At the risk of this thread turning into a City of Cleveland Parks thread, I wonder if any serious consideration could be given to turning the entire parks and rec operation over to the Metroparks.  I can't stop congratulating them on the turn around they've achieved at Edgewater.    I wonder what they could do if given the money and resources to at least maintain and operate Halloran, Luke Easter, etc....

 

We would go to Edgewater Park more often if it had a playground. A park of that size should have a playground at least comparable to the old playground at Lakewood Park, let alone the new one that's under construction. But I'd love to have a playground like that within walking distance of my home (or better still, something indoor -- the Fifth Church would have been perfect for it, but playgrounds don't make enough money to be sustained privately). It's why my wife misses the children's amenities she had in Ukraine (and that most were free and within a short walk). Everything here seems so far away to her -- driving 20 minutes for anything just blows her mind. Good thing we don't live in an outer suburb....

 

That sounds like my fiance, except we don't have kids and she complains that living in the city of Cleveland she has to drive 20 minutes to get to everything she likes (Crocker Park, etc).

Right on cue, this article on Next City:

 

City Park Advocates to Get More Power in 2017

 

https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/cities-park-access-big-data-tool

I grew up right near several parks, but honestly can't remember spending a lot of my childhood at them.  Most of my play time was spent in the front and back yards of my neighbors, along with an occasional game of street football.

I grew up right near several parks, but honestly can't remember spending a lot of my childhood at them.  Most of my play time was spent in the front and back yards of my neighbors, along with an occasional game of street football.

Same.

I grew up right near several parks, but honestly can't remember spending a lot of my childhood at them.  Most of my play time was spent in the front and back yards of my neighbors, along with an occasional game of street football.

Same.

 

Agreed--although I have to admit, once I turned 16 with a car and thoughts turned to girls rather than baseball, the Metroparks were a great hang... ;)

I grew up right near several parks, but honestly can't remember spending a lot of my childhood at them.  Most of my play time was spent in the front and back yards of my neighbors, along with an occasional game of street football.

 

Do you think your experience might have been different had you grown up in a 2-4 unit building on a tiny lot with barely a yard to speak of, like many of the neighborhoods where these vacancies are occurring?

 

I'm not sure how much benefit there would be to formally creating dozens of small parks in deteriorating neighborhoods. The upkeep costs would be enormous and many empty lots serve as informal parkland already. The one thing that might interest me more are opportunities to create large natural spaces, especially in the Eastern and Southeastern parts of the city. The areas from 93rd Street east to Lee is just one big bland, featureless smear of meh pre-war sprawl, just builder subdivision after builder subdivision. These neighborhoods are hemorrhaging population now and banking contiguous empty land to create a more interesting landscape isn't going to change anything in that regards in the near terms, except maybe block more of the low density type of new development that has been popping up all over Central. And even then there will be plenty of vacant lots to go around.

I agree that larger parks are more effective, but Luke Easter is already over there and is one of the biggest and busiest parks we have.

 

"Prewar sprawl" is a funny term, because I don't see how prewar neighborhoods share many characteristics with sprawl.  Back then we designed communities properly and I think it's important to recognize that as we move forward. The SE part of town has been battered by crime and job loss but I don't think it needs to be reinvented.  What we need to do is fix up Union Avenue and get some businesses open there.  The area is neither bland nor featureless, but it's absorbed more than its share of economic blight and that has to be directly addressed. Its biggest problem is people constantly writing it off as hopeless. 

I grew up right near several parks, but honestly can't remember spending a lot of my childhood at them.  Most of my play time was spent in the front and back yards of my neighbors, along with an occasional game of street football.

 

Do you think your experience might have been different had you grown up in a 2-4 unit building on a tiny lot with barely a yard to speak of, like many of the neighborhoods where these vacancies are occurring?

 

Perhaps, but my house and those of my neighbors were on what I would consider "tiny lots with barely a yard to speak of."  They were very much in line with, or smaller, than what you see in the vast majority of Cleveland proper...... hence why we played football in the street as opposed to someone's yard.  We did, of course, have the benefit of being on a side street.  Close quarters also made things more interesting at times.  I can recall "the back way", which was a path we had carved out behind the garages separating the rears or abutting lots.  I don't think I would even fit back there now.  And it's not like we never went to the park, but we probably spent more time in the nearby ravine or just riding around on our bikes trying to pop wheelies, do endoes(?), and jump the curbs.  The point of my post was not to diminish the importance of parks, but simply to note that they are not a pre-requisite to kids having something to do for fun other than video games.  A good group of neighborhood kids can make fun without swing-sets and see-saws 

On my street in summertime it resembles the little rascals; there are between 6 and 12 kids that all play together, running across front yards. Usually there are several moms camped out on a front porch or two watching over everything. No giant plastic playground blob needed.

 

They have bikes, waterguns, sidewalk chalk, hula hoops, basketballs, soccer balls, backyard pools, and probably 100 other things I'm missing. No park needed.

 

At least to me it feels like this has probably gone every summer since the neighborhood was built in the 1920s.

I grew up right near several parks, but honestly can't remember spending a lot of my childhood at them.  Most of my play time was spent in the front and back yards of my neighbors, along with an occasional game of street football.

 

Do you think your experience might have been different had you grown up in a 2-4 unit building on a tiny lot with barely a yard to speak of, like many of the neighborhoods where these vacancies are occurring?

 

I'm not sure how much benefit there would be to formally creating dozens of small parks in deteriorating neighborhoods. The upkeep costs would be enormous and many empty lots serve as informal parkland already. The one thing that might interest me more are opportunities to create large natural spaces, especially in the Eastern and Southeastern parts of the city. The areas from 93rd Street east to Lee is just one big bland, featureless smear of meh pre-war sprawl, just builder subdivision after builder subdivision. These neighborhoods are hemorrhaging population now and banking contiguous empty land to create a more interesting landscape isn't going to change anything in that regards in the near terms, except maybe block more of the low density type of new development that has been popping up all over Central. And even then there will be plenty of vacant lots to go around.

I grew up in that type of area you mentioned. We have a small lot, small amount of grass, no driveway, but I still had a park a few minutes from me. We played football in the street and basketball in the back driveway mainly, event though we had a park by us and we enjoyed ourselves. I feel that kids don't care where they play as long as they have kids in their neighborhood.

^That was more or less true for me too in single family suburbia, but I was hesitant to project that onto kids growing up in other types of neighborhoods. I've now lived most of my life in big East Coast cities where parks are a much more important part of lives than in low-ish density/low traffic cities like Cleveland, so I think my bearings are a bit off.

We made this short three years ago and it is still true. Children have lost the freedom to roam.

I grew up right near several parks, but honestly can't remember spending a lot of my childhood at them.  Most of my play time was spent in the front and back yards of my neighbors, along with an occasional game of street football.

 

I agree, but you did need your park to go to the public pool, the recreation pavillion, tennis courts, etc.,

I've searched but couldn't find any numbers on Clevelands estimated population for 2017, does anyone have them?

^ The Census Bureau regularly puts out estimates in July for the previous year. If you want their numbers, you've got a bit of a wait ahead of you.

More families are picking downtown living over suburbs

 

Downtown Cleveland has had a re-birth in the past year.  The success of our sports teams, new restaurants, and attractions are drawing many to the city.  As the number of overall residents grows, new numbers show a 200-percent increase five to nine year old's living downtown.

 

One downtown resident says," you couldn't pay me to live in the suburbs."  Whether you're living it up at the Metropolitan 9 or dining in at the new Chicago chicken and waffles.  There's seems to be an avenue for everyone

 

 

http://www.wkyc.com/news/more-families-are-picking-downtown-living-over-suburbs/422924704

^ That clip is hilarious. I'm kind of surprised they just don't record and edit these things. Unless of course they're going for that lovable "Anchorman" low budget feeling. Anyhow, 2400/month seems fairly steep to me for that place. 

More families are picking downtown living over suburbs

 

Downtown Cleveland has had a re-birth in the past year.  The success of our sports teams, new restaurants, and attractions are drawing many to the city.  As the number of overall residents grows, new numbers show a 200-percent increase five to nine year old's living downtown.

 

 

So instead of only seven, there's twenty-one?

 

It can be a great place to live, but not so much for little kids.  For a multitude of reasons.

 

 

Agree about the deceptive percentage.  But as for kids in the city, they seem to do OK in NYC or SF, or in dense cities overseas.  Kids have been successfully raised in cities for as long as both have existed.  They do not require suburban-style planning in order to thrive.  It's a positive sign that at least some local parents understand that.  Without kids, there's not much point in having a city at all.

there's evidence that this trend may be reversing. ("...running out of millennials" lol)

Peak Millennial? Cities Can’t Assume a Continued Boost From the Young

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/23/upshot/peak-millennial-cities-cant-assume-a-continued-boost-from-the-young.html?_r=0

"Over the past decade, many American cities have been transformed by young professionals of the millennial generation, with downtowns turning into bustling neighborhoods full of new apartments and pricey coffee bars.

 

But soon, cities may start running out of millennials.

 

A number of demographers, along with economists and real estate consultants, are starting to contemplate what urban cores will look like now that the generation — America’s largest — is cresting.

 

Millennials are generally considered to be those born between the early 1980s and late 1990s or early 2000s, and many in this generation are aging from their 20s into the more traditionally suburban child-raising years. There are already some signs that the inflow of young professionals into cities has reached its peak, and that the outflow of mid-30s couples to the suburbs has resumed after stalling during the Great Recession."

^Meh, that's a lazy take that only looks at entrants, not duration or intensity. It's not like suburbia died when the baby boomer wave subsided.

 

^^As many people have astutely pointed out, the larger a percentage change you see, the *less* significant that underlying thing usually is. Just a function of tiny baserates.

 

But yeah, "not so much for little kids" is entirely a matter of opinion.

^^ Sounds more like wealthy millennials are what's actually in short supply.  Regardless of how any generation views city living, only a small portion of it will be able to afford pricey apartments and gourmet coffee every day.  That's why cities can't just focus on their downtowns, and also why downtowns can't just focus on apartments and restaurants.  Cleveland in 2017 presents a stark example of what happens when the priorities get so far out of line-- we've let most of our city fall to ruin while making one small part of it ideal for a privileged few.  Downtown has improved greatly over the past 20 years, no doubt, but at what cost?

Why the hell does everybody assume that Downtown revitalization has come at the expense of urban neighborhoods?  If anything it's the Downtown revitalization that will drive neighborhood redevelopment as the urban core overall becomes a better place to live and work.

^^ Sounds more like wealthy millennials are what's actually in short supply.  Regardless of how any generation views city living, only a small portion of it will be able to afford pricey apartments and gourmet coffee every day.  That's why cities can't just focus on their downtowns, and also why downtowns can't just focus on apartments and restaurants.  Cleveland in 2017 presents a stark example of what happens when the priorities get so far out of line-- we've let most of our city fall to ruin while making one small part of it ideal for a privileged few.  Downtown has improved greatly over the past 20 years, no doubt, but at what cost?

 

Right, but if you bring that up to certain Cleveland boosters here, you get told that you're wrong, and Cleveland is doing just fine, or that you need to get out and see what other cities do.  There's defending Cleveland, and then there's annoying Cleveland boosterism. I will defend Cleveland, but I am also a realist. For many of us, we have been and know what is happening in other cities around the country (even right here in the Rust Belt) that are doing far better than Cleveland.  Cleveland may not have the abandonment that Detroit has, but Cleveland is really only focusing on downtown or downtown neighborhoods just like Detroit.  Though, downtown Detroit is booming while downtown Cleveland is doing well.  Meanwhile, most of the rest of Cleveland is left abandoned.

The population of Cuyahoga County hasn't changed much from 1930, but the geographic distribution has changed dramatically.  As a result, we spent massively to expand our infrastructure. That means we greatly increased our maintenance expenses without increasing the income by increasing population.  This is going to be an increasing problem.

 

1930

 

1990

 

^^Agree with some of what you are saying, but what about the development in Ohio City, Tremont, Detroit-Shoreway and University Circle? I agree we need more targeted development in a lot of Eastside neighborhoods, but to say it's only been about downtown misses a lot of recent development.

Isn't it the steady outflow of people from Old Brooklyn, Westpark and Kamms Corner which is helping to drag Cleveland's population down? These neighborhoods are still salvageable yet get almost zero mention here.

 

 

Remember, too the difference between public and private development.  Most of the development happening in any city is private, you can't force it to go to neighborhoods you want.  You can use public incentives to try to direct it, but you'll get more bang for the buck on those public dollars by trying to move forward developments in marketable areas than in really tough submarkets like the Eastside outside of University Circle.  And the big federal dollars for redevelopment in poor areas are really gone.

^^True...some of this outflow is due to family size. Some of these westside neighborhoods were full of families with 3-4 kids...not any more.

Remember, too the difference between public and private development.  Most of the development happening in any city is private, you can't force it to go to neighborhoods you want.  You can use public incentives to try to direct it, but you'll get more bang for the buck on those public dollars by trying to move forward developments in marketable areas than in really tough submarkets like the Eastside outside of University Circle.  And the big federal dollars for redevelopment in poor areas are really gone.

 

And even in this environment of shrinking federal dollars, a ton of it-- most of it --has been spent outside of downtown in recent years. We've seen massive redevelopment of public housing in Central, Kinsman, Tremont. Almost all the LIHTC investment has been outside of downtown. All of this has been directed to some extent by local leadership, through QAPs, land disposition, additional grants, etc. We've also seen tons of CRA-influenced private lending and investment in places like Central. I haven't seen a comprehensive tally, but I'm guessing Downtown gets a smaller share of public investment than is commonly assumed. And the fact that private investment is so heavily concentrated in so few areas speaks more to the preferences of middle class consumers. I really don't think there's much local leaders can do to make a middle class homebuyer or restaurant owner as willing to spend $300K in Fairfax as she would be in, say, Ohio City, and those are the forces fueling a vast majority of development.

 

EDIT: all that said, there is still a lot of discretionary public money spent downtown of questionable value. So if we're talking about certain specific downtown dollars, it's easy to make a case it should be spent elsewhere.

You could make the same argument about investments in any neighborhood.  Did the new streetscaping along Kinsman bring in a bunch of new businesses?  Will the new streetscaping along Cedar do any better?

I really don't think there's much local leaders can do to make a middle class homebuyer or restaurant owner as willing to spend $300K in Fairfax as she would be in, say, Ohio City, and those are the forces fueling a vast majority of development.

 

But cities rebuild depressed areas all the time.  Cincinnati and Pittsburgh have both done it, with city government heavily involved in the efforts.  Our problem is too many leaders who would prefer to tear it all down and start over.  Just like the Flats but everywhere.

 

City policies guide private investments by choosing which projects to support, financially and otherwise.  No support means no project.  And by announcing what sort of development is desired for any given area (including "none"), cities exert influence on what sort of proposals will be made.  Proposals cost money, and few developers are going to work one up that clashes with the stated intent of local government.  One rogue councilman has the authority here to simply veto a business.  That isn't true everywhere. 

 

City government also decides whether or not to empower every local kook who shows up to a meeting demanding shorter towers.  In reality, developers have been proposing a lot of major construction outside downtown but they keep running into interference.  Battery Park, Duck Island, Little Italy, and remember how Uptown was shortened to appease Hessler Street.  I'd be happy if we could get things built in areas that aren't depressed at all.  "The market" says yes but the market itself says no.  In that environment, I agree, there's no hope of building anything on Kinsman.  But that isn't economics talking, it's just bad policy and it's homegrown.

Agree about the deceptive percentage.  But as for kids in the city, they seem to do OK in NYC or SF, or in dense cities overseas.  Kids have been successfully raised in cities for as long as both have existed.  They do not require suburban-style planning in order to thrive.  It's a positive sign that at least some local parents understand that.  Without kids, there's not much point in having a city at all.

 

I have seen lots of kids in and around Perk Park. They are usually playing soccer. It's really cool to see a sense of community developing.

 

 

^ i remember 19 Action News running a scare story about families being in the park late at night. As an urbanist I was like, vibrancy is great.  But the scared suburbanite news viewers only saw brown immigrant families "terrorizing" the city.  I guess they would prefer a deserted public space. :roll:

^ i remember 19 Action News running a scare story about families being in the park late at night. As an urbanist I was like, vibrancy is great.  But the scared suburbanite news viewers only saw brown immigrant families "terrorizing" the city.  I guess they would prefer a deserted public space. :roll:

 

http://www.cleveland19.com/story/26462678/why-is-a-downtown-cleveland-park-crowded-deep-into-the-night

Police clearing the park at 11PM?  So much backwardness in this town, it is amazing.

Police clearing the park at 11PM?  So much backwardness in this town, it is amazing.

 

And THAT is why the population continues to fall here.

^^Did a 12 year old write that? I thought it was a joke at first.

The whole idea of an investigative report into immigrant families using a park at night is just so... depressing. Maybe they can follow it up with a shocking report about people who ride buses even though they don't live in grinding poverty (we need to get to the bottom of this!).

 

EDIT: to its credit, Scene had a good laugh at that Channel 19 report: http://www.clevescene.com/scene-and-heard/archives/2014/09/12/19-action-news-wants-to-know-why-all-these-arabic-people-are-hanging-out

Scared suburbanites watch 19 Action News and think that it is scary for people to be in city park at night.  The whole report baffled me when I saw it.  Part of the reporting talked about the murder that took place there, as if another murder would happen in front of all of those witnesses.  I still don;t get the need for police intervention at all. It seems that the "trespassing" is a minor issue at best.

I've been booted out of parks in Lyndhurst and Euclid at night, and they don't get more Euro- Jewish looking than my friends and I. 

 

Christ, not everything is about race and supposedly racist policies and fearful white suburbanites. 

There is a difference between a park and an urban plaza.  An urban plaza populated with people is no big deal.  It is out in the open and visible.  Parks are more secluded and not well lit.  You making an apples to horseshoes comparison.

Urban plazas are OK except for Public Square. That's where the terrorists lurk according Cleveland's black mayor. Got it.

 

Maybe it's not about race. Maybe it's just about stupid.

I noticed this was an issue both when I lived in Cincinnati and Cleveland - people, both adults and children, hanging out in parks well past their closing time. I'd come home late from a trip, rolling through a neighborhood at 2 AM, and would see the park full of people. They weren't necessarily playing, just hanging out and socializing. I never saw that when I lived in Lexington (Ky.) or back at my hometown, so I wonder if it's just with a certain demographic (racial and economic)?

I don't think it is a demographic or racial or economic thing at all. You have to remember in cities these places are people's back and front yards.

^ That's my thought as well.  On a hot summer night in the suburbs or neighborhoods with detached homes, people would hang out in their backyards or front porches.  I don't really see the harm in people hanging out in these plazas.  I actually think it adds eyes on the streets and vibrancy.

Urban plazas are OK except for Public Square. That's where the terrorists lurk according Cleveland's black mayor. Got it.

 

Maybe it's not about race. Maybe it's just about stupid.

 

I don't understand how your example proves anything to be honest.

Urban plazas are OK except for Public Square. That's where the terrorists lurk according Cleveland's black mayor. Got it.

 

Maybe it's not about race. Maybe it's just about stupid.

 

I don't understand how your example proves anything to be honest.

 

First his astoundingly out of touch statements about "terrorists" at PS just for cover.

 

Then there were the comments he made about immigration back in 2013: "I believe in taking care of our own". He had to walk those comments back.

 

Has he made a statement condemning the police for kicking people out of the plaza? Or did the police run it through his office? A different mayor may have handled the situation in a better manner.

 

He hasn't proved himself to be the most open-minded person.

 

 

 

 

I still don;t understand how it applies to my comment.  But i'll just leave it there.

At 9:01pm these folks around Perk don't have many options available to congregate outdoors. At least not legally. Its a main reason why personally wouldn't choose to live or raise a family there. Cleveland has made great strides, but we have to admit there is much room for improvement.  Restricting park hours there for people who aren't causing any problems just seems counterproductive and unnecessary.