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.
If Cleveland is "building like crazy", I'd be interested to hear how you'd characterize the building up in cities elsewhere...
Cleveland is building "some". There isn't a boatload of cranes downtown or anywhere else. I was just there last month. There is more new construction in Pittsburgh...
I like Cleveland, and there is also neighborhoods away from downtown I could live in, too. But we have to very open and honest here: Cleveland isn't declining into "irrelevancy", but it's certainly sliding lower on the totem pole from it's historical position and falling behind peer cities. There was a time Cleveland was probably considered the Third City of the Midwest. That ship sailed some time ago....
And I'm not one of these population nuts; it isn't just about population. But it is more than fair to say cities like KC and Indy, though I'd live in Cleveland before either of them, those cities have probably passed Cleveland in importance today, or at the very least now stand parallel to Cleveland. And that wasn't always true--Cleveland isn't irrelevant but it's decline is real...
I could careless about cities elsewhere in the country. With peer cities, Cleveland's developments are right on par or ahead in the development realm. The only other city that I can think of that has more construction happening than Cleveland is Milwaukee, going by peer cities. It's not all about the highrises, it's about infill that is happening. I have recently been to Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Milwaukee, Detroit, and Indianapolis (most on this poll).
So I can assume you don't follow Cleveland developments? I read your post a while back about your trips to Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Buffalo. Very well written posts. I grew up in Buffalo and lived in Pittsburgh for several years so I took an interest in what you had to say. I know about your recent trip to Cleveland. One trip doesn't give you the best assessment on the city, and you yourself admitted to not seeing the entire city.
I never once said construction cranes were all over the skyline, but what they have built and are about to build is extremely impressive. They have essentially converted most of the old inventory to housing and hotels, so that means new builds are happening. You see that with The Beacon and the new Playhouse Square tower. And again, it's not just downtown, but neighborhoods on the west and east sides of the city that are experiencing lots of new construction. I love my hometown of Buffalo, but the new builds are not even comparable to what's happening in Cleveland. Buffalo is a city that lost a lot, but they don't seem to have picked up on the momentum that Milwaukee and Cleveland have right now. You would agree, two other comparable cities to Buffalo? If there was any city that was almost a twin of Cleveland, it would be Buffalo.
The whole point was one poster said these cities were irrelevant, which is clearly not true. You don't really see any Cleveland or St. Louis posters on here (one Cleveland poster who seems to work for the local chamber of commerce, but luckily they no longer post in these sections) so I will call someone out if they have a comment to make that is clearly wrong, and that goes for any city. If we are going to be "open and honest" then let's do so. But being open and honest calling those cities irrelevant is not exactly following your mantra.
If you're not a population nut, then you know that population isn't the entire equation. People look at population stats thinking they know the whole story and have never once stepped foot in the cities they are talking about, or put down other cities because they see them as competition. You can live really great lives in Detroit, St. Louis, and Cleveland. You really can't tell a difference in the quality of life of many of these metros. A lot of the declining metros have higher qualities of life than some of the faster growing ones. You can have a professional career and be successful in St. Louis and Cleveland, but for some, that's so hard to imagine because they know nothing about them outside of stats they read. If you want the new sprawling shopping centers, you have those. If you want the old lively neighborhoods with charm and character, you have those, too. Just because a place is declining in population doesn't make it some horrible place to live. Really look at St. Louis and Cleveland. They both have declining populations, but they have awesome park systems, rail transit, highly ranked universities, top notch medical institutions, and they are home to some large companies all right in their city limits. That doesn't take into account what they offer outside of their city limits in the metro area. They lost large sections of their economies in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, and that loss hurt them just like many cities in the Midwest and Northeast, but their economies are adapting and in the process, competing. No one is saying they are on different levels than other cities being discussed, but on the other hand, if you're trying to call these cities dead, people have a right to say otherwise.
I finally checked out Chicago. There isn't anything even remotely close to it elsewhere in the Midwest. It will ruin you for anything else. It does have it's issues; crime, which is the obvious, but a lot of Midwestern cities have issues with crime. If you're used to crime in your city you can get used to it here. Really cold in the mornings but it warms up quickly. Transportation system is a little confusing took me a while to figure it out. There's like two train systems, taxi cabs (which are really easy to pick up), bus systems. Train system is color coded so that makes it a little bit easier. Terminals are old as dust. Well, a lot of Chicago is like that but the architecture is beautiful and a sight to behold. People are nice; standoffish but that's typical Midwestern people mind their own business but very approachable in comparison to East Coast. It is what it is.
From what I'm experiencing, on the sheer level of this place, with it's upper and lower streets, etc I can't honestly think of any other alternative. I would imagine Ohio's cities are good enough for the average person; it was good enough for me when I lived there. Cleveland, Cincinnati, even Columbus, none are without merit.
Some have mentioned Detroit. There is no comparison whatsoever, the Loop is what Downtown Detroit could have aspired to where it economically diverse and it did not have the issues it has. Detroit's issues are not crime; a lot of people think that but again, pretty much all Midwestern cities have had Detroit's crime at one time or another that has nothing really to do with why it is in the situation that it is in.
If one is thinking about a viable alternative to Chicago, for whatever reason, they need to look at it from a different perspective than finding something that can address the scale of Chicago, because that isn't going to happen. A better conversation, a more fruitful and productive one, is what their quality of life could be. As great as it is there it takes money to experience it in any practical, meaningful way. And it seems like a lot of other Midwestern cities are evolving in that way. If you want a cheap downtown experience, you have to start looking at cities that do not really have a downtown worth talking about, like Akron, or Dayton. Cities like Columbus and Indianapolis may still be within reach for some people. A lot of people on C-D hate to talk about those cities because they feel that they're suburban or whatever. But for some people that may be besides the point. The cities are growing, and there is construction downtown. It is what it is.
Another poster mentioned Madison, which is a very interesting mention. I've been out there; not a lot of us out there though, although it was so beautiful and such a vacation from what I was used to, under the right circumstances I wouldn't mind living there anyway. But that was 20 years ago things may have changed a lot since then.
I could careless about cities elsewhere in the country. With peer cities, Cleveland's developments are right on par or ahead in the development realm. The only other city that I can think of that has more construction happening than Cleveland is Milwaukee, going by peer cities. It's not all about the highrises, it's about infill that is happening. I have recently been to Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Milwaukee, Detroit, and Indianapolis (most on this poll).
So I can assume you don't follow Cleveland developments? I read your post a while back about your trips to Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Buffalo. Very well written posts. I grew up in Buffalo and lived in Pittsburgh for several years so I took an interest in what you had to say. I know about your recent trip to Cleveland. One trip doesn't give you the best assessment on the city, and you yourself admitted to not seeing the entire city.
I never once said construction cranes were all over the skyline, but what they have built and are about to build is extremely impressive. They have essentially converted most of the old inventory to housing and hotels, so that means new builds are happening. You see that with The Beacon and the new Playhouse Square tower. And again, it's not just downtown, but neighborhoods on the west and east sides of the city that are experiencing lots of new construction. I love my hometown of Buffalo, but the new builds are not even comparable to what's happening in Cleveland. Buffalo is a city that lost a lot, but they don't seem to have picked up on the momentum that Milwaukee and Cleveland have right now. You would agree, two other comparable cities to Buffalo? If there was any city that was almost a twin of Cleveland, it would be Buffalo.
The whole point was one poster said these cities were irrelevant, which is clearly not true. You don't really see any Cleveland or St. Louis posters on here (one Cleveland poster who seems to work for the local chamber of commerce, but luckily they no longer post in these sections) so I will call someone out if they have a comment to make that is clearly wrong, and that goes for any city. If we are going to be "open and honest" then let's do so. But being open and honest calling those cities irrelevant is not exactly following your mantra.
If you're not a population nut, then you know that population isn't the entire equation. People look at population stats thinking they know the whole story and have never once stepped foot in the cities they are talking about, or put down other cities because they see them as competition. You can live really great lives in Detroit, St. Louis, and Cleveland. You really can't tell a difference in the quality of life of many of these metros. A lot of the declining metros have higher qualities of life than some of the faster growing ones. You can have a professional career and be successful in St. Louis and Cleveland, but for some, that's so hard to imagine because they know nothing about them outside of stats they read. If you want the new sprawling shopping centers, you have those. If you want the old lively neighborhoods with charm and character, you have those, too. Just because a place is declining in population doesn't make it some horrible place to live. Really look at St. Louis and Cleveland. They both have declining populations, but they have awesome park systems, rail transit, highly ranked universities, top notch medical institutions, and they are home to some large companies all right in their city limits. That doesn't take into account what they offer outside of their city limits in the metro area. They lost large sections of their economies in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, and that loss hurt them just like many cities in the Midwest and Northeast, but their economies are adapting and in the process, competing. No one is saying they are on different levels than other cities being discussed, but on the other hand, if you're trying to call these cities dead, people have a right to say otherwise.
I never agreed with the person calling Cleveland irrelevant. I do agree that one visit doesn't give a complete picture of any city...
I guess my point was that I didn't see anything to suggest Cleveland was "building like crazy", but I don't know how to quantify that. I just know there are cities elsewhere I've been to recently with far greater and more noticeable new construction and renovations/refurbishings. This is what is easily perceptible to the eye...
I'm more familiar with Buffalo because I'm a former resident of New York and have family there. I had no idea it was so similar to Cleveland, though I'd heard it before on here. There are many parallels to be given about Buffalo as essentially a smaller Cleveland...
To me, though, while I can agree there seems to be more momentum and building up in Cleveland, it's not by some large margin (not that I could tell). Buffalo doesn't feel like it's dying anymore, and both seem like they're just "there". Cleveland doesn't feel like a city in decline---but the difference between it and Pittsburgh are night and day. Those two are more comparable in size to each other than either is to Buffalo, and there is just a completely different vibe in Pittsburgh. Cleveland isn't "irrelevant" or dying, but it feels like a larger Buffalo: a slow rebuild going on, a largely empty downtown, mote urban blight. Pittsburgh can be characterized as the exact opposites...
But again, I agree one visit doesn't make me an expert, and it had been 3-4 years since I've seen Buffalo. Just offering the impressions that Cleveland left on me over two days as a non-local!
I never agreed with the person calling Cleveland irrelevant. I do agree that one visit doesn't give a complete picture of any city...
I guess my point was that I didn't see anything to suggest Cleveland was "building like crazy", but I don't know how to quantify that. I just know there are cities elsewhere I've been to recently with far greater and more noticeable new construction and renovations/refurbishings. This is what is easily perceptible to the eye...
I'm more familiar with Buffalo because I'm a former resident of New York and have family there. I had no idea it was so similar to Cleveland, though I'd heard it before on here. There are many parallels to be given about Buffalo as essentially a smaller Cleveland...
To me, though, while I can agree there seems to be more momentum and building up in Cleveland, it's not by some large margin (not that I could tell). Buffalo doesn't feel like it's dying anymore, and both seem like they're just "there". Cleveland doesn't feel like a city in decline---but the difference between it and Pittsburgh are night and day. Those two are more comparable in size to each other than either is to Buffalo, and there is just a completely different vibe in Pittsburgh. Cleveland isn't "irrelevant" or dying, but it feels like a larger Buffalo: a slow rebuild going on, a largely empty downtown, mote urban blight. Pittsburgh can be characterized as the exact opposites...
But again, I agree one visit doesn't make me an expert, and it had been 3-4 years since I've seen Buffalo. Just offering the impressions that Cleveland left on me over two days as a non-local!
Kinda disagree that Pittsburgh and Cleveland are night and day. Pittsburgh is turning around quicker, but only considering core areas, I think they are both in the same league.
Expanding out of some core areas in Cleveland, I would disagree that it isn't declining. There are probably 8 east side neighborhoods that continue to free fall. I think the rest of the city has started getting much better, but these east side communities haven't bottomed out yet. This is what's dragging down the rest of the city in lots of metrics (crime, population, etc.)
Kinda disagree that Pittsburgh and Cleveland are night and day. Pittsburgh is turning around quicker, but only considering core areas, I think they are both in the same league.
Expanding out of some core areas in Cleveland, I would disagree that it isn't declining. There are probably 8 east side neighborhoods that continue to free fall. I think the rest of the city has started getting much better, but these east side communities haven't bottomed out yet. This is what's dragging down the rest of the city in lots of metrics (crime, population, etc.)
The East Side neighborhoods I got to see were those west of 55th (Central, the Broadway neighborhoods, etc). Admittedly, I didn't venture deep into the East Side but I was all over the West Side. The East Side areas I visited, would you say those neighborhoods are part of the decline? There was certainly high poverty and some blighted areas in that region...
I guess sometimes people forget Minny used to be termed Murderapolis, that the city itself has a similar poverty rate to Chicago, or that the city itself has only marginally grown or largely declined in population over the past 6 decades (although that will likely be different in 2020) ::shrug:: Minny itself is doing well right now, but it has historically faced similar problems as its Midwestern brethren, and its often viewed as pretty vanilla.
Besides, St. Paul >> Minny on character alone, in my opinion But I think Chicago and Detroit and Milwaukee all have way more character than the Twin Cities, too.
I like them all, and don't really feel the need to put the others down for their lesser traits to prop my preferred city up. I have family in all of them except Milwaukee (Madison though). All have character. To characterize Minneapolis as "vanilla" or boring is really selling it short. It's fun as hell, and very charming. That's one of its strengths, IMO, and I've lived in a number of Midwest cities. I agree though that St. Paul has a lot of character, and is often overlooked.
"She said she reviewed 50 cases from 2012 and found that 35 of those would have met the FBI’s previous definition of rape. She estimated that reducing each year’s total by 30 percent would provide the number of FBI-defined forcible rapes. Taking the 30 percent reduction into account, Minneapolis would still be among the top five cities in the country for reported rapes over the last several years, an analysis shows."
And even so, the FBI statistics provided in post 134 show that Minneapolis still has a higher robbery rate than Chicago and a nearly equivalent aggravated assault rate.
I just don't understand why it's so hard to admit that Minneapolis--a city that has a documented higher-than-average violent crime rate and a historical problem with homicides--isn't Mayberry.
Anybody with experience in both cities would never characterize Minneapolis as more dangerous than Chicago. If you do, you'd be the first I've ever heard of. You're also comparing a city of 400K in a metro of 3.5M (just over 10% of the metro population) to a city of 2.75M in a metro of 9M (just over 30% of the metro population). If most crime is concentrated in the core of a metro, the city borders can skew the statistics. A city as constrained as Minneapolis is going to potentially have proportionally more crime per resident compared to a city that's much more widespread. If you take city borders out of the equation and look at metro stats, Minneapolis is one of the safest metros in the country, or at least nowhere near the most dangerous in the nation.
If you're going to point to statistics, at least try to interpret those statistics before making generalizations. You don't have to prefer Minneapolis to Chicago or even like the city, but let's not pretend Minneapolis' big shortfall in this discussion is its relative crime rate, especially to Chicago.
Last edited by Min-Chi-Cbus; 06-22-2017 at 02:33 AM..
Winter in midwest is 4 months. Who you trying to fool?
What is your inferiority complex with MN/Midwest? Why do you troll these threads EVERY time? Who are you trying to convince it sucks -- everybody who lives here and likes it? You live in exciting San Jose, right? We can't all be so lucky, I guess.
Last edited by Min-Chi-Cbus; 06-22-2017 at 02:38 AM..
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.
But I think Chicago and Detroit and Milwaukee all have way more character than the Twin Cities, too.
