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.
I'm not quite sure what he said that was wrong...Cleveland is in a strong decline
This is not true. Cleveland has pretty much bottomed out and there are signs of improvement. Although it certainly needs a very dramatic change before anyone could reasonably call it a small Toronto.
Absolutely not. Toronto appears to be thriving while Cleveland continues to decline. Cleveland was once an important city...but those days are long gone.
I'm not quite sure what he said that was wrong...Cleveland is in a strong decline and Detroit is the poster child for failed cities. I personally agree with him, it's more likely Cleveland becomes the next Detroit than being a mini-Toronto.
Exactly what I meant. Not trying to be hateful, just stating the sad truth. Though Cleveland might have some things going for it that may be helping it to improve, it will never be on Toronto's level.
This is not true. Cleveland has pretty much bottomed out and there are signs of improvement. Although it certainly needs a very dramatic change before anyone could reasonably call it a small Toronto.
Perhaps...the GDP of Cleveland continues to grow, but the metro population continues to decline. It is bleeding slowly, but it's still bleeding. The city proper seems to be hurting pretty bad, as the most recent population estimates have Cleveland losing 9.8% of their city proper population from 2000 to 2009 (-2.64% on the metro). It's hard to see much good when the heart of your metro is losing population like that.
Toronto? Could you ever see Cleveland being a mini Toronto?
No. For one, Toronto is a city made up of almost 50% immigrants. Also, Toronto is basically the center of Canada. The only things these cities have in common is they are both located by a lake.
Perhaps...the GDP of Cleveland continues to grow, but the metro population continues to decline. It is bleeding slowly, but it's still bleeding. The city proper seems to be hurting pretty bad, as the most recent population estimates have Cleveland losing 9.8% of their city proper population from 2000 to 2009 (-2.64% on the metro). It's hard to see much good when the heart of your metro is losing population like that.
What you say is all true, but I visit often (originally from the area) and can see some improvements for the better. You have to consider that during its worst years it was bleeding off generations of people who had to move away for jobs. What you had left was a lot of elderly and not enough people to take their place. You also have a lot of neighborhoods which are basically wastelands that have practically reverted back to brownfield status. I don't see how these aspects can get any worse, which is why I think it's more accurate to say that the city went through a strong decline instead of saying that it's currently doing so.
I have noticed some slow but steady steady gentrification in certain parts of the city, an increase in downtown activity, and the expansion of University Circle over the past decade. It certainly does have a long way to go still, but it's not in a perpetual downward spiral like it was when I was growing up.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,035,535 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmac9wr
Perhaps...the GDP of Cleveland continues to grow, but the metro population continues to decline. It is bleeding slowly, but it's still bleeding. The city proper seems to be hurting pretty bad, as the most recent population estimates have Cleveland losing 9.8% of their city proper population from 2000 to 2009 (-2.64% on the metro). It's hard to see much good when the heart of your metro is losing population like that.
The decade will show a population loss for the city & metro, because its been losing for a long period of time (most of the decade) but Cleveland did officially reverse its population loss in the city & metro between 2008 & 2009. Its growing again.
What you say is all true, but I visit often (originally from the area) and can see some improvements for the better. You have to consider that during its worst years it was bleeding off generations of people who had to move away for jobs. What you had left was a lot of elderly and not enough people to take their place. You also have a lot of neighborhoods which are basically wastelands that have practically reverted back to brownfield status. I don't see how these aspects can get any worse, which is why I think it's more accurate to say that the city went through a strong decline instead of saying that it's currently doing so.
I have noticed some slow but steady steady gentrification in certain parts of the city, an increase in downtown activity, and the expansion of University Circle over the past decade. It certainly does have a long way to go still, but it's not in a perpetual downward spiral like it was when I was growing up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DANNYY
The decade will show a population loss for the city & metro, because its been losing for a long period of time (most of the decade) but Cleveland did officially reverse its population loss in the city & metro between 2008 & 2009. Its growing again.
Both of these things are good news...glad to hear it.
Cleveland - 9.3%
Tampa Bay - 12.6%
US Average - 9.5%
Never said Tampa's economy wasn't bad. But I believe we have a lot going for us that Cleveland doesn't. Population is already starting to grow again down here, and once the economy gets better, Tampa will prosper once again.
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.