Greater Cleveland's population went up from 1960 - 2012! (Parma, Eaton: low income, condo)

[usernametaken]

Judging by Cali1976's post history on city-data, it seems like he is 90 percent emotionally invested in Cleveland, and 10 percent emotionally invested in other cities. His name should definitely have been Ohio1976.

Originally Posted by maxmodder

Why is it that whenever posters who are not emotionally invested in a given city post sound facts and make compelling arguments, they are met with counter arguments from "city boosters" that allow their emotional ties to blind their observance of clear facts? They even go so far as to claim that people who once lived in said city and still have ties there know nothing of the place. People that have left said city don't post facts that are viewed in a negative light just for the sake of doing so, they do it to educate those that have never lived in the area.

Some cities are inferior to others, just as some countries are inferior to other countries. Such is fact.

[lvoc]

There is of course very strong economic rsemblance between Detroit and Cleveland.

Cleveland City Population...

Census Pop. U.S. Rank

1940 878,336 6
1950 914,808 7
1960 876,050 8
1970 750,903 10
1980 573,822 18
1990 505,615 23
2000 477,472 33
2010 396,815 NA

Cleveland Metro Population

1940 - 1,886,863
1950 - 2,233,237
1960 - 2,825,417
1970 - 3,098,048
1980 - 2,938,627
1990 - 2,859,644
2000 - 2,945,832
2010 - 2,881,937

Detroit City Population

1940 1,623,452
1950 1,849,568
1960 1,670,144
1970 1,511,482
1980 1,203,339
1990 1,027,974
2000 951,270
2010 713,777

Detroit Metro Population


1940 2,544,287
1950 3,219,256
1960 4,012,607
1970 4,490,902
1980 4,387,783
1990 4,266,654
2000 4,441,551
2010 4,296,250

Very similar shrink and ratios to the Metro area.

I would think both Cities are doomed unless able to live off Metro. Detroit does this a good bit by an income tax on suburban workers. I don't know enough about Cleveland to know if it is assisted or not.

[mbowes80]

Saying either place is 'doomed' is no more sensible than saying, in 1940, that either place would keep growing without limit. Not all trends continue endlessly, as would be clearly demonstrated if your numbers went before 1940. The only fact here is that none of us really has any clue what Cleveland or any other city will be like 50 years from now... therefore, if someone chooses to be optimistic about a certain place, it's little more than trolling to assert that they're somehow objectively wrong.

[Cleverfield]

Originally Posted by lvoc

I would think both Cities are doomed unless able to live off Metro. Detroit does this a good bit by an income tax on suburban workers. I don't know enough about Cleveland to know if it is assisted or not.

10 years ago, I would have agreed with you. Today, Cleveland and Detroit are moving in opposite directions. More and more people of means are moving into the city. 3 neighborhoods are seeing skyrocketing home prices as they gentrify. Downtown is seeing high rise offices converted to apartments, University Circle has some of the most expensive apartments anywhere at $900 for a 450 sf studio, and they are full. Case Western, and CSU continue to expand and increase their prestige. Fortune magazine even picked Cleveland as a "New Brooklyn" for how it's poised itself for growth.

The next Brooklyns ... and Detroits - The Fortune crystal ball - FORTUNE

[lvoc]

We will see. Note Detroit too has its up and coming areas in Downtown and Midtown. But it is an area with a total population of 25,000 out of a total of 700,000. It sounds wonderful but is actually small potatoes.

Detroit lost about 1.7% of its population from 2010 to 2012. Cleveland lost 1.5%. So Detroit is dying a little faster though from a much bigger base.

Now it may well be that Cleveland is in much better shape with respect to the economics. But you simply can't keep losing people and have your property values hold up. It does not work. The municipal services start to fail and that causes more property loss and more decay.

So I am certainly not rooting against Cleveland or Detroit. I would simply say that cities simply need to be absorbed into larger area government when they get into this situation. That can stop the decay and lead to an eventual recovery. But no I don't believe any of these cities can do it on their own resources.

[Cleverfield]

Originally Posted by lvoc

We will see. Note Detroit too has its up and coming areas in Downtown and Midtown. But it is an area with a total population of 25,000 out of a total of 700,000. It sounds wonderful but is actually small potatoes.

Detroit lost about 1.7% of its population from 2010 to 2012. Cleveland lost 1.5%. So Detroit is dying a little faster though from a much bigger base.

Now it may well be that Cleveland is in much better shape with respect to the economics. But you simply can't keep losing people and have your property values hold up. It does not work. The municipal services start to fail and that causes more property loss and more decay.

So I am certainly not rooting against Cleveland or Detroit. I would simply say that cities simply need to be absorbed into larger area government when they get into this situation. That can stop the decay and lead to an eventual recovery. But no I don't believe any of these cities can do it on their own resources.

The story is more complicated than you're making it out to be. You can say "the population fell" but, exactly who left, and from what neighborhoods, is what really tells the story. The largest out-migration in the last decade has been black people from East Side neighborhoods to inner ring suburbs. These neighborhoods have deteriorated significantly, and have large swaths of abandoned homes. Those neighborhoods are probably worse off than they were before, but the people that lived there were never wealthy, and were not contributing a great deal of tax money to the city. Neighborhoods on the West Side like Westpark, Kamms Corners, Old Brooklyn, Riverside, which are mostly middle class, owner occupied, and account for the largest portion of residential property tax in the city have largely stayed stable. Some neighborhoods that were blighted and had low property values in the past, such has GS, OC, and Tremont have gentrified and are now selling homes in the 200's. The picture is not as bleak as it may seem when you take these factors into account. The East Side faces huge challenges, but it's really just continued to steadily depopulate. That may change if neighborhoods around Cleveland Clinic, and University Circle start to gentrify though, which is already starting.

[lvoc]

Originally Posted by Cleverfield

10 years ago, I would have agreed with you. Today, Cleveland and Detroit are moving in opposite directions. More and more people of means are moving into the city. 3 neighborhoods are seeing skyrocketing home prices as they gentrify. Downtown is seeing high rise offices converted to apartments, University Circle has some of the most expensive apartments anywhere at $900 for a 450 sf studio, and they are full. Case Western, and CSU continue to expand and increase their prestige. Fortune magazine even picked Cleveland as a "New Brooklyn" for how it's poised itself for growth.

The next Brooklyns ... and Detroits - The Fortune crystal ball - FORTUNE

Louisville is the third city mentioned in the cite. Note it did the right thing Merged with Jefferson County in 2003 and showed reasonable growth between 2010 and 2012.

that is what I think needs to happen in all these decaying cities with more successful metros.

[TheMahValley]

Originally Posted by lvoc

We will see. Note Detroit too has its up and coming areas in Downtown and Midtown.

Yes, but again there are plenty apects you must look into. Detroit has mostly put its development dollars into downtown and in Midtown along Woodward. As we all know, Cleveland is a very east/west side type of city. Development is happening in both areas of the city with areas like Tremont, Ohio City, and Detroit-Shoreway growing to the point where they need new construction to fill in the need for residents and also with neighborhoods like Old Brooklyn and Edgewater (realize there are very stable neighborhoods in the city) on the west side. East side: University Circle/Little Italy and spillover from the Clinic into Hough and Fairfax which are still rough neighborhoods, but again, stable sections like Collinwood and Bratenahl. I was working on some remote sensing (satellite imagery) and compare the large swaths of green which are urban prairies and farms that are basically vacant land. Cleveland's inner east side neighborhoods are its worse neighborhoods, but there is not near this block after block for miles like you see in most of Detroit or northern neighborhoods like St. Louis where once dense neighborhoods are now lined with fields and the only thing is the above ground utilities that mark human habitation. Even parcels that were vacant have seen suburban style housing go in in Cleveland. When you look at aerials of Cleveland, you see the mostly gray areas which represent built-up density in true color imagery, whereas in Detroit and St. Louis it is the green representing urban prairies. Cleveland neighborhoods like Hough have vacant parcels, but nothing compared to Briggs in Detroit or Old North St. Louis.

[lvoc]

Originally Posted by Cleverfield

The story is more complicated than you're making it out to be. You can say "the population fell" but, exactly who left, and from what neighborhoods, is what really tells the story. The largest out-migration in the last decade has been black people from East Side neighborhoods to inner ring suburbs. These neighborhoods have deteriorated significantly, and have large swaths of abandoned homes. Those neighborhoods are probably worse off than they were before, but the people that lived there were never wealthy, and were not contributing a great deal of tax money to the city. Neighborhoods on the West Side like Westpark, Kamms Corners, Old Brooklyn, Riverside, which are mostly middle class, owner occupied, and account for the largest portion of residential property tax in the city have largely stayed stable. Some neighborhoods that were blighted and had low property values in the past, such has GS, OC, and Tremont have gentrified and are now selling homes in the 200's. The picture is not as bleak as it may seem when you take these factors into account. The East Side faces huge challenges, but it's really just continued to steadily depopulate. That may change if neighborhoods around Cleveland Clinic, and University Circle start to gentrify though, which is already starting.

You are missing the inevitable impact of a continuing population loss. A city simply cannot sustain that. Gentrification is fine and desirable...but if the gross population declines you are generating empty buildings and declining neighborhoods. And they will pull the economic viability of the city down faster than it can gentrify. It is hard to see how you can keep such decay from exponentiation...the decay generates decay which generates more decay. Now if you were gentrifying fast enough you would at least hold your population.

and note that one of the signs you are losing is swaths of abandoned homes. If you were getting close to even you would tear those things down as quick as the taxes were not paid. Abandoned homes are absolute poison to a city.

[mbowes80]

Originally Posted by lvoc

You are missing the inevitable impact of a continuing population loss. A city simply cannot sustain that.

You seem to be arguing under the assumption that continuing population loss is inevitable... I wouldn't agree.