Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Metroparks and Cuyahoga Nat'l Park aren't enough, and don't do anything to change the narrative of Ohio as a post-industrial, overfarmed environmental mess. Seriously, what city doesn't have a municipal park system? Relying on those old standbys will attract exactly no one. There needs to be significant investment in returning farmland to its natural state, for the sake of rivers and the lake.
Transient young people don't just go to the coasts; see: Chicago, Denver, Nashville and Austin.
CVNP and metroparks aren't enough? Do you take advantage of them? The offerings in the Cleveland area are much better and more accessible than most other cities. I could spend every weekend in the CVNP for 2 years and not get bored.
NYC alone is bigger than all those cities put together.
The Beauty Premium: How Urban Beauty Affects Cities’ Economic Growth
RICHARD FLORIDA 12:41 PM ET
A study finds that the more beautiful a city is, the more successful it is at attracting jobs and new residents, including highly educated and affluent ones.
In a phenomenon economists call the beauty premium, better-looking people tend to earn more money and are more successful at their careers. But do cities also benefit from a beauty premium? According to a new study by two urban economists, it seems that they do.
The study by Gerald A. Carlino of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia and Albert Saiz of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, examines the connection between a city’s beauty and key growth indicators. A raft of previous studies have found a connection between economic and population growth and urban amenities (a broad category ranging from parks to restaurants, art galleries, and museums). But this study takes a much closer look at the effects of beauty itself.
...
Beautiful places do not just occur naturally: They are the product of public policy and investment. Of course, some places are endowed with more natural beauty, in the form of stunning coastlines or scenic mountain ranges. But cities can and do make themselves more beautiful—and thus more attractive to educated and affluent people—by investing in parks and protecting landmarks and historic spaces.
The Beauty Premium: How Urban Beauty Affects Cities’ Economic Growth
RICHARD FLORIDA 12:41 PM ET
A study finds that the more beautiful a city is, the more successful it is at attracting jobs and new residents, including highly educated and affluent ones.
In a phenomenon economists call the beauty premium, better-looking people tend to earn more money and are more successful at their careers. But do cities also benefit from a beauty premium? According to a new study by two urban economists, it seems that they do.
The study by Gerald A. Carlino of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia and Albert Saiz of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, examines the connection between a city’s beauty and key growth indicators. A raft of previous studies have found a connection between economic and population growth and urban amenities (a broad category ranging from parks to restaurants, art galleries, and museums). But this study takes a much closer look at the effects of beauty itself.
...
Beautiful places do not just occur naturally: They are the product of public policy and investment. Of course, some places are endowed with more natural beauty, in the form of stunning coastlines or scenic mountain ranges. But cities can and do make themselves more beautiful—and thus more attractive to educated and affluent people—by investing in parks and protecting landmarks and historic spaces.
The Beauty Premium: How Urban Beauty Affects Cities’ Economic Growth
RICHARD FLORIDA 12:41 PM ET
A study finds that the more beautiful a city is, the more successful it is at attracting jobs and new residents, including highly educated and affluent ones.
In a phenomenon economists call the beauty premium, better-looking people tend to earn more money and are more successful at their careers. But do cities also benefit from a beauty premium? According to a new study by two urban economists, it seems that they do.
The study by Gerald A. Carlino of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia and Albert Saiz of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, examines the connection between a city’s beauty and key growth indicators. A raft of previous studies have found a connection between economic and population growth and urban amenities (a broad category ranging from parks to restaurants, art galleries, and museums). But this study takes a much closer look at the effects of beauty itself.
...
Beautiful places do not just occur naturally: They are the product of public policy and investment. Of course, some places are endowed with more natural beauty, in the form of stunning coastlines or scenic mountain ranges. But cities can and do make themselves more beautiful—and thus more attractive to educated and affluent people—by investing in parks and protecting landmarks and historic spaces.
Austin and Portland had/have significant advantages with demographics, weather, less economic decline, and being liberal-friendly cities. ...
Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati aren’t doing too badly. Sure, they’re not thriving like Austin, Seattle or DC… but neither are they as moribund as the general state of the heartland.
By my reckoning, Cleveland has the same problem as Chicago: nice city per se, but it’s surrounded by corn. There’s surfeit of tension between city-core and suburbs, but this is misplaced. The real tension is between the overall metro area and the vast acreage outside of it. Cleveland no longer has the support of its surrounding junior cities (Youngstown, Akron, etc.). It, like Chicago, is increasingly isolated… a city in a sea of corn.
And that brings me to my main point. The biggest issue isn’t Cleveland’s inability to grow, but the lamentable plight of Ohio’s secondary and tertiary cities… the Toledos, Daytons and Youngstowns, the Springfields and Chillicothes. It’s those places that are in the most trouble… and as they decline, the leave the bigger cities further isolated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleverfield
I agree, weather is just an excuse. Look at places like Toronto, Montreal, or Calgary.
Just imagine how much more those cities would have been burgeoning, had they had Los Angeles' weather.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleverfield
... I don’t think you can really attribute that as a cause for population loss. If it was a cause for population loss Austin, which is in a far redder state than Ohio, wouldn't be growing with young people like it is.
“Redness” is a fraught and misleading topic. Texas’ redness is arguably more libertarian than socially-conservative, and Austin is widely hailed (or panned) as being locally blue. In that, it’s similar to Cleveland (and Columbus)… an island of blue, in an otherwise red state.
Ohio’s “redness” is more of a rural, traditional, cultural redness. This, I think, is more disaffecting to large numbers of younger people, than the plucky Barry Goldwater-style redness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamms
...For starters, as you state, buy in low cost Cleveland and sell high later when everyone moves to The CLE.
This only holds if a formerly sleepy, unappealing or backward area gets “discovered”… or gentrifies. This happened for example to Washington DC in the 80s and 90s, beginning with the Reagan defense-boom. The boom did wonders for the Northern Virginia and Maryland suburbs, and then eventually DC itself gentrified. As a result, property values over the past 25 years rose at least as robustly as the US stock market.
It is hard to imagine similar growth in any Heartland city, short of some local miracle, such as discovery of a local natural resource, or the spontaneous relocation of a major company to some particular town. Otherwise, it would be hard to hope for housing-prices to even keep up with inflation.
Indeed, the appeal of settling in a higher-COL locale is that residential real-estate is a better investment there. The initial cost of buy-in is higher, but then, homeowners get to ride the appreciation-wave…. Which is almost impossible to do in the Heartland.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjimmy24
I further don't think aiming to attract young transient people is a winning strategy. These types will ALWAYS prefer the coasts. That's fine. Cities like Cleveland need serve as nice stable mid-sized cities for nice stable people. That doesn't mean mediocrity, it means being human and not suckered into passing trends.
At the risk of ranging too far off-topic, I must express my diametrical disagreement. The truly great cities aren’t “great” because they deliver needed amenities, services or quality of life to vast masses. They’re great because they cater to the absolute pinnacle of the global elite. There are something like 7.5 billion humans on earth. To concoct some half-baked number, maybe 7.5 million of them – or less! – are instrumental to nudging along civilization. These are the principal scientists, authors, inventors, entrepreneurs, intellectuals. What share of them would be attracted by London, Tokyo, Beijing, NYC, Paris? Moscow, Berlin, Sydney, Seoul? Cleveland? A great city needs to be appealing to the sort of people who win Nobel Prizes and Pulitzer Prizes and so forth. It needs to appeal to the true global giants, who could live anywhere, but choose to live somewhere.
When I was in college as an engineering major it was typical for companies to send recruiters to campus to interview graduating seniors, most would have job offers before graduation, some in the local area and many in other parts of the country.
If young educated people are not moving to _(your city here)_ it's because they just did not have a reason to, companies in the city will have to provide opportunities to give them a reason.
There are a lot of basic, unsexy quality of life issues that the city could address which would, in turn, have a long-term positive impact on the city and make it an inherently more appealing place for people. It doesn't really matter if the city attracts new people if the infrastructure, services, and civic foundation aren't actually able to sustain the existing population. A bunch of educated people are also going to run a much higher risk of eventually becoming frustrated with the ineffective local bureaucracy and corruption and then just leave again. Cleveland burnout is very real for people who are trying to actually do things.
It's, unfortunately, not immediately satisfying or rewarding for elected officials and private/foundation leadership to actually address education access, the technology/internet access divide, housing stability, landlord accountability, infant mortality, lead poisoning, etc. which is why they prefer to slap some TIFs and tax abatements on new developments so they can point to quick accomplishments when they hold more summits and conferences and use buzzwords. When the next market crash sweeps through and wipes out the majority of the entertainment districts and the whole "Cleveland Renaissance" disappears it's going to be a big bummer that we neglected to improve the schools or the power grid.
Well, it looks like someone is bumping up against the ''Cleveland Wall'' or what you call Cleveland Burnout.
These educated folks may indeed leave, which is what all education levels of Cleveland residents have been doing for 7 decades now. Difference now being that educated whites moving in and then moving out is not, for some reason, racist. Only the white ethnic working to middle class residents that fled for pretty much the same reasons you list were racists. Interesting how that works.
Cleveland's been a victim of a lot of social experiments, everything from the '70s Chocolate City Movement, forming RTA, to the real last nail in the coffin: forced busing, all driven by its embedded class and race mentality. Remember it's still Mayor Zach Reed on-deck.
So a bunch of young educated suburban whites move into a city like Cleveland to change things in a place where racist whites fled because....that's the latest version of the "I'm changing Cleveland'' movement.
If you think the Cleveland Wall is bad now, at least there's a lot of residential construction going on and places like the mid-town corridor are actually somewhere that people will drive through. A Hilton Hotel brand going in at E 69/Euclid, the DSW area, Ohio City, UC, Tremont, and downtown really moving. 2016 RNC, 2021 NFL Draft...CLE needs to keep its tourism business growing. As we all know, this is a new industry in Cleveland. Cruise ships docking with 1,000s of day tourists, naming CLE, along with Mackinaw MI, as their favorite stops.
Try living in '70s-'90s Ohio City, Tremont, or Midtown.
The core is actually strengthening. At least this version of reinvented Cleveland is getting this. All of this happening despite the Cleveland Wall.
I've never lived anywhere that didnt have ****e local bureaucracy and general ineffectiveness
True, but in cities like Cleveland, with close to 60% population loss, it's more than the usual local bureaucracy and general ineffectiveness in play. It's called dysfunction.
True, but in cities like Cleveland, with close to 60% population loss, it's more than the usual local bureaucracy and general ineffectiveness in play. It's called dysfunction.
It’s interesting to me that Mayor Jackson, our 4-term mayor doesn’t seem to get much credit for the strengthening of Cleveland’s core that you refer to. He may not be perfect, but I think one of the reasons for Cleveland's improvement over the past 15 years is he’s actually turned around some of the dysfunction in city hall. As someone who frequently has to go there to pull building permits I can attest to that. It’s much more streamline and efficient than it used to be, and they seem more inclined to say yes than they used to be. In City Hall in general, I think some of the old mentality of “the answer is no unless you can give me a really good reason to do it” has changed to “the answer is yes unless I can give you a really good reason not to.”
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
