 were. Maybe you'd change your tune. Plus this was only one example. Clearly the 9 is an enclave of Affluence in the city.

^^Thanks.  TIFs are definitely a subsidy, but not the kind the city or county could have allocated to a different type of project.  I thought you were complaining about the city's picking some types of projects over others, but I may have misinterpreted. FWIW, there's nothing Steelyard got that the city wouldn't eagerly offer any other project more to your liking. 

 

I'm definitely complaining about the city choosing some types of projects over others.  Absotively posilutely.  And I don't just mean the City of Cleveland but also the County and in some instances NOACA as well.  And I don't just mean with funds raised locally but with federal and state pass-through funds as well. 

 

I attempt to examine these issues holistically.  Too often these discussions get hung up on technicalities that do not meaningfully impact the situation at hand.  Too often they get derailed with this notion that private developers are spending all their own money and have plenary authority to do whatever they choose.  That is almost never true, particularly in an environment like Cleveland.

But I'm still unclear how the City choosing to do a TIF for steelyard commons lines up with your criticism that the City chooses to help finance bad projects at the expense of good ones.  What was the "good" large scale urban retail project that lost out because steel yard got a TIF?  The City can't just decree where it wants retail.  Furthermore, isn't steelyard an example of affordable urban core retail that would have otherwise been in the suburbs?  Granted, it deviates from the urban minded layout I'm sure we would prefer.  It's core neighborhood retail nonetheless.  If Weston wanted to do somethjbg similar on their warehouse district lots l, I'm sure the City would TIF that as well, but they don't.  The city may help, in small part, to finance private deals but it is the private developer that makes the choice to invest, and they rely on market forces beyond the City's control.

 

Also, the importance of technicalities and nuance in real estate development cannot be overstated.  The detailed mechanics of finance has a lot to do with how projects do or don't pan out.

The city also is able to tap into federal funds given to projects that meet certain criteria. The 9 for instance was given $6 million from HUD via The city of Cleveland since it has a low income residential aspect.

 

So, subsidized housing.  Hardly creating a enclave of affluence.

 

Well if you knew what the average rents for apartments in The 9 were. Maybe you'd change your tune. Plus this was only one example. Clearly the 9 is an enclave of Affluence in the city.

 

I'm well aware the rents.  The discussion was about The CITY'S role in private development.  I shouldn't have even responded as HUD (the FEDS) investments in affordable housing have nothing to do with anything here.  The tangential point was that public money to subsidize low income housing development has nothing to do with the claim Substantial City resources are being used to develop for the rich at the expense of the poor.

the development would have happened without the fed's and city's investment as well as assistance in other forms point blank.

Let's get back on the topic of population,Im sure there is a TIF / tax subsidy thread

the development would have happened without the fed's and city's investment as well as assistance in other forms point blank.

 

I think you meant *wouldn't.  Regardless, that's not the issue.  Whether public financing helps complete a piece of the developer's capital stack, the developer still has to have a profitable project at hand.  Of the public sources, the City (if involved at all) is almost always the smallest.  The profitability of the project depends on much larger trends such as population movements (I'm tying this back to the topic, I swear) that the City cannot control.  So once again, the City may help set the table, but private money does the cooking.  Whether the City plays any role in real estate development is not the issue, I'm saying they don't even come close to playing the principal role - they can't and they shouldn't.  Macroeconomics, population trends, consumer preferences, social trends, etc. have 95% more impact on the growth and decline of cities than cash strapped City government's contributions to real estate projects does. 

 

I'm glad you mentioned the Breuer Tower because it couldn't be a better example - County Gov. owned it for years and it sat as a deteriorating vacant skyscraper.  Geis saw the growth and potential downtown and decided to take a risk.  He did get plenty of public financing for the project but he made his decision based on the market, the population influx downtown, and the current consumer trend to move back to cities.  And now we have a successfully completed mega project.  The public sector can offer help but it's the private actor that ultimately does the work and takes the risk and makes decisions based on forces outside of the City's control.

I'm definitely complaining about the city choosing some types of projects over others.  Absotively posilutely.  And I don't just mean the City of Cleveland but also the County and in some instances NOACA as well.  And I don't just mean with funds raised locally but with federal and state pass-through funds as well.

 

Where does NOACA spends it money? You rarely hear anything about them.

 

To NCJ:  the thing to remember about DCA is that they are a Special Improvement District funded by downtown property owners in a specific geographic area (see below).  As such, their interests are aligned with the interests of those property owners, which may or may not impact their view on competing developments in other parts of town.  This is the downside of having each neighborhood advocate only for itself, whether through a CDC or a BID or an SID or what have you.  Population trends tend to outstrip arbitrary neighborhood boundaries, while advocacy groups often cannot. 

 

http://www.downtowncleveland.com/media/238072/special-improvements_map.pdf

 

For example, look at this map of DCA's SID area.  It ends at East 18th and does not include CSU.  CSU does not participate in the DCA assessment because it already covers similar services within its own borders, but this also means that DCA's outlook is not likely to focus much on CSU as a part of downtown.  And yet, CSU seems to represent a major population driver for downtown, a primary growth prospect in terms of both numbers and area.  Would the Greater Cleveland community benefit from these entities having closer ties?  I tend to think so, but that's not how things are set up.  Neither entity is really at fault for this, it's just that each one is beholden to its particular mission and funding sources.

 

I'm definitely complaining about the city choosing some types of projects over others.  Absotively posilutely.  And I don't just mean the City of Cleveland but also the County and in some instances NOACA as well.  And I don't just mean with funds raised locally but with federal and state pass-through funds as well.

 

Where does NOACA spends it money? You rarely hear anything about them.

 

 

I'm open to suggestions about an appropriate thread for that sort of discussion.

I'm definitely complaining about the city choosing some types of projects over others.  Absotively posilutely.  And I don't just mean the City of Cleveland but also the County and in some instances NOACA as well.  And I don't just mean with funds raised locally but with federal and state pass-through funds as well.

 

Where does NOACA spends it money? You rarely hear anything about them.

 

 

NOACA doesn't have much of its own money. Instead, it is a conduit. NOACA is a metro planning and collaboration agency, officially called a metropolitan planning organization or MPO. All metros have an MPO, per federal law, to ensure that diverse transportation needs within urbanized areas are being addressed with federal funds. Before MPOs came about in the 1960s, highways were being rammed through urban centers without local input and transit was being neglected. Prior to MPOs, the only way to deliver federal funds to transportation projects was via state departments of transportation. So NOACA and other MPOs exist as conduits for federal funds so that they are directed at addressing needs which may be unique to that local, metropolitan area vs. needs in exurban/rural areas.

http://www.noaca.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=8046

 

For further info on NOACA money, here's a 282 page pdf from last month. 

 

Back to population trends, perhaps the city's key development driver has been the longstanding tax abatement program for residential.  As is often pointed out, construction costs necessitate a certain (high) price point to seal the deal, even with this abatement.  Federal programs are available to sweeten the pot in exchange for low-income units.  But as we're now seeing with the National Terminal Warehouse, things change.

 

I have no problem with the residential tax abatement program, in itself.  It is aggressive and it has been effective in many ways.  It has helped in stemming overall population loss, in updating the city's housing stock, and admittedly in gentrification.  However, one thing I was getting at above is that restricting this program to residential has resulted in a notable lack of mixed-use development, and a further degradation of retail options that are accessible without cars. 

 

By focusing on single-use development, and by ignoring the need for walkable and transit-oriented retail, this large-scale and city-specific funding program has resulted in several potentially undesirable population trends.  These trends include 1) a spike in gentrification downtown, 2) a corresponding decline of outlying urban neighborhoods, and 3) an inappropriate degree of suburban-style single-use development throughout the city, which structurally favors a car-centric way of life. 

 

My suggestion would be to shift the focus of this program to specifically encourage mixed-use, and possibly to combine it with other new programs that might have similarly positive effects on the profitability of retail in an urban format.

I'm not sure how 1 is negative, or how 2 is "corresponding" to 1.  You think the outer neighborhoods are declining because of Downtown gentrification?

Yeah wait, how is a "gentrifying" downtown a bad thing in and of itself?  By the way, "gentrification" is one of those magical words that no one really seems to have a set definition of yet its invocation elicits weird responses from people.  I thought it meant new  higher-income people moving into neighborhoods and displacing (rarely forcibly) those already there - the moral implications of this are at least debatable.  But in Downtown Cleveland, there was no low-income population.  For decades, there was hardly a residential population at all.  There is no one getting kicked out.  The only true low income buildings are the 3 CMHA properties (Bohn, Allerton, and Winton Manor) that are insulated from market trends.  There isn't even a realistic threat they would go anywhere.

 

So is Downtown Cleveland's improvement really gentrification?  Is such an expanded definition really warranted?  Is there even any harm here?  I say no to all 3 questions.

 

Also, like X said, how does that correspond to the weakening of outlying urban neighborhoods?  A mere temporal correspondence?  Or is 1 a causal factor of 2?

Yeah wait, how is a "gentrifying" downtown a bad thing in and of itself?  By the way, "gentrification" is one of those magical words that no one really seems to have a set definition of yet its invocation elicits weird responses from people.  I thought it meant new  higher-income people moving into neighborhoods and displacing (rarely forcibly) those already there - the moral implications of this are at least debatable.  But in Downtown Cleveland, there was no low-income population.  For decades, there was hardly a residential population at all.  There is no one getting kicked out.  The only true low income buildings are the 3 CMHA properties (Bohn, Allerton, and Winton Manor) that are insulated from market trends.  There isn't even a realistic threat they would go anywhere.

 

So is Downtown Cleveland's improvement really gentrification?  Is such an expanded definition really warranted?  Is there even any harm here?  I say no to all 3 questions.

 

The use of that word is always a sign that urbanization efforts are working.  Its effective meaning has expanded to mean any influx of new residents with enough resources to have other options into any city or inner ring neighborhood.

 

I've said for awhile, based on this revised definition, that a modern American city's choices are gentrification or sprawl.

I would bet more public aid, on a percentage basis, is given to any given development project in he outlying neighborhoods as compared to downtown projects.

I would bet more public aid, on a percentage basis, is given to any given development project in he outlying neighborhoods as compared to downtown projects.

 

Disproportionate to the taxes each pays?