The city was also required by the state to lift it's requirement of city employees to live in the city in 2006. I imagine a glut of homes went up for sale in Kamm's and West Park when that happened. That may have offset any gains measured in this study. Lee-Miles probably took a similar hit with black city employees.

The city was also required by the state to lift it's requirement of city employees to live in the city in 2006. I imagine a glut of homes went up for sale in Kamm's and West Park when that happened. That may have offset any gains measured in this study. Lee-Miles probably took a similar hit with black city employees.

 

And meanwhile, while the employees leave and move to the burbs, the cities delivery of basic services continues to deteriorate.    Anyone have a current employment number for the city payroll?

The city was also required by the state to lift it's requirement of city employees to live in the city in 2006. I imagine a glut of homes went up for sale in Kamm's and West Park when that happened. That may have offset any gains measured in this study. Lee-Miles probably took a similar hit with black city employees.

 

I remember the stats from planning class when that requirement for police to live in the city was thrown out, it didn't affect housing values that much.  Frankly so many of the employees were cheating and living outside the city already anyhow

The predicted mass exodus of city employees did not occur. Many left, but no more than a statistical hiccup in this study. Also, I'd expect a more detailed analysis would reveal some surprising trends demographic wise outside of race, as has been discussed here many times

I remember the stats from planning class when that requirement for police to live in the city was thrown out' date=' it didn't affect housing values that much. [/quote']

 

If I recall correctly, cops were exempt from the residency policy because CPD had trouble recruiting police, so cops were allowed to live in the city or any adjacent suburb.

^that's not correct. But the new law does allow the city to require residency in Cuyahoga or abutting counties for emergency responders

The city was also required by the state to lift it's requirement of city employees to live in the city in 2006. I imagine a glut of homes went up for sale in Kamm's and West Park when that happened. That may have offset any gains measured in this study. Lee-Miles probably took a similar hit with black city employees.

 

Haven't seen numbers recently, but it seems like there's been more exodus from the outer east side than from West Park.  West Park benefits from being larger, easy to get around via road/rail/air, closer to Lorain County and further from blight.

what good is being near lorain county?

^Someday I hope to live in North Olmsted, Westlake, or Bay Village so I can be close to Lorain County.

^Someday I hope to live in North Olmsted, Westlake, or Bay Village so I can be close to Lorain County.

 

Maybe get yourself an apartment in Crocker Park, right above Banana Republic? 

^Someday I hope to live in North Olmsted, Westlake, or Bay Village so I can be close to Lorain County.

 

Maybe get yourself an apartment in Crocker Park, right above Banana Republic? 

 

I wasn't talking about us, or making a value judgment. 

 

Lorain County is where a lot of west siders have moved in recent years, so in addition to direct family connections, it offers a lot of new retail and services.  Compare West Park with Collinwood, Old Brooklyn, Shaker Square or Slavic Village-- city neighborhoods which don't share West Park's proximity to a growth area, and which haven't remained as stable. 

^Someday I hope to live in North Olmsted, Westlake, or Bay Village so I can be close to Lorain County.

 

Maybe get yourself an apartment in Crocker Park, right above Banana Republic? 

 

I wasn't talking about us, or making a value judgment. 

 

Lorain County is where a lot of west siders have moved in recent years, so in addition to direct family connections, it offers a lot of new retail and services.  Compare West Park with Collinwood, Old Brooklyn, Shaker Square or Slavic Village-- city neighborhoods which don't share West Park's proximity to a growth area, and which haven't remained as stable. 

 

West Park is just as close to Medina County, down 71.  Another growth area, along with Strongsville.

And Shaker Square is just as close to Northern Summit/The far south east 'burbs, yet another growth area.

 

I will say West side Cleveland proper is as a whole more stable than the inner East side, particularly East of E. 55th, south of Superior and north of Harvard.

It seems it all boils down to housing stock.  The east side's housing stock is generally older and maintenance is more expensive.  It might be more desirable to urbanists, but not to the middle class families who are necessary to the stability of these neighborhoods.  If I'm not mistaken, West Park's housing stock is more post-war, with central air and aluminum siding.

It seems it all boils down to housing stock.  The east side's housing stock is generally older and maintenance is more expensive.  It might be more desirable to urbanists, but not to the middle class families who are necessary to the stability of these neighborhoods.  If I'm not mistaken, West Park's housing stock is more post-war, with central air and aluminum siding.

 

And better retail options.  Kamm's Corner in West Park has a decent amount of retail and just across the bridge is Fairview/Rocky River with all the suburban chains like Target, Kohls, Home Depot, etc

It seems it all boils down to housing stock.  The east side's housing stock is generally older and maintenance is more expensive.  It might be more desirable to urbanists, but not to the middle class families who are necessary to the stability of these neighborhoods.  If I'm not mistaken, West Park's housing stock is more post-war, with central air and aluminum siding.

 

And better retail options.  Kamm's Corner in West Park has a decent amount of retail and just across the bridge is Fairview/Rocky River with all the suburban chains like Target, Kohls, Home Depot, etc

There's the Harvard Lee shopping center, and just up Lee to Cedar, plenty more shopping options.  As far as housing stock, Ohio City, Detroit Shoreway, and Tremont have just as old, if not older stock than the east side, however people are coming in and renovating those homes constantly.  Lee Miles may be some of the "newest" stock in the city.  Simply put, the East side hoods were inhabited by folks who didn't have the means to care for a home, and the stock crumbled despite it's age.  for example, now were left with well kept homes around Paul Revere school that people still don't want.  It simply boils down to crime, and years of job decline in the region.  Specifically blue collar and manufacturing jobs.  The east side was a magnet for folks that fell on hard times, or became involved in crime circles.  It was forgotten too long, and the prospect of saving this side of town comes with a laundry list of things that need done. 

I've spoken with two people just today who live on the southeast side who are homeowners and plan on moving because they cannot deal with the violence taking place in their communities anymore.  One lives off of Kinsman a short distance from where the five-month-old was killed yesterday.  As much as I love Cleveland, I can't blame them and I don't think anyone else could either.  As much as the city has done to revitalize downtown and some of the city's neighborhoods, the city will again post a loss for the next census- and violence is one of the factors as to why. It won't only be the uneducated who leave for other cities- it will also be those who have the means to own a home and properly upkeep their properties who just can't deal with the madness anymore.

I've spoken with two people just today who live on the southeast side who are homeowners and plan on moving because they cannot deal with the violence taking place in their communities anymore.  One lives off of Kinsman a short distance from where the five-month-old was killed yesterday.  As much as I love Cleveland, I can't blame them and I don't think anyone else could either.  As much as the city has done to revitalize downtown and some of the city's neighborhoods, the city will again post a loss for the next census- and violence is one of the factors as to why. It won't only be the uneducated who leave for other cities- it will also be those who have the means to own a home and properly upkeep their properties who just can't deal with the madness anymore.

 

I hate to tell ya, but there aren't many places in the USA to run to. The grass may seem greener somewhere else but it's at least as blood-stained. Cleveland wasn't even mentioned in this article...

 

Murder Rates Rising Sharply in Many U.S. Cities

By MONICA DAVEY and MITCH SMITHAUG. 31, 2015

 

MILWAUKEE — Cities across the nation are seeing a startling rise in murders after years of declines, and few places have witnessed a shift as precipitous as this city. With the summer not yet over, 104 people have been killed this year — after 86 homicides in all of 2014.

 

More than 30 other cities have also reported increases in violence from a year ago. In New Orleans, 120 people had been killed by late August, compared with 98 during the same period a year earlier. In Baltimore, homicides had hit 215, up from 138 at the same point in 2014. In Washington, the toll was 105, compared with 73 people a year ago. And in St. Louis, 136 people had been killed this year, a 60 percent rise from the 85 murders the city had by the same time last year.

 

Law enforcement experts say disparate factors are at play in different cities, though no one is claiming to know for sure why murder rates are climbing. Some officials say intense national scrutiny of the use of force by the police has made officers less aggressive and emboldened criminals, though many experts dispute that theory.

 

Rivalries among organized street gangs, often over drug turf, and the availability of guns are cited as major factors in some cities, including Chicago. But more commonly, many top police officials say they are seeing a growing willingness among disenchanted young men in poor neighborhoods to use violence to settle ordinary disputes.

 

MORE:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/01/us/murder-rates-rising-sharply-in-many-us-cities.html

^I'm aware of the statistics...  people who have lived in these neighborhoods who say, "Enough is enough" end up bolting for the suburbs- leaving the neighborhoods even poorer since they can afford to purchase a home elsewhere while many others cannot.  One of the people i spoke to was contemplating moving to Strongsville. The "perception" of Strongsville is better to this person than Lee Harvard,which is her current neighborhood. This is someone who grew up on the southeast-side and remembers a time not too long ago when neighborhoods like Lee-Harvard, Union Miles, and Mt. Pleasant didn't have the crime these neighborhoods do today.  She's not alone.  As a sidenote, Lee-Harvard was stable for years, and has one of the highest concentrations- if not THE highest concentration of registered voters in the State.

 

It's easy for us to say, "They should stick it out and take their neighborhood back".  Under different circumstances, I would be one of those people.  But then again, not every neighborhood is facing the same violence as these have- especially with children increasingly in the news who are killed senselessly.   

KJP, the grass really is greener on the other sided often times.  We're not talking about another big city.  We're talking about another neighborhood or a suburb of the same city.  The difference in crime really can be night and day.  It's no exaggeration.  I wish it wasn't that way, but there clearly is a severe crime problem in many Cleveland neighborhoods.  Denying that it is so isn't going to help solve it or trick people into thinking it's a safe area.

Wasn't denying. Was comparing urban settings to urban settings. If you want to compare urban settings to suburban/rural settings, better stay in the city. Fewer children die a violent death in cities (few realize this due to media neglect of car accidents etc which are routine and thus not newsworthy, but urban violence fit the suburban misperception of cities):

 

Why Cities Are Safer Than Rural Areas: 5 Surprising Facts

A new study analyzes risk of car accidents, shootings, and other injuries.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/07/130724-surprising-facts-cities-safer-rural-areas-injury-deaths/

^Even comparing urban setting to urban setting, though, the City of Cleveland is among the very worst in the country. Our center city has far more violent crime per capita than most big U.S. cities.

 

And bringing us squarely back on topic, there is a fair amount of empirical research confirming Oldmanladyluck's anecdotal evidence (which shouldn't be surprising). Larger declines in crime have been pretty convincingly associated with a center city's ability to retain residents. Even through the narrow lens of city center population, crime really is a bigger problem for the City of Cleveland relative to other metro areas.

 

[Edited to make clear I'm referring to the City of Cleveland, in light of the preceding discussion]

Especially in that neighborhood. There are plenty of safe neighborhoods in Cleveland.

^Even comparing urban setting to urban setting, though, Cleveland is among the very worst in the country.

 

If you compare "urban setting" to "urban setting" I think many cities have just as bad if not worse crime than the Cleveland urbanized area, including Columbus.  If you compare city limits to city limits with other cities, it's another story, but we all know that different cities have greatly different levels of urbanity within and beyond their city limits.

 

crime really is a bigger problem for the City of Cleveland relative to other metro areas.

 

Are you talking about comparing cities or metro areas?  You can't compare the city to other metro areas.  If you're talking about the city limits, then yes, it's a problem.  However, many other cities have the same problems in many areas of their own cities as well.  It's just that more of the safer areas also fall within the city limits than you see in Cleveland due to the way the city was landlocked by older suburbs a long time ago.  Comparing inner cities between different cities would reveal that many others have the same problems as Cleveland in many of their neighborhoods.

 

If we're comparing metro areas, I believe Cleveland is somewhere around the average of all metro areas for crime.  It surely isn't one of the most dangerous metro areas.

Yeah, actually Cleveland is usually in the top 10 most dangerous cities in America...

http://kdvr.com/2015/05/08/by-the-numbers-here-are-the-most-dangerous-cities-in-america/

 

And American cities are especially violent by international standards. Even by our closest comparison, Canadian cities, we're incredibly violent. I'm considering buying property in Hamilton, Ontario, a city with slightly more population than Cleveland but has a 5-year rolling average of just under 10 murders per year. That makes Hamilton the 5th most murderous city in Canada! And Hamilton's ranking got inflated by a bad 2013 when it had 15 murders and shocked the city! Normally they have 5-7 per year.

 

And in Canada, a drug overdose is considered a murder.

How does our metro area compare to other metro areas?

Metro area, not city? Good question. I don't think I've ever seen metro-wide crime stats/comparisons. I'll look later when I'm on the desktop PC, not on the phone.

Here's metro area comparisons by Sterling's Best Places list, based on FBI data...

 

http://www.bestplaces.net/docs/studies/crime3.aspx

 

According to its index, metro Cleveland (which the MSA includes Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lorain and Medina counties) ranks 26th out of 100 metro areas. That's very good. It had the lowest/best crime rates of any metro area in Ohio.

 

Greater Cleveland is in the middle of the index in murders, ranks very badly in rapes, middle in robberies, very good in assaults, middle in burglaries, good in larcenies, and middle-bad in car thefts.

 

Surprised to see where Columbus came in on this list. It ranked 88th out of 100.

 

100 Largest Metro Areas (OHIO ONLY)

(Ranked in order from Least to Most Crime)

 

26. Cleveland-Elyria-Lorain-Mentor -- 3,769.5

34. Akron -- 4,172.0

42. Youngstown-Warren -- 4,411.8

46. Cincinnati -- 4,541.5

60. Dayton-Springfield -- 4,928.6

85. Toledo -- 6,040.9

88. Columbus -- 6,233.5

 

If we want to debate this list, then we should probably have another thread for it. This is presented only in the context of discussion Cleveland area population trends.

[KJP beat me to it; but here's some additional info]

 

It's a bit dated now, but here are some interesting numbers on firearm deaths by metro area, broken up by homicide and suicide end grouped by years (most recent is '09-'10): http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6230a1.htm/

 

There are also some old FBI UCR tables out there showing metro area violent crime per capita from a few years ago, which is more on point, though the single year coverage is sensitive to year-to-year volatility.

 

In both cases, the Cleveland metro area looks middle of the road. Seems unlikely crime is driving people out of the Cleveland metro area altogether, except to the limited extent it interacts with household tastes for certain neighborhood types (e.g., people who seek dense urban areas may prefer safer ones in other metro areas). In my post above I was specifically referring to the city proper, which is more relevant to the city-suburb population shifts we were discussing.

Saw some interesting stats, I think it was on Twitter, that something like two-thirds of all Cleveland murders are occurring in Districts 4 and 5 which is the southeast side of the city. Even CPD District 3, which was historically the most crime-ridden as it covered the area from downtown east to University Circle is now one of the lowest.

 

After people move out of the Southeast side, it will leave a hole with lots of vacant lots and abandoned buildings. So more people will move to the next communities farther out. That includes the criminals too. And after Districts 4 and 5, there is no City of Cleveland neighborhoods left to move to farther out. That means that the inner ring suburbs of Garfield, Maple, Warrensville (all middle-class black suburbs today) are next. The source of this movement isn't the crime hollowing out the city. That's the final outcome of the original causative activity: it's caused by the urban fringe being pushed farther out, led by job sprawl. And since Greater Cleveland hasn't grown in population in 60 years, that outward movement drags people of increasingly lesser means behind it. Until finally the back end of that sprawl in the oldest parts of the metro area is where a hollowed out shell is created because the metro area isn't growing. In growing metro areas, that urban center is typically filled with foreign born immigrants who create their own jobs and innovation. Not here though, where more immigrants will dilute the political power base of those currently in charge.

 

So unless we enact urban growth boundaries like Canada, Europe, Japan etc., there are only two options: be more aggressive in attracting immigrants to Cleveland or let the city neighborhoods get hollowed out, tear everything down, and start over. Ironically, it's working between downtown and University Circle. It just took 50 years to clear it out and start over.

It's not surprising that Toledo and Columbus are showing more widespread crime patterns. Those cities do have less concentrated ghetto, but make no mistake, they still have major issues. Toledo has the combination of one of the nation's highest poverty rates and incredibly low incomes ranking near the bottom of the United States. It's also one of nation's biggest drug trafficking and child sex trade hubs. Naturally, this has led to lots of crime in Toledo. And Northwest Ohio as a region is in really bad economic shape. Southeast Michigan and Northwest Ohio is the core of the Rust Belt (with Detroit and Toledo being its anchor cities due to the shrunken auto industry), and while the decline is finally slowing down, that region is still in dire straits compared to the rest of the nation. The Western Lake Erie region has still not shown a widespread urban revival like seen in the rest of the country. Both Detroit and Toledo are showing downtown revivals with recent corporate relocations and robust housing growth at the core, but that doesn't negate what's happening in the residential neighborhoods and some of the inner ring suburban areas. It's the first and second tier of neighborhoods outside of downtown that are in much worse shape and more dangerous.

 

In Columbus, I'd argue Ohio State being within a couple miles of downtown has prevented a ghetto collapse along High Street like seen along major urban corridors in other Ohio and Michigan cities. This pushes crime further out into the city, and the gentrification of High Street is leading to an early version of the crime pattern seen in West Coast boomtowns. Columbus isn't Rust Belt like Toledo, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Akron, or Dayton, but it can't escape the fact it's in Ohio. Even economically healthy Columbus still has a lot of poverty. It's an issue in every major Ohio city.

 

*In the future, I expect suburban areas will be the most impoverished and most violent sections of the United States. California is already like this with its highest crime areas being suburban-developed Deep East Oakland ("The Kill Zone" on the outskirts of the city), Richmond (always one of the gang centers of the Bay), and Compton (the historic gang center of the LA area). Competition for urban housing is much more intense and that housing is much more expensive. This has led to the core urban areas in California being playgrounds of the wealthy. It's the suburban areas near those urban cores that are the most dangerous and most impoverished. The pattern of the West Coast will likely spread across the nation as wealthy young people keep moving to the core cities, leaving suburbs behind. This doesn't fix our real issues of inequality, poverty, declining public education, and a culture far too tolerant of violent crime (while arguably being too harsh with prison sentences for non-violent crimes). It just shuffles it around.

 

In the United States, crime tends to be found in lower income areas. What's happening in Cleveland is similar to Oakland's crime pattern, just without all the high-income population growth and tech wealth. In both cities, there is a long history of violence and young people are committing most of the violent crime. I do think there are lots of warning signs going off in our country right now. Where are all these kids getting guns? Why do these little killers not value human life? I know child poverty is getting out of control with lots of kids not seeing a way out of the ghetto, but that doesn't explain it all. There also is the issue of PTSD related to living in the slums ("Hood Disease"), but that's no excuse for the incredible violent crime rates found in many American cities. Overall, it does seem like people are losing their empathy, and as a nation, we tolerate far too much violence.

 

After living in Canada, it is just shocking to come back to the United States. Canadians love guns just like we do (their gun ownership rate is probably much higher than officially reported), but they just don't have the same violent crime patterns that we do. Culturally and demographically, we're similar nations, but Canada is doing things much better than we are these days. They don't have all these dangerous urban slums with 16-year-olds running around with illegally obtained firearms. They don't have a constant barrage of mass shootings. People handle themselves better up there and have more respect for their neighbors.

 

I don't know what the solution is in the United States, but Canada is likely our best model. What's clear is that we need to change in America.

 

*Without fixing the violent crime issues, the current urban revival could very well be stopped in its tracks, particularly in poorer Rust Belt cities like Detroit, Toledo, Cleveland, Buffalo, etc.

 

It's human nature to want to live in a safe neighborhood, and you can't blame anyone for leaving a high-crime area. No doubt crime has greatly contributed to Cleveland's decline. It's the same story in all of the other Rust Belt cities. The declined economy is not the sole reason for population loss. Otherwise there would not have been much suburban development in stagnant or declining metro areas.

*Also, I didn't believe it at first, but as late as 1990, Ohio had four cities ranking top 50 in the nation:

 

16  Columbus city, OH........    632,910

23  Cleveland city, OH.......    505,616

45  Cincinnati city, OH......    364,040

49  Toledo city, OH..........    332,943

 

https://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0027/tab22.txt

 

Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, and Toledo were all top 50 cities for a very long time. Three of those cities have lost a lot of their status and were overtaken by cities out west and down south. By 2020, only Columbus will be a top 50 city. No other state has as many declined cities as Ohio.

 

It's crazy how much population growth has occurred in areas that are frankly not fit for large populations. Phoenix, Las Vegas, El Paso, Albuquerque, Tucson, etc. shouldn't even exist as major cities. Ohio's major cities have much better assets and adequate fresh water supplies. It's criminal what has happened to the Rust Belt cities, and it deeply disturbs me as an American. A great nation doesn't let so many of its greatest cities collapse. It raises a lot of questions about our priorities and public policy.

 

I want to be optimistic that all of the Rust Belt cities will recover, but I think leveling off with a small rebound at the urban core is the most realistic short-term hope. But eventually, no doubt the Great Lakes will draw people back by necessity. Fresh water is in short supply globally...

 

Once water wars become a real threat, expect cities like Detroit, Toledo, Cleveland, Buffalo, etc. to regain their population as long as people stop treating Lake Erie like a giant toilet. The Great Lakes cities are wholly unique in the world. You've got a lot of former urban powerhouses with tons of fresh water and deep draft shipping ports. The more you travel, the more you realize how lucky that Rust Belt region is to have the Great Lakes. There is no more important natural resource in the world than the Great Lakes.

 

Oil doesn't even come close, and people have fought wars over oil. In the future, we won't even care about oil...

Here's metro area comparisons by Sterling's Best Places list, based on FBI data...

 

http://www.bestplaces.net/docs/studies/crime3.aspx

 

According to its index, metro Cleveland (which the MSA includes Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lorain and Medina counties) ranks 26th out of 100 metro areas. That's very good. It had the lowest/best crime rates of any metro area in Ohio.

 

Greater Cleveland is in the middle of the index in murders, ranks very badly in rapes, middle in robberies, very good in assaults, middle in burglaries, good in larcenies, and middle-bad in car thefts.

 

Surprised to see where Columbus came in on this list. It ranked 88th out of 100.

 

100 Largest Metro Areas (OHIO ONLY)

(Ranked in order from Least to Most Crime)

 

26. Cleveland-Elyria-Lorain-Mentor -- 3,769.5

34. Akron -- 4,172.0

42. Youngstown-Warren -- 4,411.8

46. Cincinnati -- 4,541.5

60. Dayton-Springfield -- 4,928.6

85. Toledo -- 6,040.9

88. Columbus -- 6,233.5

 

If we want to debate this list, then we should probably have another thread for it. This is presented only in the context of discussion Cleveland area population trends.

 

This was exactly my point above.  Comparing city to city, yes, Cleveland will look bad.  But compare metro areas and we don't look so bad.  And also, comparing "urban areas" to "urban areas" we likely don't look so bad either, as places like Columbus would have some areas even within their city limits excluded as they aren't very urban, whereas Cleveland would have some inner ring suburban areas included.

 

Assuming many metro areas have somewhat similar ratios of urban area to suburban area and urban crime to suburban crime, the Cleveland area's "urban area" must not be that bad compared to others based on the MSA stats that show us being 26th safest of the 100 largest metro areas.

 

As I've said before, make Cuyahoga County the city of Cleveland just like Indianapolis did with Marion County and all of a sudden Cleveland would be statistically one of the safest cities per capita in the country, even if no crime patterns changed.

 

For comparison, in 2014, Indianapolis had 151 homicides for a population of over 850,000.  In 2013 (I couldn't find county stats for 2014) Cleveland had 86 homicides for a population of about 390,000 for a significantly higher rate than the "safer" Indianapolis.  However, Cuyahoga County as a whole had 123 homicides that year for a population of over 1.26 million, a much lower rate than the city of Indianapolis, which takes up about 95% of Marion County.

^ It's worth repeating - no one interested in population statistics can maintain a shred of credibility if they compare figures taken from municipal boundaries because those boundaries are wholly arbitrary.  Metro-level comparisons are the only way to get meaningful comparisons and even those come with their problems.

^I think you guys are losing track of the focus of the earlier exchange. When thinking about intra-regional population shifts, metro-level rates are irrelevant. It's true that municipal boundaries are largely arbitrary, but to the extent we care about center city shrinkage at all, it's the center city crime (not the metro crime) that helps explain the pattern. Or more precisely, the difference between center city and suburban crime exposure, which, as jam40jeff's comparison suggests, may be particularly pronounced in Cleveland.

 

Nobody here has suggested the Cleveland area overall has a particularly high crime rate.

You were comparing "urban areas".  My point is that I don't believe Cleveland's urban area has any higher crime than most cities' urban areas.  For example, comparing to Columbus, if you use a tighter definition of urban area, you'd have to exclude many parts within the city of Columbus itself.  If you use a little bit looser definition, you'd have to include many inner ring suburbs of Cleveland to compare to a larger subset of the city limits of Columbus.  Either way, you can't just compare city limits if you're interested in how "urban areas" stack up.  And I think if you do that, you find out that many different cities have similar problems.  It's just that a lot of them can hide behind the statistics that spread their inner city crime out over a larger population number.

^I was comparing central cities in light of the conversation specifically about exodus from the City of Cleveland, but initially used sloppy language, which opened this up to semantic confusion. Apologies. I doubt we really disagree about anything. I never intended to say anything about "urban areas" more broadly. I completely agree that the effect crime has on population shifts out of City of Cleveland neighborhoods is no different from the effect in comparable neighborhoods in Columbus, Indianapolis, or any other relatively weak market metro area where residents aren't constrained by housing costs.

Cleveland is one of the poor performers in this analysis of the cities Americans are thronging to and fleeing.

http://www.newgeography.com/content/005066-the-cities-americans-are-thronging-to-and-fleeing

Cleveland is one of the poor performers in this analysis of the cities Americans are thronging to and fleeing.

http://www.newgeography.com/content/005066-the-cities-americans-are-thronging-to-and-fleeing

 

I wish they would have included a link to the whole list.

Cleveland is one of the poor performers in this analysis of the cities Americans are thronging to and fleeing.

http://www.newgeography.com/content/005066-the-cities-americans-are-thronging-to-and-fleeing

I'm kind of shocked to see Chicago on the list. For such a popular and large city I would expect it to be the other way around. I know they had population drops but I thought they turned it around as of late.

Cleveland is one of the poor performers in this analysis of the cities Americans are thronging to and fleeing.

http://www.newgeography.com/content/005066-the-cities-americans-are-thronging-to-and-fleeing

I'm kind of shocked to see Chicago on the list. For such a popular and large city I would expect it to be the other way around. I know they had population drops but I thought they turned it around as of late.

I'm pretty sure this article is just citing domestic migration...so that may explain why some cities are showing a "decline," so that may be why you're seeing some unexpected cities on that list (like Chicago, NYC, LA, etc.). It doesn't seem like they factor immigration, which is why it is called "The Cities Americans Are Thronging To And Fleeing."

A lot of population gain has happened in the areas surrounding the Loop and north of the river, but the areas south of South Loop are still terribly underpopulated, bombed out, and vastly empty. It's amazing the contrast that occurs over the course of only a few miles when traveling south from the Loop. Those areas are still seeing major population loss and the gains in other areas aren't enough to stabilize it though some estimates show it being pretty close at the moment to a stagnant population.

Cleveland is one of the poor performers in this analysis of the cities Americans are thronging to and fleeing.

http://www.newgeography.com/content/005066-the-cities-americans-are-thronging-to-and-fleeing

I'm kind of shocked to see Chicago on the list. For such a popular and large city I would expect it to be the other way around. I know they had population drops but I thought they turned it around as of late.

 

Almost every major Midwestern and Northeastern metro area has had negative domestic migration or, at best, close to neutral net domestic migration in recent years. The only exceptions have been Columbus and Indianapolis.There's still a large, ongoing migration drift from the north to the lower cost sun belt cites.  The Atlantic's CityLab website had a neat map last year showing the trend in 2012-2013 (see below). As andrew0816 points out, this isn't a list of growing/shrinking cities, because it intentionally leaves out immigration, births, and deaths, which are all very important factors to growth. The Atlantic piece also has maps showing overall population changes, which looks very different.

 

 

http://www.citylab.com/politics/2014/04/2-very-different-migrations-driving-growth-us-cities/8873/

^No surprise that NY and LA had net domestic out-migration. They both are very competitive cities for professional-level jobs that pay enough to live there. The Bay certainly is a "churn and burn" type of place too, but the job situation is better, which is why it had net domestic in-migration. Chicago is interesting since it lands so many Midwestern transplants, but its job market is still overall weak for a first tier city. It's also really falling behind on start-ups. SF is obviously the global leader, but LA and NY now have substantial start-up economies too.

 

The old joke has always been, "In New York and LA, you need to be talented, experienced, and beautiful. In San Francisco, you just need to be two of the three." San Francisco is much more cut-throat and expensive for housing, but in terms of jobs, it's not as competitive as New York City and Los Angeles. Hence this domestic in-migration to the Bay even though a lot of kids end up homeless. New Yorkers and Angelenos are less tolerant of extreme living situations and being homeless. They're more likely to leave. To be fair, being homeless in New York City or Los Angeles is much, much worse than being homeless in San Francisco.

 

Young people move to where the jobs are at, hence the big in-migration numbers for Seattle, Denver, and every major city in Texas. The Front Range in general and some of Texas (Austin) is becoming a back office for San Francisco.

 

*Florida is baffling. Do people still retire there?

 

**Also noteworthy is that two historic Rust Belt cities, Grand Rapids and Pittsburgh, have reversed their domestic migration patterns. A major image change has occurred in those two cities, and I think a lot of it has to do with their low crime rates. I don't consider Columbus or Indianapolis to be Rust Belt cities since they have always been far too different from the Great Lakes cities and never were as big in manufacturing or shipping. The Great Lakes cities and Ohio River Valley cities are more Rust Belt than inland Midwestern cities.

 

I'm still shocked to see negative numbers in Cincinnati though. I was under the impression its economy was strong and the population was booming. Based on this map, the migration pattern looks similar to Cleveland and Toledo, so I guess Cincy still hasn't shaken its Rust Belt label. It's baffling to me considering Cincy's housing quality, but that negative pattern won't last. Cincinnati will join the Grand Rapids, Pittsburgh, and Louisville club. I'd expect a major Cincinnati turnaround within a decade. If Louisville can do it, so can Cincinnati. Just replace bourbon with beer...the Rust Belty Ohio River Valley is starting to recover.

 

***I'm shocked Phoenix and Vegas are still growing. I figured that would have stopped by now since they're not fit for large-scale human life. At least Vegas is fun, but Phoenix??

 

****Also, some notes on California. Almost the entire state still has not recovered from the recession except for San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose. The Central Valley is just an economic disaster right now, and some of those towns had the nail put in the coffin by the drought. Crime in some of the larger, more impoverished Central Valley cities like Stockton is now almost as bad as Oakland, but without the booming economy and wealth. California is not sunshine and rainbows except for when they break through the fog in San Francisco, but then it's $10,000 a month now for a three-bedroom apartment in a clean-ish neighborhood. :| Many native Californians are leaving the state. As the tech economy marches towards Silicon Beach, Los Angeles will end up the best place to live in California for those who aren't millionaires.

 

Middle class kids know this, and are starting to move to Portland, Seattle, and Austin instead of trying to stay in California. No matter what, expect massive population growth in those three cities. These are my predictions for West Coast cities by the 2020 census:

 

1. Los Angeles: 4.2 million

2. San Diego: 1.5 million

3. San Jose: 1.2 million

3. San Francisco: 1 million

4. Seattle: 750k

5. Portland: 650k

6. Oakland: 500k

 

Austin will probably be about 1.1 million. Denver should be 750k.

 

In 1950, Cleveland was larger than all of these cities except Los Angeles. So yes, this western migration is very real and it's still happening on a very large scale.

Houston is going to see a drop this year, due to oil prices.  There have been nearly 100,000 layoffs

^Yeah, I think Houston is completely screwed in the future. Oil will drop off a cliff as Gen Y gives up cars, not to mention we will barely be using any oil in 10 years to power cars. Americans just won't be driving as much in the future, and when they buy, they'll be buying electric. But that's not the only reason Houston is screwed. It also is arguably the most sprawled city in Texas, which is really saying something. It's flat and not on the water either, so it has few natural features to attract people to it. They built it in a terrible location. Its weather is also brutal. It grew so big because of jobs, period. For similar reasons, Calgary is also screwed, but at least it's by the Canadian Rockies. Calgary will maintain population because it's near some gorgeous resort areas (similar to the situation in Denver and Salt Lake City). Ski bums love cities by mountains that get a lot of snow. What will attract people to an ugly, aging, oil-dependent suburban town with some skyscrapers in the middle like Houston?

 

Houston is the next Detroit or Cleveland, but it's going to be much worse because Detroit and Cleveland used to be world class cities (and they have the urban bones to be great again). Houston is going to end up as some sort of Mad Max dystopia. If I lived there, I'd be trying to get out right now. Those kind of layoffs only lead to trouble.

 

*Austin, San Antonio, and Dallas will continue to develop and see more urban infill. The explosion in Austin will be the most dramatic. It all has ties to the Bay. SF tech loves Austin, so Austin will grow for decades. Ditto with Seattle and Portland.

^Yeah, I think Houston is completely screwed in the future. Oil will drop off a cliff as Gen Y gives up cars, not to mention we will barely be using any oil in 10 years to power cars. Americans just won't be driving as much in the future, and when they buy, they'll be buying electric. But that's not the only reason Houston is screwed. It also is arguably the most sprawled city in Texas, which is really saying something. It's flat and not on the water either, so it has few natural features to attract people to it. They built it in a terrible location. Its weather is also brutal. It grew so big because of jobs, period. For similar reasons, Calgary is also screwed, but at least it's by the Canadian Rockies. Calgary will maintain population because it's near some gorgeous resort areas (similar to the situation in Denver and Salt Lake City). Ski bums love cities by mountains that get a lot of snow. What will attract people to an ugly, aging, oil-dependent suburban town with some skyscrapers in the middle like Houston?

 

Houston is the next Detroit or Cleveland, but it's going to be much worse because Detroit and Cleveland used to be world class cities (and they have the urban bones to be great again). Houston is going to end up as some sort of Mad Max dystopia. If I lived there, I'd be trying to get out right now. Those kind of layoffs only lead to trouble.

 

*Austin, San Antonio, and Dallas will continue to develop and see more urban infill. The explosion in Austin will be the most dramatic. It all has ties to the Bay. SF tech loves Austin, so Austin will grow for decades. Ditto with Seattle and Portland.

 

Houston has already weathered many booms and busts.  I remember going there as a child and my parent's friends lived in a McMansion neighborhood were every third house stood empty and unsellable, yet they were building new homes right up the street.  Houston is a strange place for sure....

Since I'm the one who took us off topic, I'll apologize.

 

Let's get our focus back on the best location in the nation

^^I know it has, but I think this time is different because of the generational shift taking place in Gen Y and Gen Z. Not to mention future energy sources are being developed in the Bay, not Houston. It's an old economy city not keeping up with the times.

 

I think every oil-heavy city on earth is going to be in deep trouble. Calgary should be thanking its lucky stars it's near Banff and other mountain resorts so it can become a tourist town.

 

*Also keep in mind that Texas has captured more Ohioans than just about any other state. The book "Someplace Like America" chronicled this in depth. Ever since the 1982 recession, hundreds of thousands of Ohioans have been pouring into Texas. The collapse of Houston's economy could very well lead a reverse migration that repopulates Ohio cities.

 

Now back to Cleveland...

 

In ten years, I have no doubt cities like Cleveland will be in better shape than Houston. Cleveland is probably the greatest long-term investment opportunity in America right now...vastly underutilized mass transit, cheap historic housing, deep draft shipping port, Lake Erie, Cleveland Clinic, vital Amtrak line with HSR potential, good cultural institutions left over from the glory days, etc.

 

It's only a matter of time until Ohio's major cities besides Columbus start booming again. They're good alternatives to saltwater cities and I've got to bank on Great Lakes cities due to the impending global water crisis and the insane cost of desalination (which doesn't look to be getting much cheaper). You're going to see some in-migration and immigration by necessity to the Great Lakes cities. Cleveland's location near the center of the region makes its recovery almost a sure bet. I think you'll see Detroit and Cleveland boom first, and then Toledo, Erie, and Buffalo.

 

**Also, I'm basing this on the assumption that Lake Erie is cleaned up again.

Here's metro area comparisons by Sterling's Best Places list, based on FBI data...

 

http://www.bestplaces.net/docs/studies/crime3.aspx

 

According to its index, metro Cleveland (which the MSA includes Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lorain and Medina counties) ranks 26th out of 100 metro areas. That's very good. It had the lowest/best crime rates of any metro area in Ohio.

 

Greater Cleveland is in the middle of the index in murders, ranks very badly in rapes, middle in robberies, very good in assaults, middle in burglaries, good in larcenies, and middle-bad in car thefts.

 

Surprised to see where Columbus came in on this list. It ranked 88th out of 100.

 

100 Largest Metro Areas (OHIO ONLY)

(Ranked in order from Least to Most Crime)

 

26. Cleveland-Elyria-Lorain-Mentor -- 3,769.5

34. Akron -- 4,172.0

42. Youngstown-Warren -- 4,411.8

46. Cincinnati -- 4,541.5

60. Dayton-Springfield -- 4,928.6

85. Toledo -- 6,040.9

88. Columbus -- 6,233.5

 

If we want to debate this list, then we should probably have another thread for it. This is presented only in the context of discussion Cleveland area population trends.

 

You should never have posted this in the Cleveland population thread to begin with.  There is a Cleveland crime thread. It should not be discussed here, it should be moved there. Shame on the mods here(okay, maybe not since I did not even bother to report it or complain about it.  :oops:  ).