A shift is definitely coming. I doubt there will be more than a token gain by 2020, and the City of Cleveland may still lose people...but the region will recover, so long as none of the anchor employers implode. Still needs better job growth to ensure it's a real trend, though. The population will definitely become better younger and better educated, but it's not a sure thing that the population will actually become larger, too.

 

So many factors to consider - I'd love to see Cleveland's population trend get a workup from Nate Silver or another big data guy.

I'll be moving back and may be bringing a few Floridians haha.

Welcome back JJ!

I'll be moving back and may be bringing a few Floridians haha.

 

Bring 'em back while the weather's warm. It's an easier adjustment to winter when the adjustment takes months -- rather than stepping off a plane getting and smacked in the face by it in the middle of January!

I'll be moving back and may be bringing a few Floridians haha.

 

Bring 'em back while the weather's warm. It's an easier adjustment to winter when the adjustment takes months -- rather than stepping off a plane getting and smacked in the face by it in the middle of January!

 

Don't talk about Winter! This is my time to forget about it for awhile!!!

@stPats: Thank you, I can't wait to be back. I'll be starting my second career hopefully and contributing to the urban renaissance in Cleveland.

 

@KJP: I'm actually glad I took off last year lol. I don't think I could have handled it, but my lease is up in February, so unfortunately that'll be the time I come back.

Ironically, since Lebron became a boomerang, I've heard from a few native Clevelanders in other cities who want to move back to watch Lebron and Manziel play.

 

 

Not sure where to put this because it does not pertain directly to Ohio trends or statistics - only the Rustbelt (Cleveland and Cincinnati are discussed).  I despise anyone/anything who uses municipal boundaries for any meaningful analysis at a "City" level.  Fascinating work.

 

 

POPULATION AIN’T NOTHING BUT A NUMBER: STANDARDIZING THE SIZE OF THE GREAT AMERICAN CITY

 

Although cities are often judged prima facie, not to mention showered with congressional dollars via census results, based on population figures, perhaps a straight reading of the numbers isn’t a good barometer of the merits or demerits of a place given the wild variances in the geographic size of cities.

 

Cities are arbitrarily constructed entities with culturally loaded boundaries. So what would happen if every city shared the same geographic borders? Would population numbers reflect different realities? Would the perceptions of places change, defining which cities are viewed as declining or prospering?

 

http://beltmag.com/population-aint-nothing-number-standardizing-size-great-american-city/#comment-70047

Interesting. I've often thought there should be a standardization. When Jacksonville is a bigger city than Boston, something's really wrong with that measuring stick.......

 

I thought it was funny even with that one...Cleveland redrawn includes around 1/4 of it being Lake Erie whereas all the others had very little water in the new limits. The idea is correct though. Why should Houston get more federal dollars than say Philley because they are a sprawl city which costs more to run and is a bigger drain on resources? Obviously, that's talking very simply.

I thought it was funny even with that one...Cleveland redrawn includes around 1/4 of it being Lake Erie whereas all the others had very little water in the new limits. The idea is correct though. Why should Houston get more federal dollars than say Philley because they are a sprawl city which costs more to run and is a bigger drain on resources? Obviously, that's talking very simply.

 

In fairness, for programs doled out directly to municipal governments, the City of Houston should get more $ than the City of Philly in most instances, because Houston really does have more people in it.  The real issue is making sure the other jurisdictions surrounding a place like Philly (and Cleveland, etc.) also get access to the same kinds of federal aid where needed, or identifying mechanisms (county-level eligibility, MPOs) that look past the municipal boundaries to make sure the region gets its fair share for things like transportation $.

 

I love fresh cuts like this beltmag post, but how and whether to standardize really depends on the question you're asking.

 

My favorite fresh look is the weighted population density stuff that the Census Bureau and others have been cranking out in recent years. This post highlights some of this data, which, sadly, shows just how fast Rust Belt metros are de-densifying within their defined areas: http://www.austincontrarian.com/austincontrarian/2012/09/the-50-densest-american-metropolitan-areas-by-weighted-density.html

 

Addendum: and sadly, the typical Houston area resident now lives in a denser neighborhood than the typical Cleveland area resident.

I thought it was funny even with that one...Cleveland redrawn includes around 1/4 of it being Lake Erie whereas all the others had very little water in the new limits. The idea is correct though. Why should Houston get more federal dollars than say Philley because they are a sprawl city which costs more to run and is a bigger drain on resources? Obviously, that's talking very simply.

 

In fairness, for programs doled out directly to municipal governments, the City of Houston should get more $ than the City of Philly in most instances, because Houston really does have more people in it.  The real issue is making sure the other jurisdictions surrounding a place like Philly (and Cleveland, etc.) also get access to the same kinds of federal aid where needed, or identifying mechanisms (county-level eligibility, MPOs) that look past the municipal boundaries to make sure the region gets its fair share for things like transportation $.

 

I love fresh cuts like this beltmag post, but how and whether to standardize really depends on the question you're asking.

 

My favorite fresh look is the weighted population density stuff that the Census Bureau and others have been cranking out in recent years. This post highlights some of this data, which, sadly, shows just how fast Rust Belt metros are de-densifying within their defined areas: http://www.austincontrarian.com/austincontrarian/2012/09/the-50-densest-american-metropolitan-areas-by-weighted-density.html

 

Addendum: and sadly, the typical Houston area resident now lives in a denser neighborhood than the typical Cleveland area resident.

 

But that last point is still very deceptive. Northfield, Macedonia, etc are not part of the Cleveland metro. Yet, the farm fields of LaGrange, Lodi, and Middlefield much farther away from the urban core are. By that measure, having an empty farm field 40 miles from a city center makes Cleveland less dense, but the continual urban agglomeration down 77 and route 8 adds nothing to the density.

There are 2 counties. Each are exactly 10 miles by 10 miles wide, which makes a 100 square mile grid.

 

County A has 10 people living in each grid. County B has 999 people living in only one of the grids, the rest are empty. Which county is denser?

 

County A with the sprawled out population is denser than the county where everyone lives next to each other. That's why when looking at density, the boundaries are critical.

 

If you have an area with low density sprawl that extends far from the city center, it will skew that area as denser than an area that has a high density core, small area of low density sprawl, and moderate area of empty lands.

^Your hypothetical is exactly the problem the weighted density data featured in that blog post I linked to is trying to solve. By this method, County B would show up 999 times denser than County A (assuming each mile square is a census tract).

^Your hypothetical is exactly the problem the weighted density data featured in that blog post I linked to is trying to solve. By this method, County B would show up 999 times denser than County A (assuming each mile square is a census tract).

 

Yeah, that list is very accurate to me. LA is much, much denser than most people realize and it extends pretty far out from downtown. Santa Monica, for example, is still over 10,000 people per square mile. It's 15 miles out from downtown. Hollywood is pushing 25,000 per square mile. The entire Wilshire corridor is about 20,000 to 40,000 people per square mile with exceptions being Beverly Hills and a few park areas. As an urbanized area, Los Angeles is not nearly as far off from New York and San Francisco as people think. San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley actually has a smaller core of density since people have been fighting tooth and nail against it. Los Angeles is proving to be more embracing of density since it's becoming less car dependent. The whole SF versus LA development war comes down to private transit versus public transit. Many workers in San Francisco get to work by private luxury bus. I don't think anyone in LA does, hence all the pushes to rapidly expand public transit. Ditto with New York. Very few New Yorkers take private busses to work. That's part of the reason New York has such a good transit system. People embrace public transit in New York. You need population density for any decent public transit system to be viable.

 

Rust Belt cities are remarkable in the density they have lost. Keep in mind cities like Detroit and Cleveland were at one time pushing 15,000 people per square mile. Toledo and Columbus were pushing 10,000 people per square mile. The density losses have been incredible and heartbreaking...

 

What you have in Rust Belt cities are incredibly-gap-toothed cities. You might have one census tract with still over 10,000 people per square mile, but right next to it there is a mostly-destroyed one with 2,000 people per square mile. It's not contiguous density, which is what is most damning from a pedestrian or transit perspective. Cities like San Francisco, New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles do have large areas of contiguous density.

 

Ohio does not have this. It has maybe a string of preserved neighborhoods in one side of the city with many areas (or even whole sides in the case of Cleveland and Dayton) with destroyed density. It's just really sad considering how dense these Rust Belt cities used to be. Even Pittsburgh, which is a Rust Belt urbanist darling, is very gap-toothed and lacks contiguous density. I think Milwaukee is as close as it gets for a Rust Belt city, but their transit situation? Oh boy, best not to go to Wisconsin if you want to give up the car...

^Your hypothetical is exactly the problem the weighted density data featured in that blog post I linked to is trying to solve. By this method, County B would show up 999 times denser than County A (assuming each mile square is a census tract).

 

Yeah, that list is very accurate to me. LA is much, much denser than most people realize and it extends pretty far out from downtown. Santa Monica, for example, is still over 10,000 people per square mile. It's 15 miles out from downtown. Hollywood is pushing 25,000 per square mile. The entire Wilshire corridor is about 20,000 to 40,000 people per square mile with exceptions being Beverly Hills and a few park areas. As an urbanized area, Los Angeles is not nearly as far off from New York and San Francisco as people think.

 

Rust Belt cities are remarkable in the density they have lost. Keep in mind cities like Detroit and Cleveland were at one time pushing 15,000 people per square mile. Toledo and Columbus were pushing 10,000 people per square mile. The density losses have been incredible and heartbreaking...

 

What you have in Rust Belt cities are incredibly-gap-toothed cities. You might have one census tract with still over 10,000 people per square mile, but right next to it there is a mostly-destroyed one with 2,000 people per square mile. It's not contiguous density, which is what is most damning from a pedestrian or transit perspective. Cities like San Francisco, New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles do have large areas of contiguous density.

 

Very true about LA.

 

Density is also somewhat visual/psychological. If you are on a street that has houses that front the street but have huge backyards it will look and feel denser than that same street with houses that are at the back of the lots and front lawns are huge.

 

Likewise a street with lots of apartments and homes tightly packed together will look and feel just as dense no matter if there's 1 person occupying each unit or 10.

 

Conversely a suburban development with huge lots but huge family sizes will be denser than if the homes had 1 or two people living in it.

 

Density is a lot based on perception of the built environment. So even as rust belt cities lose population and density, the built environment density still exists.

 

Take for example Tremont, OC, and D/S. To reach the densities that these neighborhoods had 60 years ago, we'd need 2-3x the number of housing units because family size has shrunk considerably. The built environment density of these neighborhoods would look much denser in person to achieve the same density on paper. So in essence, neighborhoods need to be built denser today to achieve the same density of yesteryear.

^ Good point

Yeah, that list is very accurate to me. LA is much, much denser than most people realize and it extends pretty far out from downtown. Santa Monica, for example, is still over 10,000 people per square mile. It's 15 miles out from downtown. Hollywood is pushing 25,000 per square mile. The entire Wilshire corridor is about 20,000 to 40,000 people per square mile with exceptions being Beverly Hills and a few park areas. As an urbanized area, Los Angeles is not nearly as far off from New York and San Francisco as people think.

 

Yeah, I agree with everything you say, especially about the importance of concentrations of density for high quality transit viability. 

 

Interestingly, there was a recent mini trend of folks pointing out that the LA area is actually denser than the NYC metro area (example: http://www.kpbs.org/news/2012/apr/09/population-density-think-la-not-new-york/), which is true in a literal sense of overall people/land area, but mostly meaningless, because it ignores the distribution of the population within the metro area (to WestBLVD's point). The weighted measure shows that the the typical NYC area resident still lives at almost three times the neighborhood density of the typical LA resident, despite the low density of NYC's sprawl.

Density in rust belt cities will never reach the same as its peak as long as the housing stock remains the same. This is a good thing. Rust Belt cities were not built for the high density of the East Coast. During Cleveland's peak it was extremely overcrowded. Terrible living conditions. In many cases, these neighborhoods have now right-sized. Many others have completely emptied out. The only true way for rust belt cities to increase density is by new construction.

 

For example, Coventry Village was built for density, and although the population has declined compared to its peak, the area remains with a much higher density than your typical City of Cleveland neighborhood. That Cleveland neighborhood was built for medium-low density but got extremely overcrowded and got as dense/or even more dense than Coventry Village is today. Those neighborhoods have now right-sized and pretty much have the population those structures were built to handle. Some have also emptied out as well, which is a completely different story. Neighborhoods like Tremont will never reach its density peak again unless much higher density development takes place. If single family homes continue to dominate, you will get a healthy neighborhood with a density that matches what it is today.

Take for example Tremont, OC, and D/S. To reach the densities that these neighborhoods had 60 years ago, we'd need 2-3x the number of housing units because family size has shrunk considerably. The built environment density of these neighborhoods would look much denser in person to achieve the same density on paper. So in essence, neighborhoods need to be built denser today to achieve the same density of yesteryear.

 

Or you get roommates. Many buildings built as 2-bds in San Francisco house four people (closets and living rooms turn into bedrooms). Part of the density in New York and San Francisco is due to each person taking up less space. There are a lot of empty bedrooms and wasted space in the Rust Belt...not to mention urban prairies. How many buildings has Cleveland torn down in the last ten years? Last 30 years? This extends to most Rust Belt cities...

 

While it's nice that apartments are massive in Rust Belt cities and dirt cheap (incredible bang for buck which should eventually draw people there), it does lower population density and limit urban potential. Street activity is highest where there is real population, not "perception" of past historical density. That's why Los Angeles is vibrant. The population density is there. Even street activity in Venice blows away anything you'd find in Ohio. From a structural or population perspective, Venice is not one of LA's denser areas.

 

And even that perception can be skewed. In many Rust Belt cities, you have urban prairies anchored by two mid-sized, late 19th century or early 20th century buildings. Half the buildings on the block are gone, but you still feel it's urban or "dense" because of the age of the buildings. Your mind fills in the blanks...

 

Even OTR, which is one of the few neighborhoods in Ohio I'd say still feels "dense" lost a ton of buildings and has low population density. It should be housing five times as many people...

Density in rust belt cities will never reach the same as its peak as long as the housing stock remains the same. This is a good thing. Rust Belt cities were not built for the high density of the East Coast. During Cleveland's peak it was extremely overcrowded. Terrible living conditions. In many cases, these neighborhoods have now right-sized. Many others have completely emptied out. The only true way for rust belt cities to increase density is by new construction.

 

I don't think 10,000 to 15,000 people per square mile is too dense at all. I've lived in neighborhoods of 20,000 to 30,000 people per square mile and honestly, they felt sleepy (Haight-Ashbury or Inner Richmond for example). I've also lived in areas with upwards of 70,000 people per square mile. I'd say 50,000 people per square mile feels about right to me and is a good density. Believe it or not, Ohio had a few neighborhoods with 30,000 to 50,000 people per square mile at its peak in the cores of Cincinnati, Toledo, and Cleveland. While it may have felt "crowded" to some, I don't think it ever reached the conditions of New York and San Francisco. And if it did, it was due to inadequate bathroom facilities and poor sanitation. High population density is certainly doable and livable. "Right-size" for the Rust Belt in my eyes is realistically about 10,000 people per square mile. Each city should double in population. I think the cities were right-sized at their peak populations in 1950, not today. Even city-wide density over 10,000 people per square mile will still be sleepy compared to first tier coastal cities (partially due to lack of tourism), but far more viable from a pedestrian or transit perspective. I've always felt 10,000 people per square mile is the sweet spot.

Density in rust belt cities will never reach the same as its peak as long as the housing stock remains the same. This is a good thing. Rust Belt cities were not built for the high density of the East Coast. During Cleveland's peak it was extremely overcrowded. Terrible living conditions. In many cases, these neighborhoods have now right-sized. Many others have completely emptied out. The only true way for rust belt cities to increase density is by new construction.

 

I don't think 10,000 to 15,000 people per square mile is too dense at all. I've lived in neighborhoods of 20,000 to 30,000 people per square mile and honestly, they felt sleepy (Haight-Ashbury or Inner Richmond for example). I've also lived in areas with upwards of 70,000 people per square mile. I'd say 50,000 people per square mile feels about right to me and is a good density. Believe it or not, Ohio had a few neighborhoods with 30,000 to 50,000 people per square mile at its peak in Cincinnati, Toledo, and Cleveland. While it may have felt "crowded" to some, I don't think it ever reached the conditions of New York and San Francisco.

 

I think DM4[/member] 's point was that those neighborhood's structures were not built to handle that level of density.  While 10,000-15,000 per square mile may not be "too" dense if housed in a series of high-rises - that same population may be overcrowded in the mid-rise apartment buildings, duplexes, and single-family homes ubiquitous in Cleveland neighborhoods.

 

I don't think 10,000 to 15,000 people per square mile is too dense at all. I've lived in neighborhoods of 20,000 to 30,000 people per square mile and honestly, they felt sleepy (Haight-Ashbury or Inner Richmond for example). I've also lived in areas with upwards of 70,000 people per square mile. I'd say 50,000 people per square mile feels about right to me and is a good density. Believe it or not, Ohio had a few neighborhoods with 30,000 to 50,000 people per square mile at its peak in Cincinnati, Toledo, and Cleveland. While it may have felt "crowded" to some, I don't think it ever reached the conditions of New York and San Francisco. And it it did, it was due to inadequate bathroom facilities and poor sanitation. High population density is certainly doable. "Right-size" for the Rust Belt in my eyes is realistically about 10,000 people per square mile. It will still be sleepy compared to coastal cities, but far more viable from a pedestrian or transit perspective.

 

You are looking at citywide density, not neighborhood density. Neighborhood density is all that really matters. A city with large areas of water, industry, (any other non residential use), etc. will have a much lower overall density. That is how Lakewood Ohio shows up denser than Philadelphia, even though anyone with eyes could tell you Philadelphia is far denser than Lakewood.

 

I agree that 10,000 to 15,000 people per square mile is not too dense. Anything between 15,000 to 30,000 seems like a reasonable goal for rust belt cities. 20,000+ would be great. Obviously the 30/50,000+ of the coastal cities would be great, but i'm not sure how realistic that is for a city like Cleveland. Right now the only neighborhoods with that high rust belt density are Lakewood's Gold Coast, Little Italy, Shaker Square, and Coventry Village. Cedar Fairmount depending on what you define the borders as. With new construction, I can easily see Tremont reaching that point as well.

 

 

Mid-rise apartments could handle that density (and probably those Great Lakes duplexes). Single-family homes? Probably not. One of the issues in the Rust Belt is the wasted space on backyards and trees in front of buildings. There are a lot of small gaps between buildings that could add another three or four bedrooms to each unit. Rust Belt housing tends to waste space on courtyards, small gardens, and little outdoor spaces. It's too "green" so to speak, and is part of the reason its density is lower. There also are large metro park systems that go far beyond the space of a typical city park. It's shocking how many big trees there are in cities like Cleveland, Toledo, and Buffalo. That should force density in the existing residential areas since so much space is wasted on parks.

 

10,000 to 15,000 per square mile would be extremely sparse if housed in high-rises and pretty sparse even in mid-rises. It's a standard density for a duplex or small apartment neighborhood and most Great Lakes neighborhoods had this density (and higher) when they were healthier. The surviving parts of Detroit and Toledo with these densities still feel sleepy to me. It think it's myth that any Great Lakes cities got too "crowded" for any extended period of time. They expanded their neighborhoods to house new immigrants much better than East Coast cities did. They had some housing shortages in the 1920's, but nothing like saltwater coastal cities experienced. At nearly 80 square miles, Cleveland is pretty huge in land area. The crowding was very short-lived and limited since housing sizes were already larger than on the East Coast. There was a lot more space to absorb the Great Lakes population boom. The cities also went bust big time during the Great Depression...that halted population growth in its tracks. Looking at historic photos, it's just hard for me to see any sort of long-term crowding issues. The Lake Erie cities looked amazing up until the 1960's and just about right for their built environment.

 

You are looking at citywide density, not neighborhood density. Neighborhood density is all that really matters. A city with large areas of water, industry, (any other non residential use), etc. will have a much lower overall density. That is how Lakewood Ohio shows up denser than Philadelphia, even though anyone with eyes could tell you Philadelphia is far denser than Lakewood.

 

I'm talking neighborhood density being important. 10,000 people per square mile is not dense, and most Rust Belt neighborhoods today have fallen below this level of density. When Cleveland reached 15,000 people per square mile, it had neighborhoods of 30,000 people per square mile. That's a decent mid-level density. And that wasted space exists in almost every city. LA has huge areas of industry, port facilities, parks, etc. in the city limits. Ditto with San Francisco. That does push residential density up as it should in any city with population growth.

 

At peak, cities like Detroit, Toledo, Cleveland, and Buffalo had tons of space reserved for heavy industry and shipping. That helped make neighborhoods denser than they are today since most of that industry is gone. I stand by my feeling that residential population density needs to double and even triple before things start getting urban on a functional level. When people say Rust Belt neighborhoods feel "dead," it's because of the low population density. I've heard this "dead" comment even in neighborhoods well-preserved with some structural density. These cities were built to happily house much higher population densities. By all means, they should. Cleveland would be awesome if it had neighborhoods of 30,000 people per square mile again. There'd be thousands of people on the streets and everyone would be riding the RTA!

 

*I guess I'm just not buying that these population density losses are OK or "right sizing". I've heard this argument before from Ohio, and I think it's really holding back potential and has me worried about what would happen if developers came in wanting to really up density (say the Rust Belt starts booming again?). Would people protest? Density is too low in cities like Cleveland...

 

Functional urban areas have high population densities. There's no way around that. The neighborhoods around the United States (and world) with viable transit and pedestrian lifestyles have high population densities.

 

It's even true in Ohio. The densest neighborhoods in Cleveland prove this. They are more vibrant.

 

**I also agree with people saying you can get too dense. In most cases, that's around 100,000 people per square mile to me. That's a good chunk of Manhattan and some of San Francisco's core. There is truth that density should match built environment. Manhattan can house insane levels of density because its has the high-rises and superior transit. Its infrastructure is world class. Cleveland of course never had neighborhoods that could handle that, but...don't sell Cleveland short. What makes its potential so great for density is the RTA. It has something no other city in Ohio has and could support much higher densities along the Rapid. I'm thinking 20,000 to 30,000 people per square mile is realistic by those heavy rail stops. Maybe 15,000 people per square mile along the light rail. It's an underutilized transit system with tons of room for growth.

 

In my eyes, Cleveland should be the second-densest city in the Midwest after Chicago. It has the second best transit system.

Also, Lakewood is less dense than Philadelphia based on the 2010 census (9,426.9 per square mile versus 11,379.6). Philly's core is on the level of Chicago or San Francisco. Lakewood's core is very tiny and peaks much lower. Philly peaks at 64,000 people per square mile. This is an awesome link that goes over major city peak density areas. It's worth a look:

 

http://beyonddc.com/?p=4808

 

The Rust Belt is starting to peak out below Tampa or Phoenix. I think a peak area of 50,0000 people per square mile with many neighborhoods around half to one-third of that density would be ideal for cities like Cleveland.

Yeah, that list is very accurate to me. LA is much, much denser than most people realize and it extends pretty far out from downtown. Santa Monica, for example, is still over 10,000 people per square mile. It's 15 miles out from downtown. Hollywood is pushing 25,000 per square mile. The entire Wilshire corridor is about 20,000 to 40,000 people per square mile with exceptions being Beverly Hills and a few park areas.

 

This is true. LA actually has some pretty good density. However, its problem IMO is that this density is not continuous and is spotty. There are sections of LA that have dense housing blocks next to neighborhoods with suburban ranch houses.  Another problem with LA is the commercial corridors are spread out far apart and are auto-centric, which is not accommodating for pedestrians.

 

Los Angeles is proving to be more embracing of density since it's becoming less car dependent. The whole SF versus LA development war comes down to private transit versus public transit. Many workers in San Francisco get to work by private luxury bus. I don't think anyone in LA does, hence all the pushes to rapidly expand public transit. Ditto with New York. Very few New Yorkers take private busses to work. That's part of the reason New York has such a good transit system. People embrace public transit in New York. You need population density for any decent public transit system to be viable.

 

I think SF has those buses due to the fact that SF's transit system is poor given the urban character of the city. You also have a lot of high tech job sprawl there combined with workers who want the urban core.

 

What you have in Rust Belt cities are incredibly-gap-toothed cities. You might have one census tract with still over 10,000 people per square mile, but right next to it there is a mostly-destroyed one with 2,000 people per square mile. It's not contiguous density, which is what is most damning from a pedestrian or transit perspective. Cities like San Francisco, New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles do have large areas of contiguous density.

 

Like I said before, I don't agree that LA has good continuous density (at least in built form). Although, with LA it's because it was built that way. With the rust belt it's because neighborhoods have declined.

 

Ohio does not have this. It has maybe a string of preserved neighborhoods in one side of the city with many areas (or even whole sides in the case of Cleveland and Dayton) with destroyed density. It's just really sad considering how dense these Rust Belt cities used to be. Even Pittsburgh, which is a Rust Belt urbanist darling, is very gap-toothed and lacks contiguous density. I think Milwaukee is as close as it gets for a Rust Belt city, but their transit situation? Oh boy, best not to go to Wisconsin if you want to give up the car...

 

Madison and Milwaukee have very pedestrian friendly cores. I have visited Milwaukee without driving, and just getting around by bus and walking. Milwaukee actually has a great core of neighborhoods and it clearly has less "missing teeth" than Cleveland does. There are nice residential areas of Milwaukee with densities in the 20,000 to 30,000 range. Milwaukee is actually a very underrated city. I think it would be a good candidate for a streetcar in the core of the city to link those core neighborhoods.

 

In my eyes, Cleveland should be the second-densest city in the Midwest after Chicago. It has the second best transit system.

 

I agree, but unfortunately it has not translated except for Shaker Square. Little Italy is also getting a new transit stop in the center of the neighborhood, which I think will drive some TOD.

 

Ohio City should be the real TOD target for Cleveland. This neighborhood should have a density of at least 30,000 in my mind, and I believe right now it probably has 1/3 that. There is lots of room in Ohio City for modern row-house development and mid-rise buildings along the commercial corridors.

Functional urban areas have high population densities. There's no way around that. The neighborhoods around the United States (and world) with viable transit and pedestrian lifestyles have high population densities.

It's even true in Ohio. The densest neighborhoods in Cleveland prove this. They are more vibrant.

 

I also don't like the idea of right-sizing, for sure. But there are weaknesses to an unequivocal association between population density and pedestrian/transit orientation ... Both because the built form contributes so much to our concept of what's dense and household size contributes GREATLY to population density numbers from neighborhood to neighborhood, as other forumers noted above, and because population density considers only residents and not another patrons of neighborhoods (workers, visitors, pedestrian and cyclist through-traffic) that also contribute to both a feel of pedestrian orientation and the individual demand that leads to where transit, bike and sidewalk infrastructure investments are made. Despite its sizable population gains, downtown Cleveland only had 3,404 residents per square mile as of 2010 - just over a third of the residential density of the West Boulevard area at 9,918. But I can't imagine a world where people generally think of West Boulevard as being more "urban" than downtown ... Or doing a better job of serving their transit, biking or walking needs.

 

And it's not the only example - As of 2010, the Hingetown block group in Ohio City had a shockingly low 1,579 residents per square mile, but that didn't stop a number of new retail establishments from opening up there, and recent community surveying I saw showed the vast majority of both residents and visitors thought the neighborhood was very walkable. Meanwhile, Tremont and Goodrich-Kirtland Park (Asiatown) were among the city's least dense neighborhoods, as of 2010, while Cudell and Mount Pleasant remain among its densest. That's not to say that Cudell and Mount Pleasant aren't dense, but I'd wager that Tremont and Asiatown draw disproportionately smaller households and disproportionately larger crowds of workers and visitors that don't get counted in what makes a neighborhood visibly and functionally dense.

If Cleveland is trying to become more dense, it should look at Milwaukee.  Better lakefront access, more contiguous, urban-themed neighborhoods.  The Rapid does not promote contiguous density by fault of design.  Milwaukee has no LRT and still has connected zones of activity.

^No way.  Portland.  That's the model we like on UO.

Like I said before, I don't agree that LA has good continuous density (at least in built form). Although, with LA it's because it was built that way. With the rust belt it's because neighborhoods have declined.

 

I'm mainly speaking in regards to West LA. The Hollywood and Wilshire corridors are extremely dense and extensive by any Midwestern standards outside Chicago (though Chicago has gaps too...NY and SF are most contiguous). LA's major streets still aren't to SF's level on Mission, Geary (no rail transit), Haight (no rail transit), Polk (no rail transit), Divisadero (no rail transit), California, Montgomery, or Van Ness (no rail transit). Broadway in Downtown LA is awesome, but it's not Market Street (though LA's Broadway certainly ranks as one of the best big city urban corridors in the United States). The difference maker is that LA is building heavy rail under Hollywood (already built) and Wilshire. SF will never add heavy rail transit again. It's stuck with 8 stations, the same as Oakland. We're talking worlds of difference in political attitudes. That's why I'm such a big fanboy of LA. I work there sometimes and see the changes in person. The people also are some of the best in the country. Ohio and other Middle American areas with suburban fetishes really need to pay attention to Southern California's urban infill (and even San Jose's). LA is the model for suburban to urban transformation. Those ranch houses and strip malls are coming down!

 

LA's continuity does exist in large swaths of the West Side today. It's true that the city was built multi-nodal, but it's filling in well. I can't think of any areas where you have 10,000 to 30,000 people per square mile next to 2,000 people per square mile. The holes aren't as big in LA anymore as they are in the Rust Belt. Things are changing fast.

 

The holes are huge in the Rust Belt. I stand by the feeling that Rust Belt cities are overall less contiguous than almost any other formerly dense, big city pre-WW2 urban cores. It sucks, but it's the harsh truth. Milwaukee is the sole city that seems more contiguous among the Rust Belt.

 

I agree, but unfortunately it has not translated except for Shaker Square. Little Italy is also getting a new transit stop in the center of the neighborhood, which I think will drive some TOD.

 

Ohio City should be the real TOD target for Cleveland. This neighborhood should have a density of at least 30,000 in my mind, and I believe right now it probably has 1/3 that. There is lots of room in Ohio City for modern row-house development and mid-rise buildings along the commercial corridors.

 

This in a nutshell is what I found frustrating about Cleveland. I am somewhat shocked that TOD is so low compared to what I'm seeing in other cities. Just Portland alone boggles my mind since it's not a better city than Clevleand by any measure. Cleveland has better architecture, a bigger downtown, better housing, better cultural amenities (museum, Playhouse Square, non-hipster nightlife), better parks, better food, better beer (sorry Portland, but Great Lakes wins), Lake Erie (though toxic, it's still a valuable asset), and better people (way more diverse, fewer hipsters). I don't know how the hell Cleveland is still losing population. Gen Y should be bum rushing that city for the cheap real estate and transit system. Cities like Portland no doubt did a great job with light rail and TOD, but at its core, Portland was never on Cleveland's level. It's relevant as a regional draw and cost-savings move for Bay Area and Seattle residents, but it's much bigger of a national magnet than it should be. I meet tons of ex-Ohioans in Portland. Why aren't they in Cleveland? Is the light rail system or weather really any better than Cleveland?

 

*But I do think Cleveland's RTA is one of the most underutilized transit systems in the country. Ridership is way too low...

^No way.  Portland.  That's the model we like on UO.

 

For TOD, yes, Cleveland needs to be looking at it more. What makes Portland impressive is not the city itself or any of its cultural amenities. What makes it impressive is its light rail system and all the spinoff development.

 

You basically had an average mid-sized river town in the middle of nowhere that just exploded because of very wise public investment and planning choices.

Despite its sizable population gains, downtown Cleveland only had 3,404 residents per square mile as of 2010 - just over a third of the residential density of the West Boulevard area at 9,918. But I can't imagine a world where people generally think of West Boulevard as being more "urban" than downtown ... Or doing a better job of serving their transit, biking or walking needs.

 

Business districts and tourist districts need to be factored in regards to density. Downtown Cleveland is vibrant because over 100,000 people work there and are on the streets for most of the day....but, I would say like the majority of big city downtowns, it mostly dies off at night. This is true in every city I've worked in except New York. For more 24/7 activity, you need residential density. That's why Midtown and Lower Manhattan kick ass. It's not office workers, it's the people living there. But I'm very encouraged by Downtown Cleveland's development. I think it stands alone in Ohio (I hope people don't flame me for this). With its transit, location near Lake Erie, and the fact it has the largest employment base in Ohio, I see it as a very smart investment for anybody buying properties in the Rust Belt. I'd be putting a lot of money into Downtown Detroit, Downtown Toledo, Downtown Cleveland, and Downtown Buffalo right now (ditto with Sandusky and Erie). There are a lot of outstanding properties with prime locations available for pennies on the dollar compared to saltwater cities. The downtowns of those Lake Erie cities are going to come back regardless of their respective metro area economies. The bones are too strong. And Cleveland and Buffalo have transit backbones to build on too.

Ditto.  As current Portland resident, I'll confirm Portland is a perfect urban planning stencil for a midsize city like Cleveland (TOD, urban farming, mixed-used development, bike lanes, policy, etc).

^No way.  Portland.  That's the model we like on UO.

 

As Murray Hill mentioned there is a lot Cleveland can learn from Portland as far as urban development, but I also agree that Milwaukee is a good city to look too for ideas. Cleveland has a lot more in common with Milwaukee than it does Portland.

 

Milwaukee has done a good job of redeveloping it's former industrial riverfront with residential development and it has a great lakefront that is on the same scale as Cleveland's. Of course Milwaukee did a better job than Cleveland from the get-go as far as urban planning goes. Milwaukee has always had a lakefront that is parkland in the heart of the city, and has always had nice neighborhoods along that lakefront near the downtown.

^No way.  Portland.  That's the model we like on UO.

 

As Murray Hill mentioned there is a lot Cleveland can learn from Portland as far as urban development, but I also agree that Milwaukee is a good city to look too for ideas. Cleveland has a lot more in common with Milwaukee than it does Portland.

 

Milwaukee has done a good job of redeveloping it's former industrial riverfront with residential development and it has a great lakefront that is on the same scale as Cleveland's. Of course Milwaukee did a better job than Cleveland from the get-go as far as urban planning goes. Milwaukee has always had a lakefront that is parkland in the heart of the city, and has always had nice neighborhoods along that lakefront near the downtown.

 

Let's be clear: Milwaukee indeed has had better lakefront planning from a residential perspective than Cleveland.  But I would not say Milwaukee, overall, is better planned than Cleveland, esp from a transit and overall land-use standpoint.  And as far as the riverfront, Cleveland in the Flats has been steadily improving and is closing the gap.  Of course, the radically different typographies of the 2 cities must be considered, with the steep cliffs down from the street grid into the Flats area along the Cuyahoga making riverfront residential development more challenging while industrial development more expedient, historically.  Thus we see, like the Flats residential development on the East and West banks, those areas are nice, but tend to be cut off and segregated from the long-established neighborhoods at the tops of the bluffs.  Milwaukee’s more street level river through downtown, like Chicago’s, make it more accessible and integrated into the downtown neighborhood.   

Density in rust belt cities will never reach the same as its peak as long as the housing stock remains the same. This is a good thing. Rust Belt cities were not built for the high density of the East Coast. During Cleveland's peak it was extremely overcrowded. Terrible living conditions. In many cases, these neighborhoods have now right-sized. Many others have completely emptied out. The only true way for rust belt cities to increase density is by new construction.

 

I don't think 10,000 to 15,000 people per square mile is too dense at all. I've lived in neighborhoods of 20,000 to 30,000 people per square mile and honestly, they felt sleepy (Haight-Ashbury or Inner Richmond for example). I've also lived in areas with upwards of 70,000 people per square mile. I'd say 50,000 people per square mile feels about right to me and is a good density. Believe it or not, Ohio had a few neighborhoods with 30,000 to 50,000 people per square mile at its peak in the cores of Cincinnati, Toledo, and Cleveland. While it may have felt "crowded" to some, I don't think it ever reached the conditions of New York and San Francisco. And if it did, it was due to inadequate bathroom facilities and poor sanitation. High population density is certainly doable and livable. "Right-size" for the Rust Belt in my eyes is realistically about 10,000 people per square mile. Each city should double in population. I think the cities were right-sized at their peak populations in 1950, not today. Even city-wide density over 10,000 people per square mile will still be sleepy compared to first tier coastal cities (partially due to lack of tourism), but far more viable from a pedestrian or transit perspective. I've always felt 10,000 people per square mile is the sweet spot.

 

Whatever they used to have, here are the top 10 densities of blocks in each of Ohio's major cities.  The highlighted ones are the only blocks with 30,000 or greater densities. 

Akron

1. 21,626.5

2. 10,917.6

3. 10,738.5

4. 10,643.7

5. 10,264.2

6. 10,174.5

7. 10,049.7

8. 9,973.0

9. 9,624.5

10. 9,581.0

 

Cincinnati

1. 41,175.5

2. 23,493.3

3. 20,770.5

4. 19,966.9

5. 19,182.0

6. 19,126.7

7. 19,060.1

8. 16,975.5

9. 16,907.7

10. 14,163.7

 

Cleveland

1. 18,784.9

2. 18,545.4

3. 17,117.9

4. 17,069.8

5. 16,291.6

6. 16,236.0

7. 16,231.1

8. 16,021.7

9. 15,899.0

10. 15,388.1

 

Columbus

1. 61,114.0

2. 46,583.1

3. 38,020.0

4. 34,112.8

5. 31,005.4

6. 30,404.3

7. 29,874.1

8. 29,634.7

9. 26,970.4

10. 26,543.8

 

Dayton

1, 20,615,2

2. 14,432.8

3. 11,338.3

4. 10,530.8

5. 10,116.6

6. 9,940.3

7. 9,658.4

8. 9,604.7

9. 9,579.3

10. 9,539.7

 

Toledo

1. 12,454.3

2. 12,428.0

3. 12,024.4

4. 11,667.4

5. 11,664.9

6. 11,573.3

7. 11,550.6

8. 11,416.4

9. 11,167.3

10. 10,978.1

 

Youngstown

1. 6,536.8

2. 6,188.7

3. 6,133.2

4. 5,764.4

5. 5,687.1

6. 5,331.8

7. 5,274.0

8. 5,158.4

9. 5,023.7

10. 5,002.0 

 

And here are the number of neighborhoods (blocks) by city that have densities at or above 10,000.

 

Akron: 7

Cincinnati: 30

Cleveland: 111

Columbus: 84

Dayton: 5

Toledo: 14

Youngstown: 0

 

I bet this surprises a lot of people.

 

Your bet is correct. I kind of figured Cincinnati would have higher density pockets because of the topography but wasn't expecting Cleveland to have that many more blocks of density above 10,000 ppsm.

 

I'm honestly just most surprised about Columbus. Those are some huge densities. Any info you can give on their locations for those of us not super familiar with Cbus?

What constitutes a "block"?  Are the blocks the same size in the various cities?  Because if not, doing a block to block comparison is kind of pointless. 

Let's be clear: Milwaukee indeed has had better lakefront planning from a residential perspective than Cleveland.  But I would not say Milwaukee, overall, is better planned than Cleveland, esp from a transit and overall land-use standpoint.  And as far as the riverfront, Cleveland in the Flats has been steadily improving and is closing the gap.  Of course, the radically different typographies of the 2 cities must be considered, with the steep cliffs down from the street grid into the Flats area along the Cuyahoga making riverfront residential development more challenging while industrial development more expedient, historically.  Thus we see, like the Flats residential development on the East and West banks, those areas are nice, but tend to be cut off and segregated from the long-established neighborhoods at the tops of the bluffs.  Milwaukee’s more street level river through downtown, like Chicago’s, make it more accessible and integrated into the downtown neighborhood.   

 

Yes, obviously Cleveland has better transit than Milwaukee. Not sure how you can say that about land-use patterns, as that pretty much gets back to Milwaukee's lakefront planning.

 

Also, there are sections of the river in Milwaukee that slope down just like the flats, albeit on a smaller scale. These areas are not in the heart of downtown but are just north of it; and are former industrial ares that are now residential.

 

Here is the area I'm talking about. I think it would be a good example for the flats.

 

https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=43.057679,-87.899133&spn=0.002627,0.004442&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=43.057724,-87.90003&panoid=9S2KEVaDdrqal5s36emldA&cbp=12,77.75,,0,3.5

 

https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=43.053877,-87.905678&spn=0.003716,0.008883&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=43.053874,-87.907713&panoid=k-XTad4h9DzDzIlQEtkLNA&cbp=12,186.01,,0,2.08

 

And here is another section of Milwaukee that has been developed where there are less slopes, but still a good example to look at.

 

https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=43.031208,-87.907931&spn=0.003717,0.008883&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=43.031207,-87.909973&panoid=ri32uxNoOeH4ZLhUwkFuDA&cbp=12,102.8,,0,-1.19

 

I think Cleveland still has a ways to catch up to Milwaukee when it comes to riverfront development.

 

I'm honestly just most surprised about Columbus. Those are some huge densities. Any info you can give on their locations for those of us not super familiar with Cbus?

 

It's because of Ohio State's student housing and adjacent neighborhoods I think.

 

 

Census blocks aren't equal in size.  The actual density numbers of those blocks are more telling.  The blocks around OSU are the most dense.  'Cleveland's' densest block is actually the one in Lakewood, right on the border, with a density of just under 40,000

Let's be clear: Milwaukee indeed has had better lakefront planning from a residential perspective than Cleveland.  But I would not say Milwaukee, overall, is better planned than Cleveland, esp from a transit and overall land-use standpoint.  And as far as the riverfront, Cleveland in the Flats has been steadily improving and is closing the gap.  Of course, the radically different typographies of the 2 cities must be considered, with the steep cliffs down from the street grid into the Flats area along the Cuyahoga making riverfront residential development more challenging while industrial development more expedient, historically.  Thus we see, like the Flats residential development on the East and West banks, those areas are nice, but tend to be cut off and segregated from the long-established neighborhoods at the tops of the bluffs.  Milwaukee’s more street level river through downtown, like Chicago’s, make it more accessible and integrated into the downtown neighborhood.   

 

Yes, obviously Cleveland has better transit than Milwaukee. Not sure how you can say that about land-use patterns, as that pretty much gets back to Milwaukee's lakefront planning.

 

Also, there are sections of the river in Milwaukee that slope down just like the flats, albeit on a smaller scale. These areas are not in the heart of downtown but are just north of it; and are former industrial ares that are now residential.

 

Here is the area I'm talking about. I think it would be a good example for the flats.

 

https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=43.057679,-87.899133&spn=0.002627,0.004442&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=43.057724,-87.90003&panoid=9S2KEVaDdrqal5s36emldA&cbp=12,77.75,,0,3.5

 

https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=43.053877,-87.905678&spn=0.003716,0.008883&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=43.053874,-87.907713&panoid=k-XTad4h9DzDzIlQEtkLNA&cbp=12,186.01,,0,2.08

 

And here is another section of Milwaukee that has been developed where there are less slopes, but still a good example to look at.

 

https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=43.031208,-87.907931&spn=0.003717,0.008883&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=43.031207,-87.909973&panoid=ri32uxNoOeH4ZLhUwkFuDA&cbp=12,102.8,,0,-1.19

 

I think Cleveland still has a ways to catch up to Milwaukee when it comes to riverfront development.

 

I'm honestly just most surprised about Columbus. Those are some huge densities. Any info you can give on their locations for those of us not super familiar with Cbus?

 

It's because of Ohio State's student housing and adjacent neighborhoods I think.

 

 

 

Points well taken Rustbelter; no question that, unfortunately, Cleveland grew rapidly more based on industrial expediency than a more logical pattern of quality residential development like both Milwaukee, and it's neighbor to the south, Chicago did.  Milwaukee, btw, had a rapid transit system that it closed down (I think) in the 1950s.  Cleveland has been very slow to realize its assets, like the waterfronts and rail transit, as tools for neighborhood creation, stability and growth.  Finally, after many decades, we're starting to see some serious TOD planning and development in the city around a few Rapid Stations, like W. 25/Ohio City and the new Little Italy... and even near Tower City.  And of course, the planned high-density residential development around the Browns' stadium is our 1st real volley toward realizing the Lake as a quality-of-life asset... Of course 3 miles to the West, we DO have long standing, high-quality Chicago/Milwaukee type development in Edgewater Park, and the Edgewater and Gold Coast neighborhoods stretching westward.... No surprise the areas of overall highest population density in Greater Cleveland is in those areas as well.

Your bet is correct. I kind of figured Cincinnati would have higher density pockets because of the topography but wasn't expecting Cleveland to have that many more blocks of density above 10,000 ppsm.

 

I'm honestly just most surprised about Columbus. Those are some huge densities. Any info you can give on their locations for those of us not super familiar with Cbus?

 

Most of the top 10 are along or near High Street from the Short North to Campus.  Almost all of them are actually getting more dense over time as well.

 

However, OSU is really not the only reason for the density.  If you expand the category out to those blocks with 5,000+ densities, Columbus and Cleveland have a difference of only 14 (350 vs. 336. Cincinnati has only 160).  Columbus has far more density than what people think, and it goes far beyond Campus.

What constitutes a "block"?  Are the blocks the same size in the various cities?  Because if not, doing a block to block comparison is kind of pointless.

 

Why would it matter if they were the same size?  No boundary in which density is measured is equal from place to place, whether it be county, city, zip code, census tract or block. 

Census blocks aren't equal in size.  The actual density numbers of those blocks are more telling.  The blocks around OSU are the most dense.  'Cleveland's' densest block is actually the one in Lakewood, right on the border, with a density of just under 40,000

 

Yes. I think the map I posted up thread is a far better indicator of density since it shows the contiguous density in San Francisco, New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago. These blocks need to be locked at in relation to the big picture. Density maps of cities are what to be looking at. San Francisco and New York really stand out.

 

Census blocks can be way too small to get an accurate picture, hence why I like neighborhood-level measurements. Say each city's densest areas with 1 to 5 square miles.

 

And of course the densest blocks in Columbus would be Ohio State-related. That really does drive up the numbers in around that section of High Street.

What constitutes a "block"?  Are the blocks the same size in the various cities?  Because if not, doing a block to block comparison is kind of pointless.

 

Why would it matter if they were the same size?  No boundary in which density is measured is equal from place to place, whether it be county, city, zip code, census tract or block. 

 

It can be, like taking density within 1-mile of downtown, 2-miles, 3-miles, etc. I prefer to look at the big picture and see the contiguous dense blocks (census tracts or neighborhood-sized density). That's why those "counts of dense blocks" don't paint the whole picture. You need to look at city-wide density maps color coded with different density levels.

 

I've seen many density maps like that and you can see it on the one I posted. These maps show you exactly where the densest areas in each city are located, how big they are, and the rolloff around them. When looking at a map like this, it's obvious that Chicago is not overall much denser or more contiguous than Los Angeles:

 

http://beyonddc.com/?p=4808

 

New York and San Francisco stand alone. The Detroit and St. Louis maps are most damning and heartbreaking, since they both used to peak well above 50,000 per square mile and now are not much denser than Sun Belt cities. Ditto with Ohio cities.

 

One thing to keep in mind is that even Chicago, despite the great urban core and downtown, still is a Great Lakes city (similar to Toronto in build, density, and urban core). It has dense, built-up, "big city" commercial streets, but most residential streets still have setbacks, trees, and little backyards. I think that's kind of a cool thing about Great Lakes cities. You get big coastal city density mixed with greenery. The declined Great Lakes cities had similar structure to Chicago and Toronto at peak and had they remained intact, would probably not look all that different today in their urban core neighborhoods (though fewer high-rises). Cleveland, Buffalo, Detroit, Toledo, etc. had great urban structures at their peaks. They had those dense commercial corridors that stretched for miles buffered by tree-lined residential streets of Great Lakes double-deckers, Victorians, small row homes, and mid-sized apartment buildings. There was a pretty amazing mix of late 19th century and early 20th century styles, perhaps architecturally the most diverse cities in the country.

 

One could argue New York and San Francisco are too dense since there is far less greenery (though New York makes its density work due to transit). Great Lakes cities were always much greener...only today some of that greenery is urban prairie. That's the problem.

And here are the number of neighborhoods (blocks) by city that have densities at or above 10,000.

 

Akron: 7

Cincinnati: 30

Cleveland: 111

Columbus: 84

Dayton: 5

Toledo: 14

Youngstown: 0

 

I bet this surprises a lot of people.

 

The problem is census blocks aren't neighborhoods or geographically defined measurements. Anyone who has been around Ohio knows that Cincinnati's core is denser than Columbus (though the population gap has narrowed). You don't get that picture if you just count up irregular-sized blocks between cities. Someone would look at this list and be all "Columbus is denser than Cincinnati!" It's really not, and part of this is due to Cincinnati's larger, denser downtown with higher daytime population.

 

Also, some of those Toledo census blocks are larger than other ones you measured. It's just not apples to apples (measuring core square mile, core five square miles, core 10 square miles, core 20 square miles, etc. is apples to apples), hence why you need to look at a city-wide map or at least larger groupings like census tracts. Pre-WW2 Toledo is similar to pre-WW2 Columbus in geographic area and density, which makes sense since they were the same size in the pre-WW2 urban era. Columbus has had increased density along a few High Street tracts, but decreased density along Broad and many other urban core neighborhoods. That's the story of Ohio in general. You can point to High Street, but that doesn't negate what happened to other Columbus neighborhoods. The pre-1950 Columbus urban boundary area lost tens of thousands of people from 2000 to 2010. It declined as much as Cincinnati and Toledo did...though admittedly didn't shrink as much as Cleveland did. Columbus still has a lot of low density urban ghetto areas continuing to lose population (this is early stage gentrification, not late stage like New York, Boston, or Bay Area). Structurally, despite its good for Ohio economy, Columbus looks like a Rust Belt city (without industry) and suffered through the same urban decline and poor planning (the inner ring freeway is arguably the worst in Ohio, possibly the Midwest). It can't blame it on industrial decline like Cleveland, Toledo, Cincinnati, Dayton, etc., but it can blame it on poor planning decisions. It's myth that it's a golden child. Has it turned the corner on High Street? Yes, but most of the city still needs real help and real money to have a true transformation of the urban core. It's dealing with a lot of the same issues that other Ohio cities are dealing with.

 

Looking at a city-wide density map will show this. The decline is right there in the low density areas. I don't want to take this too far off track, but I feel caution should be taken when looking at cities by individual census block counts. The Three C's all have declined density. It's not a Cleveland problem, it's an Ohio problem.

 

*And by extension, it's a Rust Belt regional problem. It's the same issue in Southeastern Michigan, Upstate New York, and Western Pennsylvania.

 

However, OSU is really not the only reason for the density.  If you expand the category out to those blocks with 5,000+ densities, Columbus and Cleveland have a difference of only 14 (350 vs. 336. Cincinnati has only 160).  Columbus has far more density than what people think, and it goes far beyond Campus.

 

It's true Columbus population density is not much different from Cleveland or Cincinnati today. This is very similar to the Chicago versus Los Angeles density argument. Columbus may not look that dense from an historic urban perspective, but yes, along High Street for a few miles, there is real density. Columbus overall is a younger city and a lot of its density is housed in newer buildings (for example, Ohio State dorms). When people say it feels "suburban," it's more because of style and newness, not actual density.

 

As I said earlier, when you're standing in cities like Cleveland (or any Ohio city), your mind fills in blanks. I could be on a mostly destroyed block of Euclid Avenue, look up at an impressive mid-rise streetfront building from the early 20th century, and my mind says "urban" or "dense." I'm ignoring the five buildings leveled around it...

What constitutes a "block"?  Are the blocks the same size in the various cities?  Because if not, doing a block to block comparison is kind of pointless.

 

Why would it matter if they were the same size?  No boundary in which density is measured is equal from place to place, whether it be county, city, zip code, census tract or block. 

 

It can be, like taking density within 1-mile of downtown, 2-miles, 3-miles, etc. I prefer to look at the big picture and see the contiguous dense blocks, that's why those "counts of dense blocks" don't paint the whole picture. You need to look at city-wide density maps color coded with increasing density.

 

I've seen many density maps like that and you can see it on the one I posted. These maps show you exactly where the densest areas in each city are located, how big they are, and the rolloff around them. When looking at a map like this, it's obvious that Chicago is not overall much denser or more contiguous than Los Angeles:

 

http://beyonddc.com/?p=4808

 

New York and San Francisco stand alone. The Detroit and St. Louis maps are most damning and heartbreaking, since they both used to peak well above 50,000 per square mile and now are not much denser than Sun Belt cities. Ditto with Ohio cities.

 

One thing to keep in mind is that even Chicago, despite the great urban core and downtown, still is a Great Lakes city (similar to Toronto in build, density, and urban core). It has dense, built-up, "big city" commercial streets, but most residential streets still have setbacks, trees, and little backyards. I think that's kind of a cool thing about Great Lakes cities. You get big coastal city density mixed with greenery. The declined Great Lakes cities had similar structure to Chicago and Toronto at peak and had they remained intact, would probably not look all that different today in their urban cores neighborhoods (though fewer high-rises). Cleveland, Buffalo, Detroit, Toledo, etc. had great urban structures at their peaks. They had those dense commercial corridors that stretched for miles buffered by tree-lined residential streets of Great Lakes double-deckers, Victorians, small row homes, and mid-sized apartment buildings. There was a pretty amazing mix of late 19th century and early 20th century style, perhaps the architecturally most diverse cities in the country.

 

One could argue New York and San Francisco are too dense since there is far less greenery (though New York makes its density work due to transit). Great Lakes were always much greener...only today some of that greenery is urban prairie. That's the problem.

 

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

 

Ohio IS the East Coast and Ohioans need to stop letting the people who live by the ocean decide how we value our home state and its grandest cities.  The available stock is dense enough in Cleveland.  There is spirit in the Northeast Ohio area that supports a potential Cleveland renaissance.  Improved fixed transit is the on-ground solution.

From a PD article posted numerous times:

Still, a largely unheralded brain gain has already shaped powerful new patterns. The study found that:

 

•" The number of STEM jobs in the region--jobs in science, technology, engineering and math--grew by 25 percent in the last decade.

 

• A growing knowledge economy boosted wages. From 2003 to 2012, per capita income in the region rose from $33,359 to $44,775.

 

• Younger newcomers are fueling the brain gain. The number of college-educated 25 to 34 year olds in Greater Cleveland grew by 23 percent from 2006 to 2012.

 

• The skill level of Cleveland's young adult workforce is world class. It ranks 7th nationally, ahead of San Francisco, Chicago, Seattle and Austin, for professional and graduate degrees.

 

• The new Clevelanders are helping to create "global neighborhoods" in downtown, Tremont, Ohio City, Edgewater, Lakewood and Cleveland Heights--places where incomes are rising fastest."

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