Is The West Side Doing Better Than The East Side? (Cleveland: low income, houses)

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by mbowes80

To me, the west side has somewhat of a different ethos that might give it an advantage, especially among younger generations (the kind of people who might consider living within the city limits.) It's probably more attractive to many people under, say, 50, to live in proximity to Lakewood than it is to live near the expensive, cultural fancies of University Circle, etc. You can be near things like bowling alleys where hip bands play and hot dog joints where you can get cocoa puffs as a topping... or, on the other hand, you can be near Several Hall where you can pay $50 to hear a symphony (no disrespect to our great orchestra...) and look at some attractive monuments resting heavily upon dead people over in Lakeview cemetery. The kind of people that are more attracted to the latter (which I'm not putting down,) are probably less likely to consider moving into a Cleveland-proper neighborhood in the first place. So I think the west side has that going for it.

Further, there's a compounding effect... once places like Ohio City and Tremont catch on, places like Detroit Shoreway start to become attractive due to their proximity.

I'm probably overstating my argument above for explanatory purposes, but I just feel like the west side has a less-fancy-but-more-livable ethos that is likely to appeal to younger generations of middle-income folks who might be amenable to living in the city. The east side could totally get there, and I hope it does, but it needs a neighborhood or two to really take hold... and it can't be on the fringes, like Coventry... it needs to be ensconced deep within the east side itself.

All of the things about housing stock age, etc., which I don't know much about, are certainly also true. Even in the shadier parts of the west side, many of the buildings and houses are really beautiful. Driving around the west boulevard area, near 90, you'd never guess it's not the best neighborhood. Same goes even for some of the areas south of 90. Here's hoping those neighborhoods recover a bit while there's time to still maintain some of the older structures...

The whole east side v. west side thing is as you stated. It's always been that way; east side is art museum and orchestra attendees and the west side is white-socked bowling, lawn ornamented ''ethnics''.

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

If CSU over on E. 25 doesn't count as east side and is "downtown" than W.25 is also downtown.

Bro, there's a river. There's east of that river, and west. CSU is not "downtown."

CSU is downtown. The current downtown is river east and south to the population reducing, life-sucking moat otherwise known as the innerbelt. Ohio City is Ohio City as it was before being incorporated into Cleveland. Sounds like you didn't grow up in the city. No one says CSU is on the east side.

What are your ''downtown'' boundaries?

[deskjockey]

Originally Posted by Kamms

Interesting that a racist neighborhood like Little Italy is touted as one of Cleveland's jewels. Do you think this is the reason the area remained intact when most of the east side went up in flames?

How many see this, know this, feel this but yet its not talked about?

[deskjockey]

Originally Posted by Cleverfield

If "society" you mean capitalist society, then yes. But there's no reason that poverty has to mean squalor and violence. There should be a way for the poor to have decent living conditions in safe neighborhoods. If that could be achieved, then the neighborhoods would be much more attractive, and the economy would greatly improve. I think that's actually something that Frank Jackson has been going for in his mayorship. You see a lot more low-income oriented stores going up in Cleveland than there used to be (dollar stores, save-a-lots, rent-a-centers). And CMHA has been building a lot of new homes in poor areas. But obviously a lot more still needs to be done.

I agree with you in principle, however, I lost my rose colored glasses sometime back.

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by deskjockey

I agree with you in principle, however, I lost my rose colored glasses sometime back.

Well stated...

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by deskjockey

How many see this, know this, feel this but yet its not talked about?

Everyone knows this but won't talk about it; only what a great, old-world neighborhood it is with no mention about how it maintained its charm. Could be the armed vigilantes waiting for the Hough folks to come up there? Or the black opera singer visiting Cleveland being assaulted there going into a restaurant? What about the Case student boycotts in the 90s? Those didn't last long after the white and asian boycotting on-campus students wanted to move off campus; guess where they went to live? Safe and adjacent yet extremely hostile to African-Americans Little Italy. Why isn't there an outcry about racist Little Italy; how can all these white liberals support these businesses? The reason: it is an intact safe-haven in the otherwise desolate east side of Cleveland.

[Cleverfield]

Originally Posted by Kamms

Interesting that a racist neighborhood like Little Italy is touted as one of Cleveland's jewels. Do you think this is the reason the area remained intact when most of the east side went up in flames?

So you're condoning racism as a means to preserve neighborhoods? nice.

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by Cleverfield

If "society" you mean capitalist society, then yes. But there's no reason that poverty has to mean squalor and violence. There should be a way for the poor to have decent living conditions in safe neighborhoods. If that could be achieved, then the neighborhoods would be much more attractive, and the economy would greatly improve. I think that's actually something that Frank Jackson has been going for in his mayorship. You see a lot more low-income oriented stores going up in Cleveland than there used to be (dollar stores, save-a-lots, rent-a-centers). And CMHA has been building a lot of new homes in poor areas. But obviously a lot more still needs to be done.

New single-family homes in poor areas? I thought this social experiment failed. The current trend being to disperse former project people and other section 8 tenants into stable communities throughout the county thereby providing the benefits of better public schools and recreational facilities. Sounds like government does a lot to provide decent living conditions. Why would the government want to build housing for the poor in unsafe areas thereby perpetuating the violence and squalor.

By the way, who will be attracted to these attractive, formerly poor areas when Jackson achieves his goal of more dollar stores and new housing for poor people in already poor areas of the city? When and how do these areas become attractive with this logic? I mean building new housing for CMHA tenants was never a problem or a solution. Again, this sounds so '60s Great Society.

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by Cleverfield

So you're condoning racism as a means to preserve neighborhoods? nice.

No, but of course that's where this goes when anything about race comes up; which is why no one talks about it, because of people like you. Tell me, how did Little Italy stay the way it is? How has it stayed safe? Not condoning or making judgments, just a question.

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by Cleverfield

So you're condoning racism as a means to preserve neighborhoods? nice.

So you agree that Little Italy is racist; fine. It's racism that kept the area intact and safe. Do you support businesses in Little Italy? If you do, you are condoning and supporting racism.