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 that's what Cleveland needs, to make it look like it's growing, I guess. But really, it's similar, to annexing separate areas, that already exist, independently.
I don't think anybody in Northeast Ohio is trying to fool anybody into believing the region is growing. Just that despite 40-plus years of stagnation, Northeast Ohio (and its fragmented MSAs) are collectively still bigger and more compact than pretty much any other designated MSA in the Midwest/Great Lakes/Rust Belt, with Cleveland being the principal (but not the the only) key city in the region.
This all came about after somebody linked a real plan (even though, unfortunately, I think will never happen) for the region to come together and you and murksiderock had to chime in.
I'l let my previous posts stand for themselves ... but since I'm sure I'm just a homer, I'll link this:
I don't think anybody in Northeast Ohio is trying to fool anybody into believing the region is growing. Just that despite 40-plus years of stagnation, Northeast Ohio (and its fragmented MSAs) are collectively still bigger and more compact than pretty much any other designated MSA in the Midwest/Great Lakes/Rust Belt, with Cleveland being the principal (but not the the only) key city in the region.
This all came about after somebody linked a real plan (even though, unfortunately, I think will never happen) for the region to come together and you and murksiderock had to chime in.
I'l let my previous posts stand for themselves ... but since I'm sure I'm just a homer, I'll link this:
(shhh, this list was created by a Cleveland native, lol!!)
I doubt most believe Cleveland is the best on the list. The crime and run down areas are increasing. I don't see the area growing without changes. The segregation, redlining, food desserts are daunting. I put it behind the Twin cities and Pittsburgh.
I doubt most believe Cleveland is the best on the list. The crime and run down areas are increasing. I don't see the area growing without changes. The segregation, redlining, food desserts are daunting. I put it behind the Twin cities and Pittsburgh.
That's a flat out lie, esp re blighted areas in the City which are shrinking, not growing.. At least if you're going to continue to troll Cleveland (for whatever reason), get some facts to back you up. Don't create them.
That's a flat out lie, esp re blighted areas in the City which are shrinking, not growing.. At least if you're going to continue to troll Cleveland (for whatever reason), get some facts to back you up. Don't create them.
I don't know about the current crime rates in Cleveland, so I won't comment on them. Whether impoverished and run-down mean the same thing, overall most of Cleveland is either stagnant or becoming poorer. The Westside has become poorer and the SE has as well. Most of the rest of the Eastside is minimally changed, and only six census tracts throughout the entire city have had significant declines in poverty, mostly from 60 or 70% to about 50% poverty from 2000-2016. If you can find newer census estimates from 2018 to back up your claim, please post.
I don't know about the current crime rates in Cleveland, so I won't comment on them. Whether impoverished and run-down mean the same thing, overall most of Cleveland is either stagnant or becoming poorer. The Westside has become poorer and the SE has as well. Most of the rest of the Eastside is minimally changed, and only six census tracts throughout the entire city have had significant declines in poverty, mostly from 60 or 70% to about 50% poverty from 2000-2016. If you can find newer census estimates from 2018 to back up your claim, please post.
Anyone can quote stats, which are not always up to date or relevant. Making a blank statement that the West Side of Cleveland "... has become poorer" is without meaning or context. In the last 50 years? Sure, it's poorer now than it was then, in terms of median income -- or is median income what your talking about? And what neighborhoods are you discussing? If you really knew Cleveland, you would see that the growth, in terms of new residences, in terms of upgraded commercial districts, is staggering. Some have even grumbled about gentrification because many of these areas: esp Ohio City, Tremont and Detroit Shoreway, have become magnets to both higher income empty nesters as well as young professionals. The rate of new apartment buildings rising in these 3 areas, alone, is nothing short of amazing ... and is accelerating ... walk through Market Square or Hingetown (the neighborhood that hinges Ohio City and Detroit-Shoreway along Detroit Ave), and it is obvious. In Detroit-Shoreway, near the trendy Gordon-Square Arts District along Lake Erie, 2 mammoth townhouse-apartment districts -- Battery Park and Edison -- have risen within the last 5 years -- and both continue to grow.
That's not to say there has not been some bump up in crime, like property crime, theft and the like. Yes there are pockets and a few neighborhoods on the West Side that are struggling, such as Stockyards and even portions of Clark-Fulton. But attention is being focused on these in terms of moving to improvement. Again, I'm not going to chase after statistics because I know what I see. I live there much of the year and was just there last week. I don't care what some statistician who's likely quoting old stats is saying. That's like the experts who continue to hold down the numbers in the metro area for arbitrary reasons and not include Summit County/Akron which is 30 miles away and has significant commuting, both cross commuting as well as into Cleveland's downtown(s) (University Circle is the 4th largest employment district in the state behind the big 3-Cs traditional downtown areas).
Spouting statistics without context or knowing the City besides a few Google Streetviews searches doesn't impress me nor does it make you an expert. Quite the contrary, it shows either your bias and/or that you really don't know what you're talking about.
Anyone can quote stats, which are not always up to date or relevant. Making a blank statement that the West Side of Cleveland "... has become poorer" is without meaning or context. In the last 50 years?
You don't believe actual data, because you know better?
By the way, the maps I linked to were comparing 2016 to 2000 data, so not 50 years. Have a look and then let me know why the data is inaccurate and you know more than the researches who created it. Again, there may be 2018 data out there somewhere, if you can find it and it agrees with your opinion based on a few anecdotes, I'm open to listening.
That's a flat out lie, esp re blighted areas in the City which are shrinking, not growing.. At least if you're going to continue to troll Cleveland (for whatever reason), get some facts to back you up. Don't create them.
You don't believe actual data, because you know better?
By the way, the maps I linked to were comparing 2016 to 2000 data, so not 50 years. Have a look and then let me know why the data is inaccurate and you know more than the researches who created it. Again, there may be 2018 data out there somewhere, if you can find it and it agrees with your opinion based on a few anecdotes, I'm open to listening.
Studies like these are, on their faces, reason for skepticism about their credibility – not just of Cleveland, but for any city, esp those that aren't consider hip, trendy or cool (ie those with the fewest minorities in man cases).
The map you cite is contrary to reality in many ways, and makes no sense at all on its face… Let’s start with East Cleveland (a suburb), which is indisputably the poorest urban city in the State where poverty and loss of city services continues expanding unabated (to the extent where the police and fire departments are practically part-time operations; snow removal and street repair are practically nonexistent) – to the point where, 4 or 5 years ago, the City of Cleveland weighed seriously annexing EC, but EC officials foolishly balked and so their town continues to decline while the neighborhoods across the border to the SW in Cleveland: University Circle (esp Uptown), Little Italy and lower Glenville, are thriving. According to your study map, EC has remained stable, which is absurd, while the old-money lower edge of Cleveland Heights, including exclusive Chestnut Hills (large houses and mansions) and the Fairmount Blvd mansion district shows a fairly sharp increase of impoverished persons… Huh? These obvious facts – to any statistician or demographer really familiar with Cleveland – make this study suspectalone. The only area in which this study and common, local observation intersect is Tremont. But contrary to this study, there are several other areas that are growing economically.
Note my comments above: I said some people in some of the trendy areas grumble about gentrification, I didn't say there was widespread gentrification as a matter of fact. ... and whether some study says so or not, anyone not realizing that Ohio City, Little Italy-University Circle and north Detroit-Shoreway are not “hot” or desirable, simply have their heads in the sand. This study, like the also even shakier study cited by Shakeesha (by a law school, no less) seem to focus on gentrification, or the displacement of low-income persons – which is not necessarily a positive situation in the first place. And nowhere have I stated that Cleveland is a hotbed of gentrification if that is somehow the only measure of economic health and growth… I guess it is for some.
No one, myself included, is boasting that Cleveland is some Midwestern version of Palm Springs, Boca Raton or Malibu. Me and others knowledgeable and honest about the City have stated, again and again, that Cleveland, since the 1960s and 70s (really the 50s), has suffered severe economic and steep population shrinkage (nearly 900K in 1960 to about 388K today) fueled largely by the loss of heavy industry and the exodus of corporations and corporate headquarters – the City was dubbed as a so called “Rust Belt” city for a reason. What I disagree with is the notion, supported sometimes by “studies” like this one – which I easily poked holes in – that there is zero positive economic growth anywhere in the City – save one neighborhood, Tremont supposedly. If pass through Ohio City RIGHT NOW you would note high-priced often modest-sized houses, bustling commercial districts, new houses, townhouses, condos and apartments scattered all around and tower cranes in several spots – and again, this is a neighborhood, not downtown (which itself has grown in population since 2000 from between 7,500-9,000 to over 20,000 today (and with the upward growth curve, planners are shooting for 30-35,000 by 2030).
This is why sitting back at the keyboard scanning the net and relying solely on scholarly "studies" is a higly suspect approach. 2 questions to you: 1. Have you ever been to Cleveland? 2. Have you been there in the last 5-10 years?
This is why sitting back at the keyboard scanning the net and relying solely on scholarly "studies" is a higly suspect approach. 2 questions to you: 1. Have you ever been to Cleveland? 2. Have you been there in the last 5-10 years?
In answer to your questions, yes and yes. I don’t hate Cleveland, and I’m sure I could be mostly happy living/working there, I just like most other non-Rust belt big cities in the US better.
As you seem to understand, the researchers in the map I cited were looking at increase and decrease in number of low income people in census tracts, not overall percentages. So, something like your observations of East Cleveland might be explained by shrinking areas losing middle class residents, but not having much change in numbers of low income residents. Likewise, if new development brings in wealthy residents to redeveloped industrial/commercial sites that doesn’t displace poor people, those aren’t going to show up either, since the number of low income residents isn’t changing much. I haven’t seen many areas where increased development doesn’t lead to increased rents in the area that cause displacement, but maybe Cleveland is unique.
I think a map showing changes in percentage of low income residents would probably best illustrate whether Cleveland is mostly in decline, static, or getting wealthier, and it would have been nice if the researchers had created one, since they already had collected all the data. However, the large increase in low income residents in many census tracts throughout the city seems to point to mostly decline, your observations of a few areas with new development notwithstanding.
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.
