Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Ohio > Cleveland
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-24-2013, 01:54 AM
 
6,438 posts, read 6,877,340 times
Reputation: 8739

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81 View Post
Suburbs don't have social servies, welfare, jobs programs, etc? I must've been mistaken that poverty is rapidly growing in suburban areas. Also, don't people pay to use buses? In any case, if you look at the economic return of public investment in dense development vs suburbia, the two aren't even close. Bringing up issues that have no specifc basis to either the city or suburbs just seems like a red herring.
Some suburbs are starting to develop a poverty problem and they are consequently getting increased social services, welfare, jobs programs, etc. By "suburbs" I meant what Florida and Kotkin mean by suburbs, bedroom communities for the middle and upper classes. People pay a small fraction of the cost of buses. Nothing I said is true (or meant to be true) in any absolute sense, but I'll bet that if you did some work to identify the major *differences* in subsidy patterns between cities and middle-class suburbs, I'm pretty close to being on target.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-24-2013, 10:53 PM
 
16,345 posts, read 17,967,439 times
Reputation: 7878
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Siegel View Post
Some suburbs are starting to develop a poverty problem and they are consequently getting increased social services, welfare, jobs programs, etc. By "suburbs" I meant what Florida and Kotkin mean by suburbs, bedroom communities for the middle and upper classes. People pay a small fraction of the cost of buses. Nothing I said is true (or meant to be true) in any absolute sense, but I'll bet that if you did some work to identify the major *differences* in subsidy patterns between cities and middle-class suburbs, I'm pretty close to being on target.
There already have been plenty of studies on this. Dense urban development provides a much greater economic return.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2013, 01:03 AM
 
6,438 posts, read 6,877,340 times
Reputation: 8739
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81 View Post
There already have been plenty of studies on this. Dense urban development provides a much greater economic return.
I agree with you. I also agree with me. We are talking about two different things: (1) whether urban or suburban development provides a better economic return, and (2) whether subsidies to suburbs are qualitatively different from subsidies to cities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2013, 06:56 AM
 
Location: Cleveland and Columbus OH
11,046 posts, read 12,341,171 times
Reputation: 10370
This is what I want to see more of, personally: A new picture of the future for Cleveland: Making the city a middle-class home for families: Eric Wobser and Richey Piiparinen | cleveland.com

The title really explains it all. Talks about the success of charter schools, bringing in a T-ball league in Ohio City, etc.

Quote:
For example, Mildred Warner of Cornell University states that "an average family spends a quarter-million dollars raising a child, with three-fourths of that money supporting housing, health care, child care and other needs that create local jobs." Reversing the decline of middle-class families in Cleveland is critical, as urban expert Neal Peirce proclaims that "the very future of cities depends on drawing young, child-rearing families." Given that many of the so-called "hip" cities across the country are becoming prohibitively expensive to raise a family, Cleveland is primed to become a middle-class, family-oriented destination with no less an authentic, urban feel.

Achieving this involves developing a city for people, not for demographics of preference. To that end, the best community building cuts across age, class and racial lines, with quality of life coming in a number of forms, be it schooling, safety, public transportation, waterfront access, walkability, affordability and various place-based amenities. By investing in people -- a variety of people -- the city can continue to grow a pipeline of young professionals seeking a city experience and also help retain those individuals as they age and procreate -- not to mention make the city more livable for the diverse mix of Clevelanders who never left.
This is also nice to read: http://www.cleveland.com/naymik/inde...incart_best-of
Quote:
The best growth should be around existing assets, not trendy goals.

Last edited by bjimmy24; 03-31-2013 at 07:21 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2013, 05:05 PM
 
Location: Lakewood OH
21,695 posts, read 28,337,026 times
Reputation: 35862
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjimmy24 View Post
I took "young urbanistas" from the article. But also, do you really think that these young people will have a family in city limits? Because I really do doubt it. There is still time for that to change, but it just seems unlikely to me.

I don't think they improve neighborhoods for everyone though. I mean, they improve it for themselves and more of their friends come and live there. Meanwhile, the rest of them must move elsewhere. This was mentioned in the article. So in effect, they don't actually improve it for the people that lived there before, unless those people somehow get a better job or earn more money in some way to keep up with rising prices. I think, however, it's more likely that they will be priced out. One good thing I guess I could say about this happening in Cleveland is that a lot of these neighborhoods previously had lots of abandoned houses and therefore don't force that many people out. I guess that is a fair point. BUT I think it's a mistake to say that it actually improves people's lives. It just makes a neighborhood dominated by a young, predominantly white, urban culture. There isn't anything wrong with that in and of itself, but just because people like me like something (indie music, art galleries, cafes, etc.), that doesn't mean other people do. Thus, it improves my life, but my life experience is a lot different than others.

But yes, that commercial is pretty lame. It makes Cleveland look boring, sterile, corporate, and "try-hard." Cleveland needs to embrace being Cleveland.
I couldn't agree with you more on this. You have described my city of Portland neighborhood to a "T." Those forced out because they could not afford it were the elderly back in the 80's and 90's who lived here because although it was a kind of a rough area it was also affordable and convenient. Then it became exactly as you have described.

Other neighborhoods, as they became havens for the "young urbanistas" also forced out incumbents who could no longer afford them. Many of these were not such bad neighborhoods to begin with, they just had the misfortune of being lower middle class income. But those not living here and even many who do are unaware that today many of those people are now jammed into not so great areas far away from their original neighborhoods that will not be shown on any popular TV shows.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2013, 12:56 PM
 
Location: Summit, NJ
1,876 posts, read 2,013,094 times
Reputation: 2467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervah View Post
I couldn't agree with you more on this. You have described my city of Portland neighborhood to a "T." Those forced out because they could not afford it were the elderly back in the 80's and 90's who lived here because although it was a kind of a rough area it was also affordable and convenient. Then it became exactly as you have described.

Other neighborhoods, as they became havens for the "young urbanistas" also forced out incumbents who could no longer afford them. Many of these were not such bad neighborhoods to begin with, they just had the misfortune of being lower middle class income. But those not living here and even many who do are unaware that today many of those people are now jammed into not so great areas far away from their original neighborhoods that will not be shown on any popular TV shows.
But then the "not so great areas" improve and get revitalized. Classic examples being Dorchester in Boston (esp near the red line) and much of Brooklyn NY. I don't know Portland at all but I imagine the same is true there.

I really don't think Cleveland has to worry about a lack of affordable housing for the working class. Currently Cleveland has a median home value of $51,300 (Zillow) and a ton of abandoned or foreclosed properties especially on the east side. I do think certain neighborhoods will have no room for the working class - Ohio City and Tremont will be outright rich shortly, which I guess makes some lifelong Clevelanders uncomfortable - but maybe their former residents will move to Slavic Village and Collinwood, making those areas liveable again.

Then if the working class gets priced out of every corner of Slavic Village and Collinwood --- well, by that point Cleveland will have improved itself in a BIG way.



(EDIT: OK, I realize I just made lifelong west-siders suddenly move to the east side, which is Cleveland sacrilege. Replace them with Denison Ave or something.)

Last edited by averysgore; 04-07-2013 at 01:07 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2013, 01:40 PM
 
Location: Cleveland and Columbus OH
11,046 posts, read 12,341,171 times
Reputation: 10370
Point is, you don't solve any problems. You make people move. Now instead of poor people living in Ohio City, they will go live in Slavic Village as you suggest. So they're still poor. Just now, we don't have to look at them when we go to the West Side Market. Yay!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2013, 02:59 PM
 
Location: Lakewood OH
21,695 posts, read 28,337,026 times
Reputation: 35862
Quote:
Originally Posted by avery's gore View Post
But then the "not so great areas" improve and get revitalized. Classic examples being Dorchester in Boston (esp near the red line) and much of Brooklyn NY. I don't know Portland at all but I imagine the same is true there.

I really don't think Cleveland has to worry about a lack of affordable housing for the working class. Currently Cleveland has a median home value of $51,300 (Zillow) and a ton of abandoned or foreclosed properties especially on the east side. I do think certain neighborhoods will have no room for the working class - Ohio City and Tremont will be outright rich shortly, which I guess makes some lifelong Clevelanders uncomfortable - but maybe their former residents will move to Slavic Village and Collinwood, making those areas livable again.

Then if the working class gets priced out of every corner of Slavic Village and Collinwood --- well, by that point Cleveland will have improved itself in a BIG way.



(EDIT: OK, I realize I just made lifelong west-siders suddenly move to the east side, which is Cleveland sacrilege. Replace them with Denison Ave or something.)
Revitalized but at whose expense? Some of the Portland neighborhoods were a little run down but still quite livable. Some admittedly were not so great. Portland "revitalized" it's areas by making them unaffordable for the people who lived there. Many didn't need all that much improvement unless you consider expensive restaurants and gourmet grocery stores revitalizations.

Some of the neighborhoods that really did need improving still did not need to have everyone thrown out to revitalize them. Like the old expression, "throwing out the baby with the bathwater." Many neighbors who had worked so hard to keep their neighborhoods as decent as possible found themselves being pushed out by all those well-intentioned "revitalizers."

I am not familiar with these other cities and am glad to hear of their success. Unfortunately, that has not been true in Portland. Some areas where these people have been pushed into have created poor living conditions, crime and overcrowding where there were already problems. However not all the areas were bad before the changes but were made that way due to the overcrowding of the people pushed into their neighborhoods.

The city actually was responsible for this by encouraging substandarding housing be built that crammed people into small newly built apartments in areas that had no sidewalks, were not close to necessities like grocery stores, where public transportation was not easily reached

Our new mayor has promised to finally put in sidewalks in one of the areas only after a five year old child was killed trying to navigate her way across the street in a neighborhood that has been begging for sidewalks for decades where kids have to walk home from school along a very busy street.

Large new apartment buildings are going up in the very neighborhoods from which people have had to move because they could no longer afford to live in those neighborhoods but the apartments will be very small, mostly studios and one bedrooms and there is a lot of resistance to them due to the lack of parking in the neighborhoods. Also, there is some question as to whether or not they will be affordable. In any case they will not be suitable for families. But that's what our city leaders believe is the solution to the housing problem.

As I mentioned I am unfamiliar with how other cities have handled this situation so your examples to me are very encouraging to hear that some are doing it right. Especially Cleveland because I hope to relocate there one day.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2013, 01:09 PM
 
Location: Summit, NJ
1,876 posts, read 2,013,094 times
Reputation: 2467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervah View Post
Revitalized but at whose expense? Some of the Portland neighborhoods were a little run down but still quite livable. Some admittedly were not so great. Portland "revitalized" it's areas by making them unaffordable for the people who lived there. Many didn't need all that much improvement unless you consider expensive restaurants and gourmet grocery stores revitalizations.

Some of the neighborhoods that really did need improving still did not need to have everyone thrown out to revitalize them. Like the old expression, "throwing out the baby with the bathwater." Many neighbors who had worked so hard to keep their neighborhoods as decent as possible found themselves being pushed out by all those well-intentioned "revitalizers."

I am not familiar with these other cities and am glad to hear of their success. Unfortunately, that has not been true in Portland. Some areas where these people have been pushed into have created poor living conditions, crime and overcrowding where there were already problems. However not all the areas were bad before the changes but were made that way due to the overcrowding of the people pushed into their neighborhoods.

The city actually was responsible for this by encouraging substandarding housing be built that crammed people into small newly built apartments in areas that had no sidewalks, were not close to necessities like grocery stores, where public transportation was not easily reached

Our new mayor has promised to finally put in sidewalks in one of the areas only after a five year old child was killed trying to navigate her way across the street in a neighborhood that has been begging for sidewalks for decades where kids have to walk home from school along a very busy street.

Large new apartment buildings are going up in the very neighborhoods from which people have had to move because they could no longer afford to live in those neighborhoods but the apartments will be very small, mostly studios and one bedrooms and there is a lot of resistance to them due to the lack of parking in the neighborhoods. Also, there is some question as to whether or not they will be affordable. In any case they will not be suitable for families. But that's what our city leaders believe is the solution to the housing problem.

As I mentioned I am unfamiliar with how other cities have handled this situation so your examples to me are very encouraging to hear that some are doing it right. Especially Cleveland because I hope to relocate there one day.
That is an unfortunate story. Sounds like Portland had a good mix of incomes/residents and has shifted so much that it can no longer include many of them.

Cleveland really is a different story though. As I mentioned earlier, only 12% of its adults have a bachelor's degree, the median home value is $51,300, and it lost 17% of its population from 2000-2010. Many of the east side neighborhoods are not just "run down but still liveable" (as you said about your Portland neighborhoods), they're half-abandoned. Do a Google Street View of East Cleveland or Woodland Ave and you'll see what I mean. So I truly don't understand how an influx of young professionals and creative types could be a bad thing. I mean, would you want to keep the statistics the way they are?

I'm happy that you plan to live in Cleveland someday. It's interesting, since a major reason I'd rather not move back is a lack of good outdoor recreation, which you have some of the nation's best of out there in Oregon. (I've never been though) Still, if you know what you want out of a city, Cleveland certainly has a lot to offer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2013, 06:10 PM
 
Location: Lakewood OH
21,695 posts, read 28,337,026 times
Reputation: 35862
Quote:
Originally Posted by averysgore View Post
That is an unfortunate story. Sounds like Portland had a good mix of incomes/residents and has shifted so much that it can no longer include many of them.

Cleveland really is a different story though. As I mentioned earlier, only 12% of its adults have a bachelor's degree, the median home value is $51,300, and it lost 17% of its population from 2000-2010. Many of the east side neighborhoods are not just "run down but still liveable" (as you said about your Portland neighborhoods), they're half-abandoned. Do a Google Street View of East Cleveland or Woodland Ave and you'll see what I mean. So I truly don't understand how an influx of young professionals and creative types could be a bad thing. I mean, would you want to keep the statistics the way they are?

I'm happy that you plan to live in Cleveland someday. It's interesting, since a major reason I'd rather not move back is a lack of good outdoor recreation, which you have some of the nation's best of out there in Oregon. (I've never been though) Still, if you know what you want out of a city, Cleveland certainly has a lot to offer.
Thank you for the future welcome. No, I don't think it is a bad thing for an influx of young professionals and creative types to move into an area as long as a mix is maintained. And it does sound like our two cities are a different story. One more thing to like about Cleveland.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Ohio > Cleveland

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top