Where does Cleveland go from here? (East Cleveland, Oregon: apartments, foreclosed, crime)

[Cleveland_Collector]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

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.

Yes, cities should want them moving in and, no, they are not worthless. However, they can actually "fix" little of what plagues urban America. Yet, they can participate in the overall renewal and that alone makes the "creative class" (often a complete misnomer -- call it an alternative consumer lifestyle) worth having.

[Larry Siegel]

Who the heck is Plotkin? Who is Kotlin?

Are you guys trying to refer to Joel Kotkin? It's K-O-T-K-I-N.

I know him personally and it is an exaggeration to say he hates cities. He thinks that most people do not want to raise kids in cities, and he thinks (as part of an overall conservative viewpoint) that government spending to "help" cities is mostly wasted or harmful. I am more pro-urban than he is but his work raises many valid points.

[TheProf]

Interesting theory bjimmy24… do see some flaws in it (note: the so-called urban hipster sure is taking a beating these days as Christy Wampole's embedded NYT op-ed from last November demonstrates.)

Richard Florida’s premise is plausible, but it is too sweeping and fails to realize that trendy/hot neighborhoods aren’t just that way because they’re “self-sustaining” but also they represent quality, exciting youth-grabbing aspects of living which supplements and is integral to what makes them “hot”. Also likely is that these hot neighborhoods have other attractive aspects such as safety, quality housing and a range of quality entertainment and intellectual … or even public service aspects…

Florida also overlooks the aspect of walkability and quality mass transit (esp the latter)… I mean, why does a neighborhood like Ohio City or Shaker Square need a Case Western Reserve or University Hospital in the neighborhood when their residents can get there by mass transit inside 15 minutes by bus (Shaker Square) or train (Ohio City); or get downtown in 3 minutes by train (Ohio City) or 13 minutes by train (Shaker Square) … or 12 bus (Detroit-Shoreway), or … you get my point… As a corollary, the live-work concept is great for a lot of adaptive-reuse urban areas (there are several such areas in Cleveland where factories have been rebuilt into quality loft, multi-unit housing, such as the Goodrich-Kirkland district), but need not be the basis for every up and coming neighborhood. Florida seems to dismiss as somewhat trivial restaurants, bars and shops as opposed to great/large/prestigious educational institutions, hospitals, computer-oriented tech firms and the like…

Don’t get me wrong, an old, post industrial Rust Belt city like Cleveland absolutely needs these industries and needs to remake itself into an employee-friendly city where the range of its populace can land a range of jobs at these techno/medical/service employers… But does each NEIGHBORHOOD need these types of employers as a foil or a hedge to the much-despised “hipster” who lives only to drink, eat and party and, thus, ultimately drag down his hipster/trendy neighborhood? (oops, … but if the hipster can afford to live there, he likely has a pretty good job somewhere, right?). … of course if she/he can save a few bucks on autos and their costs, like insurance, with cheap, convenient mass transit, and still get to these jobs elsewhere in the city …

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by Larry Siegel

Who the heck is Plotkin? Who is Kotlin?

Are you guys trying to refer to Joel Kotkin? It's K-O-T-K-I-N.

I know him personally and it is an exaggeration to say he hates cities. He thinks that most people do not want to raise kids in cities, and he thinks (as part of an overall conservative viewpoint) that government spending to "help" cities is mostly wasted or harmful. I am more pro-urban than he is but his work raises many valid points.

Apparently your friend didn't get the memo that the suburbs are the most subsidized form of development, not urban density infill or mass transit. Praising suburbia is probably the least conservative position you can have when it comes to cities.

And his body of work is almost entirely anti-city, not anti-subsidization.

[Cleveland_Collector]

Conservative: Subsidies and government spending are simply terrible, except if they happen to be for something that "I" agree with.

Really, though... Florida and Kotkin are both a couple of "scholars" who want there ideas to be praised. So much so that they sink to a level of criticizing each other's that is a bit comical. As usual, it isn't a one size fits all solution and what's "right" will lie somewhere in the middle and depend on many aspects of the citizenry and the landscape.

[Larry Siegel]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

Apparently your friend didn't get the memo that the suburbs are the most subsidized form of development, not urban density infill or mass transit. Praising suburbia is probably the least conservative position you can have when it comes to cities.

And his body of work is almost entirely anti-city, not anti-subsidization.

Joel Kotkin's not like a close personal buddy. He is a professional colleague. You are free to disagree with him. So do I, mostly.

Suburbia is subsidized with road funds and the mortgage tax deduction. Cities are subsidized with social services, jobs programs, welfare payments, public support of mass transit, and so forth. Choose your poison.

In addition, the hidden tax of having to pay for ****ty school systems but not use them is an implied subsidy for suburbs, the one that becomes the deciding factor for many people.

[Larry Siegel]

Originally Posted by Cleveland_Collector

Really, though... Florida and Kotkin are both a couple of "scholars" who want there ideas to be praised.

They're intellectrepreneurs (I just made that up). So am I, after a fashion. It beats having to do real work for a living.

[Clevelander17]

School systems themselves aren't inherently successes or failures. The students and families that use them really determine the "quality" of the schools more than anything administrators or BOEs are doing. What the suburbs offer is a chance for middle-class to wealthy folks to send their kids to schools that aren't attended by "those" people. It's Segregation 2.0. If an urban system like Cleveland wants to bring in more middle-class families, it will need to offer more options such as high-quality magnet schools, particularly at the secondary level, like the ones you'll find in other major cities.

[Johddavi]

Florida offered a not so great rebuttal to this article, in which he stands by his creative class theory. I think it's important that we not get wrapped up with labels. What I believe is at the heart of creative class theory is investment in our city neighborhoods that makes city living a viable and preferable option to suburban living for a larger group of people. That means making city neighborhoods safe, affordable and convenient. Part of convenience is access to effective and useful transportation options, good full service grocery stores, access to decent food and places to socialize. These features are all part of creative class theory, but they're also good basic urban planning.

I lived in Portland from 02 to 12 before voluntarily moving to Cleveland with my wife. Portland remains a great city with a lot to offer, but in the past few years, it had become a bit of a parody of itself. There is such a thing as too much. I want to see Cleveland build on what it already is, but make it more practical and user friendly. In that sense, Portland as a model still has a ton to offer. If making Cleveland safer, more convenient and livable draws thousands of hipsters (who for the most part i find to be fairly good stewards of cities), then so be it.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by Larry Siegel

Joel Kotkin's not like a close personal buddy. He is a professional colleague. You are free to disagree with him. So do I, mostly.

Suburbia is subsidized with road funds and the mortgage tax deduction. Cities are subsidized with social services, jobs programs, welfare payments, public support of mass transit, and so forth. Choose your poison.

In addition, the hidden tax of having to pay for ****ty school systems but not use them is an implied subsidy for suburbs, the one that becomes the deciding factor for many people.

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.