Where does Cleveland go from here? (Brooklyn, Shadyside: 2013, crime rates, credit)
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.
Read this article yesterday about the failure of the so-called "Creative class" in reviving cities all over the country, even those in cities like Chicago.
Seems to me like this is what Cleveland has been banking on. As this article and I have suggested before on this forum, catering to young urbanistas is the wrong way to go. "Trickle down" theories never work- not in politics, and not when hipsters/"artists" move in. We have seen a lot of growth and development downtown, in Ohio City, Tremont, Gordon Square, and North Collinwood, but how sustainable is this? I do like hanging out in these places, but I really don't see the success carrying on into further than the immediate future if our strategy doesn't change. Instead of trying to attract "desirable" or "cool" people to our city, why can't we focus on the ones who already live here? I know it's been shrinking, but there are still quite a few people in Cleveland, in the unhip neighborhoods, i.e. Slavic Village, Glenville, Hough, Central, Clark Fulton, etc.
I think the only area that will undoubtedly thrive for decades to come, as of now, is University Circle/Little Italy. This is helped enormously by the world class cultural institutions of the area and the high profile of Case Western- not by boutiques, vinyl shops, or yoga studios. Asiatown seems like another good example of sustainable progress because of Cleveland State's expansion and influx of immigrants, who are bound together by more than superficial interests. They also have families.
That is my position, feel free to agree or disagree. But I am very interested to hear what all of you think. It seems to me that life in Cleveland has gotten unquestionably better, even in the last 5 years. It looks completely different than when I was a kid. Things have been going well, but I think it's important to never become complacent. So.... what has Cleveland done right? What has Cleveland done wrong? What should we change? How can we build the best future possible?
On close inspection, talent clustering provides little in the way of trickle-down benefits. Its benefits flow disproportionately to more highly-skilled knowledge, professional and creative workers whose higher wages and salaries are more than sufficient to cover more expensive housing in these locations. While less-skilled service and blue-collar workers also earn more money in knowledge-based metros, those gains disappear once their higher housing costs are taken into account.
The creative class gets a lot of attention because its the creative class that creates a lot of the media we consume.
A city rises and falls based on the business aptitude of its citizens and the ease of doing business within the city.
Cleveland is becoming a 'foodie' destination, not just because we have great chefs, but because those chefs can profitably operate their businesses, and the city isn't overly oppressive in restaurant taxes/regulations.
Cleveland grew by leaps and bounds in the early part of last century due to an incredible boom in business in the city that lead to jobs, wealth and culture.
Don't forget all our great cultural institutions were founded and supported by the wealth created by the business community.
I know that business and capitalism certainly aren't the 'in' things right now, but I firmly believe if every high school kid had to take a course in entrepreneurship, this city would be booming in 10-20 years. No, not everyone is going to start a profitable business, but we all benefit from more jobs, wealth and culture when a new business is successfully started.
The problem is that the creative class is still a relatively small portion of the workforce. there is also the factors of older industries going through whatever they are going through and these industries still employ a lot more people than start ups or creative firms.
The creative class gets a lot of attention because its the creative class that creates a lot of the media we consume.
The "creative" class is one that is mired in its own BS. True innovators create very little media of their own.
Quote:
A city rises and falls based on the business aptitude of its citizens and the ease of doing business within the city.
Cleveland is becoming a 'foodie' destination, not just because we have great chefs, but because those chefs can profitably operate their businesses, and the city isn't overly oppressive in restaurant taxes/regulations.
Very true. However, you need something fresh and innovative to peak people's interests. Otherwise, they won't seek your destination if they can get the same old same old down the road from their house.
Quote:
Cleveland grew by leaps and bounds in the early part of last century due to an incredible boom in business in the city that lead to jobs, wealth and culture.
Don't forget all our great cultural institutions were founded and supported by the wealth created by the business community.
Cleveland grew by "leaps and bounds" because of its location on the lake/river, its lower relative operating cost, its skilled workforce, and its central location between NYC and Chicago. This isn't as valuable as it once was nor for the same reasons. However, it is something that hasn't yet been utilized to its full potential.
Clearly, the business community sees the worth and the need for cultural institutions the same as those who attend/champion them. It's a 2 way street.
Quote:
I know that business and capitalism certainly aren't the 'in' things right now, but I firmly believe if every high school kid had to take a course in entrepreneurship, this city would be booming in 10-20 years. No, not everyone is going to start a profitable business, but we all benefit from more jobs, wealth and culture when a new business is successfully started.
What isn't 'in' is the corporate welfare, too-big-to-fail, lobbyist controlled, plutocratic facade that certain segments of society tries to pawn off as straight business.
Whose courses in entrepeneurship would you push? There are a lot of facets to that prism. Much of the emerging generation is overly absorbed in the instant gratification of their games and gadgets to get what it actually takes to be entrepeneurial -> 10% inspiration, 90% perspiration.
I really don't know if I fully buy into the notion that Richard Florida's "Creative Class" theory has been a failure. Here in Pittsburgh, for example, the city has grown steadily from 2010 to 2012. Many neighborhoods that were desolate and dilapidated as recently as the mid-2000s are now teeming with young professionals, arists, LGBT couples, and other "Creative Class" adherents. Places like Lawrenceville, the Mexican War Streets, South Side Flats, Polish Hill, Friendship, Shadyside, Highland Park, Regent Square, and Squirrel Hill are thriving, and many of these neighborhoods are dominated by the "Creative Class". Deutschtown, East Liberty, Manchester, Garfield, and other neighborhoods are in the process of gentrifying. Oakland is a cultural mecca. The city is becoming increasingly diverse (unlike how Plotkin said "Creative Class" cities are trending whiter). We are home to the best-educated immigrants in the country. I've seen more and more young families here, too, since moving here in 2010 from Fairfax County, VA.
Perhaps Cleveland has just been ineffectual at harnessing all of the benefits of Richard Florida's theories while Pittsburgh has done a better job? I'm by no means trying to discredit Plotkin, nor am I trying to bash Cleveland, but Pittsburgh is a poster child of how a city is thriving while adopting Richard Florida's recommendations. We have those artisan cupcake shops, designer poodle sweater boutiques, etc. also. We're not suffering for it. If Pittsburgh's bucking Plotkin's assertion that the Rust Belt has been harmed more than helped by Richard Florida, then why is that? I'd love to figure out what Pittsburgh is doing right and what Cleveland is doing wrong on this front.
As this article and I have suggested before on this forum, catering to young urbanistas is the wrong way to go. "Trickle down" theories never work- not in politics, and not when hipsters/"artists" move in. We have seen a lot of growth and development downtown, in Ohio City, Tremont, Gordon Square, and North Collinwood, but how sustainable is this? I do like hanging out in these places, but I really don't see the success carrying on into further than the immediate future if our strategy doesn't change. Instead of trying to attract "desirable" or "cool" people to our city, why can't we focus on the ones who already live here? I know it's been shrinking, but there are still quite a few people in Cleveland, in the unhip neighborhoods, i.e. Slavic Village, Glenville, Hough, Central, Clark Fulton, etc.
Well, if you take a look at who already lives here, only 12% of them have a bachelor's degree. Not to put them down, but that's a sign that we need some new blood here, no? Since the school system is not so good, mostly young people who enjoy an urban lifestyle is the way to go, or as you say, young urbanistas.
I do think that compared to 2004 (when Florida's book was published) there's less of a sharp divide between the bohemians and the squares. That is, these days, people from all walks of life enjoy the unique shops and unique food options - and how many relocators on CD say they want a walkable neighborhood with lots of amenities? So trying to attract the bohemian types should help improve the neighborhoods for everyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelCityRising
Perhaps Cleveland has just been ineffectual at harnessing all of the benefits of Richard Florida's theories while Pittsburgh has done a better job? I'm by no means trying to discredit Plotkin, nor am I trying to bash Cleveland, but Pittsburgh is a poster child of how a city is thriving while adopting Richard Florida's recommendations. We have those artisan cupcake shops, designer poodle sweater boutiques, etc. also. We're not suffering for it. If Pittsburgh's bucking Plotkin's assertion that the Rust Belt has been harmed more than helped by Richard Florida, then why is that? I'd love to figure out what Pittsburgh is doing right and what Cleveland is doing wrong on this front.
Go ahead and discredit Plotkin all you want, since he's wrong. You on the other hand are right - the real problem is that Cleveland (here I mean the city and state government) hasn't done enough to attract the creative types. It's barely started basics like improving neighborhood safety, improving public transportation, and improving recreation on the river and lake (why is that lakefront airport still there again?).
Quote:
For Rust Belt cities, notes Cleveland’s Richey Piiparinen, following the “creative class” meme has not only meant wasted money, but wasted effort and misdirection. Burning money trying to become “cooler” ends up looking something like the metropolitan equivalent to a midlife crisis.
See, when I read something like that, I think of the ridiculously lame "downtown living is great!" ads, like the one below. Exactly how we shouldn't be spending our money.
Quote:
In nouveau hipster and increasingly expensive Brooklyn, nearly a quarter of people live below the poverty line. While artisanal cheese shops and bars that double as flower shops serve the hipsters, one in four Brooklynites receives food stamps
And surely this is a smaller percentage than 1995?
Quote:
In the process, Campanella notes, much of what made the neighborhood unique has been lost as the creatives replace the local culture with the increasingly predictable, and portable, “hip cool” trendy restaurants, offering beet-filled ravioli instead of fried okra, and organic markets. The “unique” amenities you find now, even in New Orleans, he reports, are much what you’d expect in any other hipster paradise, be it Portland, Seattle, Burlington, Vermont or Williamsburg.
This may be the most clueless thing in the article. Regional specialty foods are extremely popular with young people, and I'm sure that includes okra in the south. (But New Orleans? Who thinks of okra when they think traditional New Orleans food?)
Well, if you take a look at who already lives here, only 12% of them have a bachelor's degree. Not to put them down, but that's a sign that we need some new blood here, no? Since the school system is not so good, mostly young people who enjoy an urban lifestyle is the way to go, or as you say, young urbanistas.
I do think that compared to 2004 (when Florida's book was published) there's less of a sharp divide between the bohemians and the squares. That is, these days, people from all walks of life enjoy the unique shops and unique food options - and how many relocators on CD say they want a walkable neighborhood with lots of amenities? So trying to attract the bohemian types should help improve the neighborhoods for everyone.
Go ahead and discredit Plotkin all you want, since he's wrong. You on the other hand are right - the real problem is that Cleveland (here I mean the city and state government) hasn't done enough to attract the creative types. It's barely started basics like improving neighborhood safety, improving public transportation, and improving recreation on the river and lake (why is that lakefront airport still there again?).
See, when I read something like that, I think of the ridiculously lame "downtown living is great!" ads, like the one below. Exactly how we shouldn't be spending our money.
And surely this is a smaller percentage than 1995?
This may be the most clueless thing in the article. Regional specialty foods are extremely popular with young people, and I'm sure that includes okra in the south. (But New Orleans? Who thinks of okra when they think traditional New Orleans food?)
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.
Read this article yesterday about the failure of the so-called "Creative class" in reviving cities all over the country, even those in cities like Chicago.
Seems to me like this is what Cleveland has been banking on. As this article and I have suggested before on this forum, catering to young urbanistas is the wrong way to go. "Trickle down" theories never work- not in politics, and not when hipsters/"artists" move in. We have seen a lot of growth and development downtown, in Ohio City, Tremont, Gordon Square, and North Collinwood, but how sustainable is this? I do like hanging out in these places, but I really don't see the success carrying on into further than the immediate future if our strategy doesn't change. Instead of trying to attract "desirable" or "cool" people to our city, why can't we focus on the ones who already live here? I know it's been shrinking, but there are still quite a few people in Cleveland, in the unhip neighborhoods, i.e. Slavic Village, Glenville, Hough, Central, Clark Fulton, etc.
I think the only area that will undoubtedly thrive for decades to come, as of now, is University Circle/Little Italy. This is helped enormously by the world class cultural institutions of the area and the high profile of Case Western- not by boutiques, vinyl shops, or yoga studios. Asiatown seems like another good example of sustainable progress because of Cleveland State's expansion and influx of immigrants, who are bound together by more than superficial interests. They also have families.
That is my position, feel free to agree or disagree. But I am very interested to hear what all of you think. It seems to me that life in Cleveland has gotten unquestionably better, even in the last 5 years. It looks completely different than when I was a kid. Things have been going well, but I think it's important to never become complacent. So.... what has Cleveland done right? What has Cleveland done wrong? What should we change? How can we build the best future possible?
Joel Kotlin hates cities and believes that low-density suburbia should be the ultimate destination of everyone, so of course this is his view. Richard Florida did not declare it a failure, only that, by itself, the creative class and the focus on them, cannot "lift all boats". Kotlin decided to take that to mean any back to the city movement, especially led by the creatives, is a hipster-fueled fantasy and failure. He's a hack and a tool and he ignores the very real fact that urban cores are reviving all over the nation, including Cleveland's.
As for the future of Cleveland, I tend to think its future will have little resemblance to the past 50 years of decline. Will it change overnight? Absolutely not, but the momentum is there.
The problem is that the creative class is still a relatively small portion of the workforce. there is also the factors of older industries going through whatever they are going through and these industries still employ a lot more people than start ups or creative firms.
Exactly. Cities do and should want these people moving in. The issue is not that they're worthless, as Kotlin basically states, but that they cannot fix the entirety of urban problems on their own. It has to be a multi-faceted front, which I think more cities than not are succeeding at right now.
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.
Why can't you have a family within the city? Millions of people already do, and that ability is only increasing with the proliferation of city parks, events, transit, lower crime rates, etc. that all make family living in the city entirely possible. Is the city going to be for every family... no, obviously not, but there's long been the ridiculous idea that families can only thrive in the suburbs.
And you seem to be talking about the processes of gentrification, which can happen with or without the creative class. Also, being able to maintain the existing population while simultaneously drastically improving the quality of the neighborhood is almost impossible. The existing population in a declined neighborhood tends to be lower income, so any improvements, without government or developer incentives, will tend to price more and more of those people out. It's just an inevitable result of economics that the people with the least means are usually the ones who end up being the smallest beneficiaries of neighborhood change.
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.
