An Outside Perspective- Why Cleveland is Failing Itself (Columbus, Cincinnati: apartment, lofts)

[tom11011]

Let's not delude ourselves, Cleveland has staggering problems and continues to be on a course to nowhere the last 39 years I have lived here. People have to want to live in the city, but they don't. They can't, where are they going to send their kids to school? Where are they going to shop? I can't give Cleveland any more credit for trying. They have been trying for too long with hardly any results. It's not a destination with a lot of tourism or good weather. Most cities play to their strengths and that's how they attract people. What are Clevelands strengths that you can't get anywhere else in the country? I can't think of any. What city has such a large body of water like us but does nothing with it?

Bottom line, until people want to live in Cleveland, what's the point? Having rock halls, fancy apartments, etc.. does nothing. It's putting the apple before the cart.

People need a genuine reason to move here. Six months of winter doesn't help either.

So again, I ask, what can Cleveland do to differentiate itself from everyone else? How about zero taxes for people who open a business. Zero forever. When enough businesses move in with business owners, then repeal the law and grandfather in those who were first forever.

I wouldn't even say close Burke and develope it anymore. Why? Because again it's putting the apple before the cart. Having all the nice fancy stuff means nothing if people don't want to live here. You have a city with nice things that nobody wants.

All Cleveland could ever have going for it right now is a tax friendly and business friendly atmosphere. But govt doesn't want to do that. They want to grow in spite of themselves but can't figure it out.

If I was mayor, I would cut everything and put Cleveland on the map as the most tax friendly destination in the nation.

[JR_C]

Originally Posted by tom11011

Let's not delude ourselves, Cleveland has staggering problems and continues to be on a course to nowhere the last 39 years I have lived here. People have to want to live in the city, but they don't. They can't, where are they going to send their kids to school? Where are they going to shop? I can't give Cleveland any more credit for trying. They have been trying for too long with hardly any results. It's not a destination with a lot of tourism or good weather. Most cities play to their strengths and that's how they attract people. What are Clevelands strengths that you can't get anywhere else in the country? I can't think of any. What city has such a large body of water like us but does nothing with it?

Bottom line, until people want to live in Cleveland, what's the point? Having rock halls, fancy apartments, etc.. does nothing. It's putting the apple before the cart.

People need a genuine reason to move here. Six months of winter doesn't help either.

So again, I ask, what can Cleveland do to differentiate itself from everyone else? How about zero taxes for people who open a business. Zero forever. When enough businesses move in with business owners, then repeal the law and grandfather in those who were first forever.

I wouldn't even say close Burke and develope it anymore. Why? Because again it's putting the apple before the cart. Having all the nice fancy stuff means nothing if people don't want to live here. You have a city with nice things that nobody wants.

All Cleveland could ever have going for it right now is a tax friendly and business friendly atmosphere. But govt doesn't want to do that. They want to grow in spite of themselves but can't figure it out.

If I was mayor, I would cut everything and put Cleveland on the map as the most tax friendly destination in the nation.

If people don't want to live in Cleveland, why are these fancy apartments being built, and why are people moving into them?

[tom11011]

No kids.

[5Lakes]

Originally Posted by tom11011

No kids.

Do you think people with kids are moving into fancy apartments in New York City? Chicago? San Fransisco? I can tell you that for the most part they are not. So are these cities failures also? Maybe they are, because no American inner cities do a good job of providing a family friendly atmosphere these days.

Guess what, those fancy apartments lead to a larger tax base that the city could use (maybe they wouldn't have to tax business as much). They also lead to the revitalization of neighborhoods, which means more business demand and safety. You have to start somewhere to get the ball rolling, and if people without kids move into the city it's start.

(FYI: Cleveland really has very few fancy apartments compared to many cities. It could use a lot more.)

I agree that Cleveland should do whatever it can to be more pro-business, but its not that simple. There should still be efforts to make it an attractive city to live in.

[tom11011]

>>>You have to start somewhere to get the ball rolling

There has been plenty of opportunity to start, but the ball doesn't roll in Cleveland right now. I've heard nothing but promises. I hate to point out the obvious, but the city reached it's peak population in 1955. Since then, the population has declined by 2/3. People just don't want to live here, they would rather live in the suburbs. Business is dying. Entire buildings are now mothballed in the city. We are only filling 1/2 of the corporate buildings downtown. Kids graduate college and immediately relocate, some out of Cleveland area, some out of the county, some out of the state --no jobs.

I don't want to sound like a naysayer, but the city lacks a plan and lacks real leadership. I'm not even a Republican but even I can see that in order to survive, they must attract business. Attracting business means attracting business owners. When steel moved out, the city was decimated, possibly forever unless there some future compelling reason to move back.

In my view only 2 things can save the city and keep it from turning into a Youngstown or Toledo (sorry YT and Toledo). Either Cleveland must become the most business friendly location on planet earth, or, Cleveland must dominate and rule the next big industry such as Wind/Solar/Battery, but even that is not happening. All cities had an equal chance to compete, but it is slipping through our fingers. It could have been us.

[Boffo]

I hate when people just make stats up. We only fill 50% of our downtown buildings, Where did you get that number from? Downtown vacancy is currently at 21%. That's obviously still a little high but it's definitely not 50%! Here is the link containing a report from one of the large commercial realtors. http://www.grubb-ellis.com/SitePages...?type=9&id=794

[tom11011]

I think it depends who you ask. There is office space that is vacant but someone is still paying the rent on it and that is not included. But you are right, I was over-zealous with 50%.

But, there is the move of Eaton Corp in 2 years to Beachwood (300,000 square feet)

PNC bought out National City, they won't need 2 corporate offices soon (740,000 square feet)

[SquareBetterThanAll]

Originally Posted by tom11011

I hate to point out the obvious, but the city reached it's peak population in 1955. Since then, the population has declined by 2/3.

1960 population: 876,050
2000 population: 478,403

It's declined by about half, which isn't anything to get excited about, but it's better than 2/3.

Of course one could point out most central cities are less dense than in the past. Difference in Cleveland being it is land locked to it can't annex to obscure the numbers (i.e. Columbus, name any southern or western city). Many "newer" cities, by nature of having less preexisting neighboring entities, are actually combinations of areas that would be considered entirely suburban and separate in this area (i.e. Seven Hills would be in Cleveland proper).

I think we're all aware that Cleveland is generally not a destination spot for relocation but the proliferation of individual, independent entities in this area makes "Cleveland" on paper appear worse in comparison to other cities that are not playing by the same rules (on paper).

I think an analyzation of metro area population trends would be a bit more telling (I'm betting it's closer to a 15% in population reduction). How many suburbanites are sitting on the other side of the Medina or Lake or Lorain County lines?

[tribecavsbrowns]

Originally Posted by tom11011

I think it depends who you ask. There is office space that is vacant but someone is still paying the rent on it and that is not included. But you are right, I was over-zealous with 50%.

But, there is the move of Eaton Corp in 2 years to Beachwood (300,000 square feet)

PNC bought out National City, they won't need 2 corporate offices soon (740,000 square feet)

No, not "over-zealous." Just wrong.

[tom11011]

1950 = 914,808
2009 = 431,363

Originally Posted by squarebetterthanall

1960 population: 876,050
2000 population: 478,403

it's declined by about half, which isn't anything to get excited about, but it's better than 2/3.

of course one could point out most central cities are less dense than in the past. Difference in cleveland being it is land locked to it can't annex to obscure the numbers (i.e. Columbus, name any southern or western city). Many "newer" cities, by nature of having less preexisting neighboring entities, are actually combinations of areas that would be considered entirely suburban and separate in this area (i.e. Seven hills would be in cleveland proper).

I think we're all aware that cleveland is generally not a destination spot for relocation but the proliferation of individual, independent entities in this area makes "cleveland" on paper appear worse in comparison to other cities that are not playing by the same rules (on paper).

I think an analyzation of metro area population trends would be a bit more telling (i'm betting it's closer to a 15% in population reduction). How many suburbanites are sitting on the other side of the medina or lake or lorain county lines?