1 hour ago, skiwest said:

For about the last 30 years, we've been hearing that Cleveland will soon start gaining population.

 

And just like my comment above, they have always been greatly exaggerated. 

17 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

This is going to be far, far clearer once the actual census numbers come out. The interim year estimates are just that--estimates. They are often way off.

 

From the 2009 estimate to the 2010 census, Columbus "gained" about 19K, Cleveland "lost" about 38K, and Cincinnati "lost" about 9K. The smallest discrepancy was 9K, which is equal to 50% of the total estimated change in Cleveland from 2010 to 2019. Generally, the census estimate is conservative about gains or losses, but it sometimes goes the opposite direction. From 2000 to 2009, the census estimated that Philadelphia had lost about 50K people. But when the 2010 census occurred, it turned out that Philadelphia had actually gained about 15k over that time (i.e. the census estimate was off by 65K). The same thing happened in Milwaukee where the census estimated a substantial population loss (approx. 13K from 2000 to 2009 and the 2010 census revealed the population was almost exactly static. 

 

So I think we'll have to hold off on judgments about 2023 or 2024 until we see the census results. It's within the realm of possibility that Cleveland has actually already gained population since 2010. I'm not saying I expect that, but it wouldn't be an unprecedented error. It's also possible we've lost more than twice what the census estimates, and in that case I'm pretty skeptical of the 2023 or 2024 numbers unfortunately.

 

So it is true that there'll be discrepancies between the estimates and the decennial count. But you can't really use the 2009 to 2010 numbers as a comparison. The methodology has been refined multiple times for ACS data and the numbers are a lot more reliable than they were in the 2000s.

1 hour ago, skiwest said:

For about the last 30 years, we've been hearing that Cleveland will soon start gaining population.

 

Not by serious people. The numbers prove the city is losing less and less each year.

Edited December 11, 20204 yr by Clefan98

14 hours ago, Clefan98 said:

 

Cleveland's essentially breaking even in terms of population as of today. The lower-middle class are still moving outwards and newcomers are only replacing them at the same pace. I've been in meetings with some of the top real estate minds in this town and the consensus seem to believe Cleveland's projected population gains should occur around 2023 or 2024.

 

The median income in the city has increase by about 3% in the past 5 years after adjusting for inflation. Not much evidence to support the idea that wealthy individuals are replacing lower-middle class earners en masse. 

 

Compare that to my Cincinnati neighborhood where the median income has increased by 34%, while the population has stayed basically the same. Those are the kind of numbers you'd need to support your theory. 

 

 

Speaking of population, whatever happened with the annexation of East Cleveland?  Is that no longer being pursued?

 

Edited December 11, 20204 yr by skiwest

11 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

The median income in the city has increase by about 3% in the past 5 years after adjusting for inflation. Not much evidence to support the idea that wealthy individuals are replacing lower-middle class earners en masse. 

 

Compare that to my Cincinnati neighborhood where the median income has increased by 34%, while the population has stayed basically the same. Those are the kind of numbers you'd need to support your theory. 

 

 

 

So you're comparing the entire city to one neighborhood in Cincinnati? That's like comparing apples to elephants. The median income in my Cleveland neighborhood has increased over 34%, while the population has also increased.

Edited December 11, 20204 yr by Clefan98

2 minutes ago, Clefan98 said:

 

So you're comparing the entire city to one neighborhood in Cincinnati? That's like comparing apples to elephants. The median income in my Cleveland has increased over 34%, while the population has also increased.

 

No, no, no. Sorry I was NOT clear there. I just used that as an example of a clear indication that there is replacement going on. There are CERTAINLY neighborhoods in Cleveland where it is happening. I wasn't trying to draw that comparison, even though I know it came off that way.
 

 

But you're actually right that comparing the cities would be beneficial. So, I can compare it to the entire city of Cincinnati. I said 5 years, but it was actually 2015 to 2019 that I looked at, so four years actually. In that same time frame, the whole city of Cincinnati saw a 22.5% increase in median income, after adjusting for inflation. Compare that to Cleveland's 3% increase. Columbus increased 11.7% in the same time period. So you can clearly see the difference. 

 

And all this is not to say that Cincinnati and Columbus are better or some bull crap like that. To be clear, I love all three and want them to prosper. I'm just saying there's good reason to believe that there isn't some crazy influx of high income individuals replacing lower income earners in Cleveland. At least not yet. 

21 minutes ago, skiwest said:

Speaking of population, whatever happened with the annexation of East Cleveland?  Is that no longer being pursued?

 

I hope not. Cleveland would be gaining one of the fastest draining cities in America.

2 hours ago, seicer said:

While there may be population gains in downtown, Ohio City, Tremont and other neighborhoods, they don't offset the massive losses in the eastern neighborhoods nor the bleeding in the southwest and south portions of the city. Entire areas have become hollowed out.

 

Yep.  Cleveland is highly likely to be past the worst of its losses and will never again see anything like those it saw after the 1960s, but at the same time, it's still probably years away from full stabilization enough to actually gain again.  Perhaps one advantage that Cincinnati has that allowed it to stabilize and even grow again faster despite having so many similar issues is its much more intact core.  Aside from mass demolitions from the highway system, it didn't see nearly the level of urban renewal demolitions that Cleveland has seen, and as such, fewer of its neighborhoods are hollowed out from a development- not just people- perspective.  Similarly, in Columbus, it's pretty clear that the neighborhoods that have seen the most demolitions over the decades are also those that have struggled the most to come back even as housing demand is high.  The Near East Side has been seeing renovations for decades, but its population had consistently dropped until recently.  Same with Franklinton and the Near South outside of German Village.  It's a lot easier to renovate an existing neighborhood than to rebuild one, and neighborhoods with a lot of missing potential housing, commercial and office stock are going to have the hardest time.  Cleveland, unfortunately, just has more of that, so it's going to take longer.  

1 hour ago, DEPACincy said:

 

So it is true that there'll be discrepancies between the estimates and the decennial count. But you can't really use the 2009 to 2010 numbers as a comparison. The methodology has been refined multiple times for ACS data and the numbers are a lot more reliable than they were in the 2000s.

I wouldn’t doubt they’re more accurate. If the absolute value of the error is 1/3 of 2009, that would put us either at 394,000 or 368,000. Either of two numbers would tell a very different story than if the estimate is spot on.

1 hour ago, LlamaLawyer said:

This is going to be far, far clearer once the actual census numbers come out. The interim year estimates are just that--estimates. They are often way off.

 

From the 2009 estimate to the 2010 census, Columbus "gained" about 19K, Cleveland "lost" about 38K, and Cincinnati "lost" about 9K. The smallest discrepancy was 9K, which is equal to 50% of the total estimated change in Cleveland from 2010 to 2019. Generally, the census estimate is conservative about gains or losses, but it sometimes goes the opposite direction. From 2000 to 2009, the census estimated that Philadelphia had lost about 50K people. But when the 2010 census occurred, it turned out that Philadelphia had actually gained about 15k over that time (i.e. the census estimate was off by 65K). The same thing happened in Milwaukee where the census estimated a substantial population loss (approx. 13K from 2000 to 2009 and the 2010 census revealed the population was almost exactly static. 

 

So I think we'll have to hold off on judgments about 2023 or 2024 until we see the census results. It's within the realm of possibility that Cleveland has actually already gained population since 2010. I'm not saying I expect that, but it wouldn't be an unprecedented error. It's also possible we've lost more than twice what the census estimates, and in that case I'm pretty skeptical of the 2023 or 2024 numbers unfortunately.

 

Just for clarification, the estimates are rarely "way off".  Most cities are typically in the ballpark of their estimates.  A lot of science and math goes into creating them- much more than people think.  Furthermore, estimates get better over time through trial and error.

 

For the record, you seem to forget that 2009 vs 2010 represents a year of changes and shouldn't be considered as 2009 somehow being "off" from 2010.  They also do a 2010 estimate before the release of the 2010 census, which is a far better comparison.

 

Here are the 2000s estimates and the 2010 census.

Cleveland

2010 Census: 396815

2010 Estimate: 396229

2009: 401770

2008: 408261

2007: 415865

2006: 423832

2005: 433919

2004: 443502

2003: 452228

2002: 460375

2001: 468329

2009 Est. vs 2010 Census: 4955

2010 Est vs 2010 Census: -586

 

Cincinnati

2010 Census: 296945

2010 Estimate: 296899

2009: 298239

2008: 299145

2007: 301824

2006: 304713

2005: 308398

2004: 312648

2003: 317432

2002: 321852

2001: 326634

2009 Est. vs 2010 Census: 1294

2010 Est. vs 2010 Census: -46

 

Columbus

2010 Census: 787033

2010 Estimate: 770,122

2009: 764407

2008: 754479

2007: 744695

2006: 736751

2005: 729266

2004: 724877

2003: 721464

2002: 716485

2001: 712106

2009 vs 2010: -22626

2010 Est. vs 2010 Census: -16911

 

Columbus was the only one of the 3 that seems to be significantly off, but none were as off as you suggested.  Now, it could be a case where the estimates were adjusted after the fact, but I don't have access to old 2009 estimates if that's the case.  For the record, these numbers came from here: https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/time-series/demo/popest/intercensal-2000-2010-cities-and-towns.html

Edited December 11, 20204 yr by jonoh81

21 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Just for clarification, the estimates are rarely "way off".  Most cities are typically in the ballpark of their estimates.  A lot of science and math goes into creating them- much more than people think.  Furthermore, estimates get better over time through trial and error.

 

For the record, you seem to forget that 2009 vs 2010 represents a year of changes and shouldn't be considered as 2009 somehow being "off" from 2010.  They also do a 2010 estimate before the release of the 2010 census, which is a far better comparison.

 

Here are the 2000s estimates and the 2010 census.

Cleveland

2010 Census: 396815

2010 Estimate: 396229

2009: 401770

 

 

The numbers you are posting must have been revised. The 2009 estimate was 431,363.

 

https://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/2011/03/census_bureaus_2009_population.html

 

EDIT: Also if you look carefully at the methodology in the link you posted, the estimates you linked to are made after the 2010 census and based on its results. So they're probably quite accurate, but they were also generated in 2012, not 2009.

Edited December 11, 20204 yr by LlamaLawyer

1 hour ago, skiwest said:

Speaking of population, whatever happened with the annexation of East Cleveland?  Is that no longer being pursued?

 

 

For anyone interested in the East Cleveland / Cleveland merger discussion, I linked back to the original discussion over in the Regionalization thread:
 

 

2 hours ago, DEPACincy said:

 

No, no, no. Sorry I was NOT clear there. I just used that as an example of a clear indication that there is replacement going on. There are CERTAINLY neighborhoods in Cleveland where it is happening. I wasn't trying to draw that comparison, even though I know it came off that way.
 

 

But you're actually right that comparing the cities would be beneficial. So, I can compare it to the entire city of Cincinnati. I said 5 years, but it was actually 2015 to 2019 that I looked at, so four years actually. In that same time frame, the whole city of Cincinnati saw a 22.5% increase in median income, after adjusting for inflation. Compare that to Cleveland's 3% increase. Columbus increased 11.7% in the same time period. So you can clearly see the difference. 

 

And all this is not to say that Cincinnati and Columbus are better or some bull crap like that. To be clear, I love all three and want them to prosper. I'm just saying there's good reason to believe that there isn't some crazy influx of high income individuals replacing lower income earners in Cleveland. At least not yet. 

With so many low income earners in the past in Cleveland you can’t just base it off the median income to know if the high income are replacing low income.  For instance let’s say Cleveland’s median income is 30k.  I know it’s somewhere are kind there but not sure where. You could have lots of people making between 30-40k be replaced by people making over a 100k and you would never know. 
 

The best way of knowing is by looking at Cleveland’s income which has already been shown that it is definitely increasing at a clip beyond 3% adjusted for inflation and that is not just because of the new income tax. All you have to do is look at all the new apartment developments and new housing in Cleveland to know that the low income is being replace by higher income. 

Edited December 11, 20204 yr by cle_guy90

4 hours ago, DEPACincy said:

 

The median income in the city has increase by about 3% in the past 5 years after adjusting for inflation. Not much evidence to support the idea that wealthy individuals are replacing lower-middle class earners en masse. 

 

Compare that to my Cincinnati neighborhood where the median income has increased by 34%, while the population has stayed basically the same. Those are the kind of numbers you'd need to support your theory. 

 

 

I don't have the numbers for Cleveland, but Cuyahoga County did much better than 3%.

 

2015 Personal Income  62,285 million 

2019 Personal Income  69,784 milllion  up 12%  (household income was up 14.2%)

 

Cleveland's big problem is the city has a 'nut' of about 130,000 people in poverty and this number hasn't changed much in 30 years, despite total population decreases.  To support the average increases seen, the non-poverty folks are seeing much greater income increases than the averages show.  Logically the newcomers have to be doing better than the departing people, since the total population is more or less static since 2015.

 

BTW, I wouldn't expect much of a positive surprise when the head count numbers come out, given Cleveland's terrible participation rate in the census collection effort.

Redirected from the Ohio Population thread and borrowing from @jon81oh compilation of Cuyahoga.  Location of these tracts.

 

Top 10 Fastest Growing Tracts  2010-2019 - Cuyahoga

1. 1147: 137.08% - Cleveland - Kinsman 

2. 107701: 70.83% - Cleveland - Downtown

3. 187105: 40.35% - University Heights

4. 1043: 31.88% - Cleveland - Tremont

5. 101101: 25.80% - Cleveland - Edgewater

6. 109801: 23.25% - Cleveland - Central 

7. 1241: 23.00% - Cleveland - Jefferson

8. 1031: 22.77% - Cleveland - Detroit Shoreway

9. 1055: 22.11% - Cleveland - Brooklyn Centre

10. 1516: 20.34% - East Cleveland

 

Top 10 Fastest Shrinking Tracts  2010-2019 - Cuyahoga

1. 114501: -48.28% - Cleveland - Kinsman 

2. 109301: -43.35% - Cleveland - Central 

3. 1162: -38.66% - Cleveland - Glenville

4. 1196: -37.89% - Cleveland - Buckeye Woodhill (I think)

5. 1410: -34.52% - Cleveland Heights 

6. 1184: -32.11% - Cleveland - Glenville

7. 113101: -31.38% - Cleveland - Central/Fairfax

8. 1939: -29.65% - Highland Hills (big surprise here for me)

9. 1135: -29.07% - Cleveland - Fairfax

10. 110801: -27.82% - Cleveland - Broadway/Slavic Village

 

So this doesn't make much sense to me.  Could any of the growth or redistribution of growth be government housing related?  Needless to say it is in the city and urban where we are seeing the most growth and decline.  Interesting that not one West Side neighborhood was on the fastest decline.

 

 

Interesting data. Not surprised about Highland Hills however. I think three people moved out and caused the population to drop by 1/3. 😉

Do census tract boundaries change at all? I'm a little confused by the University Hts tract on the fasted growing list. They're showing 3447 people in that tract in 2019, compared to 2176 in 2010. That entire city has been completely built out for decades, with low vacancy, and very little infill. Where did 1300 people come from? I would have thought this could be a sign of massive migration from NYC (this is a heavily Jewish neighborhood), but neighboring tracts don't show anything similar, and they show UH as a whole decreasing by 4.4% for that same time period... It's just not adding up. 

 

The Highland Hills tract you say you're surprised about looks right to me. There are hardly any residential properties in that city, and the ones there are are in terrible condition. Abandonment seems right. 1241 in 2010 to 873 today.

26 minutes ago, PoshSteve said:

I'm a little confused by the University Hts tract on the fasted growing list. They're showing 3447 people in that tract in 2019, compared to 2176 in 2010. That entire city has been completely built out for decades, with low vacancy, and very little infill. Where did 1300 people come from?

 

That tract has John Carroll University in it. Could that be the reason for the growth?

 

Tracts can change every ten years when there is a decennial census. But they shouldn't have changed in the middle of the decade. 

1 hour ago, DEPACincy said:

 

That tract has John Carroll University in it. Could that be the reason for the growth?

 

Tracts can change every ten years when there is a decennial census. But they shouldn't have changed in the middle of the decade. 

 

I thought that too at first. But  looks like their enrollment has been steady, and no dorm construction, and nowhere for that many new students to go. Pretty sloppy of the census if they counted students one year and not another, but that could be it.

15 hours ago, PoshSteve said:

 

I thought that too at first. But  looks like their enrollment has been steady, and no dorm construction, and nowhere for that many new students to go. Pretty sloppy of the census if they counted students one year and not another, but that could be it.

 

Weird, I don't know then! Maybe somebody else here has a theory? 

17 hours ago, PoshSteve said:

Do census tract boundaries change at all? I'm a little confused by the University Hts tract on the fasted growing list. They're showing 3447 people in that tract in 2019, compared to 2176 in 2010. That entire city has been completely built out for decades, with low vacancy, and very little infill. Where did 1300 people come from? I would have thought this could be a sign of massive migration from NYC (this is a heavily Jewish neighborhood), but neighboring tracts don't show anything similar, and they show UH as a whole decreasing by 4.4% for that same time period... It's just not adding up. 

 

The Highland Hills tract you say you're surprised about looks right to me. There are hardly any residential properties in that city, and the ones there are are in terrible condition. Abandonment seems right. 1241 in 2010 to 873 today.

 

Realized I was thinking of Highland Heights.  I get the two switched up.  

On 12/11/2020 at 10:42 AM, jonoh81 said:

 

Yep.  Cleveland is highly likely to be past the worst of its losses and will never again see anything like those it saw after the 1960s, but at the same time, it's still probably years away from full stabilization enough to actually gain again.  Perhaps one advantage that Cincinnati has that allowed it to stabilize and even grow again faster despite having so many similar issues is its much more intact core.  Aside from mass demolitions from the highway system, it didn't see nearly the level of urban renewal demolitions that Cleveland has seen, and as such, fewer of its neighborhoods are hollowed out from a development- not just people- perspective.  Similarly, in Columbus, it's pretty clear that the neighborhoods that have seen the most demolitions over the decades are also those that have struggled the most to come back even as housing demand is high.  The Near East Side has been seeing renovations for decades, but its population had consistently dropped until recently.  Same with Franklinton and the Near South outside of German Village.  It's a lot easier to renovate an existing neighborhood than to rebuild one, and neighborhoods with a lot of missing potential housing, commercial and office stock are going to have the hardest time.  Cleveland, unfortunately, just has more of that, so it's going to take longer.  

Urban renewal demolitions? You mean in 1960s downtown CLE?  Otherwise, the demolitions that went on from that time forward in the neighborhoods, especially the east side were arson related and later just plain old abandonment.

On 12/14/2020 at 5:05 PM, KJP said:

Interesting data. Not surprised about Highland Hills however. I think three people moved out and caused the population to drop by 1/3. 😉

I worked in Highland Hills several years ago.  When the fire alarm went off, we had to evacuate the building and wait for the fire department to arrive and give us the "all clear". It would take them about 15 minutes to show up.  The fire department was across the street.  Their fire truck looked to be from the 1940s.   I hope they were able to obtain a newer truck since then.

19 hours ago, CLENYC said:

Urban renewal demolitions? You mean in 1960s downtown CLE?  Otherwise, the demolitions that went on from that time forward in the neighborhoods, especially the east side were arson related and later just plain old abandonment.

Another factor is that the Cincinnati Metropolitan Area never lost population, while the Cleveland MSA has been stagnant or declining since 1970s (except the 1990s).

Keep in mind that tract-level population numbers between census years (so 2019) are estimates, not counts, and the base numbers are small enough that even modest population changes (real or erroneously estimated) show up as large percentage changes.  

 

As for University Heights: I recall noticing that weird anomaly a few years ago and IIRC it looked like a boundary error correction, meaning one dorm or something was reassigned from one tract to another.

21 hours ago, CLENYC said:

Urban renewal demolitions? You mean in 1960s downtown CLE?  Otherwise, the demolitions that went on from that time forward in the neighborhoods, especially the east side were arson related and later just plain old abandonment.

 

It doesn't really matter how it happened, the point is that it did.  Urban renewal was not the sole cause of demolitions in any city's neighborhoods, but the results are essentially the same.  Neighborhoods that have seen a lot of demolitions are a lot harder to bring back without heavy external forces working to improve them.  Franklinton in Columbus is a classic example.  It was decimated by demolitions, population losses and blight, and it stayed that way until there were concerted efforts by the city- and more importantly by citizens and business owners- to change its direction.  That's what needs to happen in some of Cleveland's urban neighborhoods, but with its population losses ongoing, that makes it that much more difficult to accomplish.  It can be done, but it's going to be a serious challenge.  They've had some good success Downtown, UC and a few other places, and hopefully that can spread to other areas, but I do think it's going to take longer than a lot of people think.

Edited December 16, 20204 yr by jonoh81

1 hour ago, westerninterloper said:

Another factor is that the Cincinnati Metropolitan Area never lost population, while the Cleveland MSA has been stagnant or declining since 1970s (except the 1990s).

 

Detroit works against that argument considering its metro area has mostly been steady or even growing slowly even as the city collapsed far worse than Cincy or Cleveland.  Every place is different, I just think having a more intact core plays a role in how fast recovery can really be.  If Cleveland is still years away, Detroit is decades away.

2 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

 

It doesn't really matter how it happened, the point is that it did.  Urban renewal was not the sole cause of demolitions in any city's neighborhoods, but the results are essentially the same.  Neighborhoods that have seen a lot of demolitions are a lot harder to bring back without heavy external forces working to improve them.  Franklinton in Columbus is a classic example.  It was decimated by demolitions, population losses and blight, and it stayed that way until there were concerted efforts by the city- and more importantly by citizens and business owners- to change its direction.  That's what needs to happen in some of Cleveland's urban neighborhoods, but with its population losses ongoing, that makes it that much more difficult to accomplish.  It can be done, but it's going to be a serious challenge.  They've had some good success Downtown, UC and a few other places, and hopefully that can spread to other areas, but I do think it's going to take longer than a lot of people think.

It does matter when the part of it is say urban renewal, which was a ‘60s era term for planned redevelopment in U S cities that had not so great results in Cleveland.  Planned being the key word and hopefully lesson learned.

 

CLE’s Erieview urban renewal is exhibit A on this and is, of course, nowhere near as destructive as the subsequent ‘70s urban crisis. CLE had the busiest firehouse between NYC and Chicago.

 

of course this was all underwritten by the U S industrial and manufacturing collapse rooted in the mid ‘60s. 
 

Add the fact that CLE has been the benefactor and more so the victim of many social experiments and well, you see what you have now.

Edited December 16, 20204 yr by CLENYC

Interesting that Forbes has CLE as the 5th hottest housing market today.  

 

Of the 15 cities listed, CLE ranked #5 followed by Midwestern cities Indy (8), Grand Rapids (11), and Omaha (15).  
 

 

18 hours ago, CLENYC said:

Interesting that Forbes has CLE as the 5th hottest housing market today.  

 

Of the 15 cities listed, CLE ranked #5 followed by Midwestern cities Indy (8), Grand Rapids (11), and Omaha (15).  
 

 

The fact that the inventory of unsold houses in the market is down almost 50% from Oct 19 to Oct 20 (cited by Forbes) also argues in favor of a recent population increase.

On 12/16/2020 at 11:13 AM, westerninterloper said:

Another factor is that the Cincinnati Metropolitan Area never lost population, while the Cleveland MSA has been stagnant or declining since 1970s (except the 1990s).

As an industrial city, Cleveland was more affected than Cinci with the demise of the steel and manufacturing industries.  Also, Cleveland lost several large companies starting in the mid 70s due to its anti-business stance and being on the losing end of mergers.  And then factor in bussing, crappy weather, lousy sports teams, high taxes...

 

Edited December 17, 20204 yr by skiwest

On 12/10/2020 at 8:07 PM, Clefan98 said:

 

10 years is optimistic. I hope it gets back to where it was before my time is up, but it's going to be a looong road back. The psychological effect the pandemic has had on hundreds of thousands (if not millions) can not be understated. Yes, some younger people are moving back because of decreases in rental rates, but that doesn't change the fact that there's never been this many empty units in NYC's history.

 

Don't take my word for it:

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/21/don-peebles-new-york-city-may-take-decade-to-recover-from-coronavirus.html

 

 

 

a decade to come back?

 

or a couple months from that august article??

 

first of all, if you look at august of any year its going to be low tide for anyone being in the city. 

 

anyway, current news is october homes sales in nyc reached pre-pandemic levels and november rentals are a record.

 

so i think you forgot its nyc and that many of the move outs are temporary as a lot of people have second homes or other places to go if they need to, like back with mom and dad.

 

and just anecdotally, its looking pretty steadily busy out there since labor day. at least around my neighborhood, its not like i'm getting out and around too much lately. plus we just had blizzard overnight, but still a lot of people out and about. 

On 12/16/2020 at 12:33 PM, jonoh81 said:

 

Detroit works against that argument considering its metro area has mostly been steady or even growing slowly even as the city collapsed far worse than Cincy or Cleveland.  Every place is different, I just think having a more intact core plays a role in how fast recovery can really be.  If Cleveland is still years away, Detroit is decades away.

Not really, the Detroit Metro area has also been stagnant since 1970, a very similar trajectory with some growth in the 1990s, but flat or declining every other decade since 1990. Detroit has benefitted from being the only large metro in Michigan, next to two Big Ten/AAU universities, and international immigration from the Middle East. Cleveland and Detroit have both lost about 2/3 of their city populations, but I agree the scale of Detroit's disinvestment is larger than CLE. 

 

https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/23100/pittsburgh/population

 

Graphs are (1) Detroit, (2) Cleveland, (3) Pittsburgh

Edited December 17, 20204 yr by westerninterloper

11 hours ago, Dougal said:

The fact that the inventory of unsold houses in the market is down almost 50% from Oct 19 to Oct 20 (cited by Forbes) also argues in favor of a recent population increase.

Any sort of comparisons with this year should be taken with a very large grain of salt.  Per statements by Cleveland area realtors, there is a big reason why the unsold inventory is down:  many people who have wanted to list their houses didn't want to do it this year.  People simply did not want have the possibility of showings bringing COVID-19 into their homes.  The normal heating up of the real estate market that would come in the Spring never happened this year.  Virtual showings helped some, but it didn't make up for it.  The unsold inventory was down because they weren't on the market.  For houses that were on the market, if they were decent, they sold fast and frequently above asking price.

https://www.cleveland.com/letters/2019/12/finally-cleveland-is-on-the-right-track-in-terms-of-population.html

 

Clearly, new construction, the reuse of old buildings, and the demolition of worthless ones are paying off. Cleveland is on the right track. People will continue to move out (which is normal, just as people move from suburb to suburb), but probably within a few years movers-in will exceed movers-out. Then, after 70 years of loss, the corner finally will have been turned as growth takes hold.

 

Thomas Bier,

Cleveland

Thomas Bier is a senior fellow at the Maxine Goodman Levin College of Urban Affairs at Cleveland State University.

13 hours ago, LifeLongClevelander said:

Any sort of comparisons with this year should be taken with a very large grain of salt.  Per statements by Cleveland area realtors, there is a big reason why the unsold inventory is down:  many people who have wanted to list their houses didn't want to do it this year.  People simply did not want have the possibility of showings bringing COVID-19 into their homes.  The normal heating up of the real estate market that would come in the Spring never happened this year.  Virtual showings helped some, but it didn't make up for it.  The unsold inventory was down because they weren't on the market.  For houses that were on the market, if they were decent, they sold fast and frequently above asking price.

Why is CLE unique in the missed-to-slow spring real estate market due to COVID-19? CLE’s market inventory barely budged between 2018-2019 yet dropped 40%+ between Oct.2019-Oct. 2020. 
 

Something else is going on besides COVID...it’s demand and homes moving off market in 2 weeks shot up from 18% to 40%+ 2019-2020.

Edited December 18, 20204 yr by CLENYC

11 hours ago, CLENYC said:

Why is CLE unique in the missed-to-slow spring real estate market due to COVID-19? CLE’s market inventory barely budged between 2018-2019 yet dropped 40%+ between Oct.2019-Oct. 2020. 
 

Something else is going on besides COVID...it’s demand and homes moving off market in 2 weeks shot up from 18% to 40%+ 2019-2020.

I have no idea why the Cleveland area's housing market is behaving in the way that it has as compared to other markets.  What I do know was shared by a realtor for a well-established, long-time agency.  The area's housing market never got going like it normally does in the Spring.  The effects of COVID-19 on the housing market put a damper on it and there are quite a few agents that share those beliefs.  If there was no pressing reason for people to put their homes on the market, they held off.  There is still demand to buy, but there just simply is not enough supply to meet the demand.  It has been a textbook seller's market.  By the time things started to ease, it was starting to get later in the peak real estate season and many just decided to wait until next year.

 

I have a very good friend who's older parents who recently decided they needed to downsize and sell.  Their agent reiterated the effect of low inventory on the market.  It is a good house with improvements, has some highly desirable features and is located in a nice neighborhood that has better schools. When that house was listed, it received a lot of interest and sold for almost full asking price. There just wasn't much too choose from, so they received more than they expected.

 

 

^ That sounds about right. Its incredible how fast houses that are part of an estate sale get snapped up now. Even houses without updates are going for (in some cases) twice as much as a similar house was two-three years ago. I will say that a big part in the supply constraint is the foreclosure moratorium. Until a few weeks ago, the pipeline of houses coming through Sheriff's sale was zero, and when the first sale was held a couple weeks ago, the inventory was hardly anything compared to how it was, as it was comprised of basically a smattering of tax foreclosures, and of that, most properties offered were vacant lots. The investors who usually pick up their properties that way have been forced into the same market as other homebuyers, which itself has a constrained supply. The result is sky high prices.

 

Edit: To keep this on population topic instead of just general housing market - I will say that I've seen more home buyers coming in from out of state in the last year than I have in years past. That further is constraining the available supply.

Edited December 19, 20204 yr by PoshSteve

17 minutes ago, PoshSteve said:

^ That sounds about right. Its incredible how fast houses that are part of an estate sale get snapped up now. Even houses without updates are going for (in some cases) twice as much as a similar house was two-three years ago. I will say that a big part in the supply constraint is the foreclosure moratorium. Until a few weeks ago, the pipeline of houses coming through Sheriff's sale was zero, and when the first sale was held a couple weeks ago, the inventory was hardly anything compared to how it was, as it was comprised of basically a smattering of tax foreclosures, and of that, most properties offered were vacant lots. The investors who usually pick up their properties that way have been forced into the same market as other homebuyers, which itself has a constrained supply. The result is sky high prices.

Excellent point.  With the foreclosure pipeline shut down and those knowing they were headed into foreclosure, they didn't have much incentive to try to unload their houses.  They essentially have places to live without the cost of a mortgage or paying rent.  How many new foreclosures will be generated by people who otherwise were not having big financial issues before the pandemic, but are now?

 

To keep this on topic, I wonder how this will affect population trends once people are forced to move as foreclosures resume.  Which areas will get hit hard and where will those who were forced out go?

I don't have he numbers in front of me, but 90 day delinquencies are higher than they've been in years, though not as high as during the mortgage/foreclosure crisis. They're also not as high as would be expected given the level of job losses we have seen this year. Mostly the banks because they know they cant offload the houses are much more willing to work with people. It's pretty widespread all over the county though. The rental crisis has been more acute, with service workers taking the brunt of job losses. While formal evictions have been mostly paused, landlords still illegally evict (ex changing locks, turning off heat, turning off water). With that, I think we will see more movement of people in lower income areas with more rentals. The one thing really feeding the housing market has been former rental properties being sold off. Landlords are cashing in on the high sale prices to sell off their investment properties. A shrinking inventory of rentals is also pushing rent rates up. Where do all of these people go? I think we are going to be having a homelessness crisis in force in the near future. I think one of the good things about all of this (at least for us here on UO) is that it seems to be a good time to build new. With that we might see more of a shift into the city of Cleveland, since there seems to be much more being built in the core than outside.

Spoke to my realtor the other day and she said nearly all the demand she has seen has been from first time home buyers who are not new to the area although one or two she represented were out of state. That was surprising to me, because I’ve used Zillow, county records, and LinkedIn to scout out recent home buyers on the east side, and nearly half appeared new to the area.

 

In other news, BLS data for November is out and shows most everything pretty flat. After the last few months, I question whether the BLS data is worth more than my above anecdotes though.

One of my realtor sources has been seeing a lot of out-of-state buyers coming in to the west side and western suburbs, most of them pandemic boomerangs. I've stepped away from my condo flipping for a while because the prices are too outrageous and I don't want to get into a bidding war for a potential flip. 

2 hours ago, KJP said:

One of my realtor sources has been seeing a lot of out-of-state buyers coming in to the west side and western suburbs, most of them pandemic boomerangs. I've stepped away from my condo flipping for a while because the prices are too outrageous and I don't want to get into a bidding war for a potential flip. 

If my realtor represents mostly first-time home buyers and most of the out-of-state buyers are boomerangs, that could explain why my realtor isn't seeing many folks from out of state since I can't believe many boomerangs are first-time home buyers.

Realtors tend to get into certain niches with their buyers/sellers. I've talked to others over here who say it seems like more from out of town. Also (hypothetically) if all the realtors are seeing 2-3 out of state buyers coming in compared to zero last year, that still adds up to a large number of people new to town!

 

@KJP interesting you should say that about the condo market. Is it just on the west side you look? I've been thinking the same on the east side - condos in buildings where sales have been steady between 20-30k have suddenly been selling for 50-60k, without much being done to them. I think it's another symptom of the tight market for investors. They can't scoop up SFHs for cheap to rent out anymore, but they can still get condos for a low price.

Yes, I just look for flips on the west side, and then almost entirely in Lakewood (although some in Rocky River, Fairview, etc). I was going to put a bid on a bank sale of a Fairview Park condo that was in need of significant renovation (heavy smoker had a flood, possibly intentional) and the minimum bid was a tad high but still not bad. Even so, it got about two dozen bids so I withdrew mine.

5 hours ago, KJP said:

Yes, I just look for flips on the west side, and then almost entirely in Lakewood (although some in Rocky River, Fairview, etc). I was going to put a bid on a bank sale of a Fairview Park condo that was in need of significant renovation (heavy smoker had a flood, possibly intentional) and the minimum bid was a tad high but still not bad. Even so, it got about two dozen bids so I withdrew mine.

Just checking today’s Fairview Park availability: with 41 listings, 33 are pending-contingent with 8 available homes, 2 of which are new listings.

 

I know a few people that have left Chicago for CLE west side/suburbs.

Edited December 22, 20204 yr by CLENYC

To synthesize some of the above points (including my own), the successfulness of these flips is an amazing thing for the region even if the homebuyer isn't "new to the area." I've been kind of shocked at how houses in Cleveland Heights are getting beautifully remodeled and immediately resold for more than 200% of the previous value. Obviously these remodels create value and wealth in the area even if they're bought by someone who is from the area. Here are two examples.

 

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3309-Fairmount-Blvd-Cleveland-Heights-OH-44118/33663085_zpid/

 

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3164-Berkshire-Rd-Cleveland-Heights-OH-44118/33657395_zpid/

 

To the other point about homebuyers who are "new to the area": one home is still pending, so I can't track down the buyer, but the other appears to have sold to someone who relocated to Cleveland between 2015 and 2019. So that person wouldn't necessarily strike a realtor as "new to the area" but for census purposes they will be.

For what its worth, I just found out that one of the units in my condo building in Shaker just sold to a young professional couple who is moving here from DC. As has been fitting in with the trend I've been seeing around here, this was a rental unit that the investor has now sold off.

There was an article in the WSJ a few weeks back with some data on movement between cities during Covid, and the data was not favorable for Cleveland. For every person moving out of the Cleveland metropolitan area during April 2020 through October 2020, only 0.9 persons were moving in. They sourced the data from LinkedIn.

 

The data was for the metropolitan areas and not city populations, but it does seem to contradict some of the anecdotal evidence posted here -- that Cleveland is gaining population and that a majority of the growth is people moving in from out of state. 

 

Covid-19, Remote Work Make Austin a Magnet for New Jobs

https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-19-remote-work-make-austin-a-magnet-for-new-jobs-11607423401