How can Cleveland become an 'It city' like Nashville and Austin? (Columbus: rental, crime)

[bjimmy24]

^ There is one - ONE! - Polish restaurant in Boston. Cleveland actually has a lot of food you can't find easily in other cities.

[gouldnm]

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

^ There is one - ONE! - Polish restaurant in Boston. Cleveland actually has a lot of food you can't find easily in other cities.

Yes, if you really look hard, you can find East European food on the Coasts. But it's not ubiquitous like it is in Cleveland.


Last time we were in Cleveland we went to this French restaurant, L'Albatross. They had a dish that consisted of sausages and pierogis all dolled up in a French sauce with a fancy, French-sounding name. I joked with my husband about how only in Cleveland could you find a "Franco-East European" restaurant!


A lot of food in Cleveland tends to have an "East European" accent, even if the restaurant doesn't advertise itself as an East European restaurant. I saw something similar when I lived in New Jersey, where so much of the food has an "Italian" accent. New York was the only place I've ever been to where I had chicken pot pie with a tomato-based sauce. Imagine my surprise when I stuck my fork into the crust and saw a spurt of red!


I still have a freezer full of Russian tea biscuits at home from our last trip to Cleveland.

[BKShoreman]

Who cares if Cleveland is an "It" city? All of the cities mentioned above have their pluses and minuses. Cleveland has its issues but it also has its gems. Rent a kayak and explore the Rocky River. Try that in Chicago, New York, or Nashville. Drive 15 minutes from your office, whip out your fly rod and get in a little steelhead trout fishing at lunchtime. Not exactly something you would want to do in the Chicago River or the east River in New York. Two weeks ago I was leaving Chicago from loop to I94. Waze showed a 3 hour 20 min drive to Michigan City Indiana on the Dan Ryan. 2 hour 10 min the Skyway . It was only a 55 mile trip. There would be an armed revolution if drive times were like in Cleveland. The food scene in Cleveland is very diverse. Of course not NYC diverse, but also not at NYC prices either. If I were a 30 something looking for a place to live, Cleveland has a lot to offer. Comparatively low housing prices, convenient airport, lots of restaurant choices, professional sports, nightlife, museums, outdoor activities with the lakes and incredible park systems, and moderate climate so long as you don't locate in the snow belt. What's not to like.

[Minervah]

After living through a perfectly nice little city's unbearable transformation to an "it city" I can honestly say I would much rather live in a "not it city."

[theurbanfiles]

A few months ago, I came up with a subjective algorithm designed to meet my preferences for living in certain major cities (my big 6 criteria was COL/Value, Pro/College Sports, General Urbanity, Proximity to Other Cities/Nature, Natural Scenery and Climate. The group in my Top 8 (first) Tier were (Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Salt Lake City, Portland, Buffalo (crazy, right?), Atlanta and Sacramento). Now, Chicago wasn't far from that group, but it wasn't at Cleveland's level... If I'm being blunt, here is a list of things Chicago offers that Cleveland doesn't: Higher End Shopping, a More Dynamic Downtown Core/Means For Living a Car Free/Urbane Lifestyle, A Bigger Airport With More Destinations, and NHL/a B1G team nearby (Northwestern). Cleveland, on the other hand, has more historic charm than Chicago in it's neighborhoods/suburbs, is warmer during the winter and cooler during the summer, has a better location for visiting major east coast cities and nature, better overall natural scenery and park system, and is generally more livable. As a whole, I can see where a visitor may prefer Chicago, but for day to day life, Cleveland wins.

As for the "It City" question? I think it's quite simple, really. These cities are known as "it cities", partially because they are recent in their growth (for example, I don't usually hear NYC or Boston called it cities even though they have more happening) + they have a certain, clearly identifiable, thing (or things) that people like about them that distinguish them as a destination for many in the US. For Portland? Well, I think it helps that is thought of as "Beer City USA". Cleveland is already well known for beer, and so perhaps it can, and already is capitalizing on this. But Portland is also known for being a capital of hipsterdom. Making yourself a "hipster capital" is a nice thought, though, there all cities pretty much are marketing to hipsters to some degree, and Portland had a much earlier start on this. Also, I think it is worth pointing out that (at least IMO), Portland might have the best natural scenery surrounding it's city of any in the US. For Austin? Well, that, as much as anything (as in Dallas and Houston) has a lot to do with job growth. Those latter two aren't really thought of as "haute", but they grow fast because business friendly policies have been orchestrated around the state and in those two cities that seem to allow companies to thrive, at least enough so that many are flocking there. Austin of course also was an early starter in the hipster movement (built reputation can be a blessing as much as a curse), and, it markets itself as the "Live Music Capital of the World. People think they can see music of some kind in pretty much every bar down the main drag, and perhaps they are right and if so, yes, that is something few cities can match for visitors. Nashville is the same way, but with Country Music, which currently I would venture is as popular as any music genre out there. It's also perhaps the most quintessentially southern city (again, distinguishing). So, being a city that has something that either in perception or reality, has something that most perceive other cities as lacking. Now, I think that Cleveland is strong in many areas. But, the problem (or not necessarily) lies in the fact that the general consensus is that Cleveland doesn't have one specific thing that is so strong and unique that it is "once of a kind to see for any tourist". The Five that come closest here are the 3 regional anchors I mentioned in the previous post, plus the industrial aesthetic, and Cuyahoga Valley National Park (for national park collectors, of which that number is bigger than some might believe). I do think though, that the combination of amenities, for the price that is paid to live here, is nearly, if not fully, unmatched in the US. So, I do have to echo some other posters. "Visit Cleveland" is not a bad thing, but perhaps another portion of that website should be dedicated to why people and businesses should "Live in Cleveland".

[Minervah]

Originally Posted by cavsfan137

A few months ago, I came up with a subjective algorithm designed to meet my preferences for living in certain major cities (my big 6 criteria was COL/Value, Pro/College Sports, General Urbanity, Proximity to Other Cities/Nature, Natural Scenery and Climate. The group in my Top 8 (first) Tier were (Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Salt Lake City, Portland, Buffalo (crazy, right?), Atlanta and Sacramento). Now, Chicago wasn't far from that group, but it wasn't at Cleveland's level... If I'm being blunt, here is a list of things Chicago offers that Cleveland doesn't: Higher End Shopping, a More Dynamic Downtown Core/Means For Living a Car Free/Urbane Lifestyle, A Bigger Airport With More Destinations, and NHL/a B1G team nearby (Northwestern). Cleveland, on the other hand, has more historic charm than Chicago in it's neighborhoods/suburbs, is warmer during the winter and cooler during the summer, has a better location for visiting major east coast cities and nature, better overall natural scenery and park system, and is generally more livable. As a whole, I can see where a visitor may prefer Chicago, but for day to day life, Cleveland wins.

As for the "It City" question? I think it's quite simple, really. These cities are known as "it cities", partially because they are recent in their growth (for example, I don't usually hear NYC or Boston called it cities even though they have more happening) + they have a certain, clearly identifiable, thing (or things) that people like about them that distinguish them as a destination for many in the US. For Portland? Well, I think it helps that is thought of as "Beer City USA". Cleveland is already well known for beer, and so perhaps it can, and already is capitalizing on this. But Portland is also known for being a capital of hipsterdom. Making yourself a "hipster capital" is a nice thought, though, there all cities pretty much are marketing to hipsters to some degree, and Portland had a much earlier start on this. Also, I think it is worth pointing out that (at least IMO), Portland might have the best natural scenery surrounding it's city of any in the US. For Austin? Well, that, as much as anything (as in Dallas and Houston) has a lot to do with job growth. Those latter two aren't really thought of as "haute", but they grow fast because business friendly policies have been orchestrated around the state and in those two cities that seem to allow companies to thrive, at least enough so that many are flocking there. Austin of course also was an early starter in the hipster movement (built reputation can be a blessing as much as a curse), and, it markets itself as the "Live Music Capital of the World. People think they can see music of some kind in pretty much every bar down the main drag, and perhaps they are right and if so, yes, that is something few cities can match for visitors. Nashville is the same way, but with Country Music, which currently I would venture is as popular as any music genre out there. It's also perhaps the most quintessentially southern city (again, distinguishing). So, being a city that has something that either in perception or reality, has something that most perceive other cities as lacking. Now, I think that Cleveland is strong in many areas. But, the problem (or not necessarily) lies in the fact that the general consensus is that Cleveland doesn't have one specific thing that is so strong and unique that it is "once of a kind to see for any tourist". The Five that come closest here are the 3 regional anchors I mentioned in the previous post, plus the industrial aesthetic, and Cuyahoga Valley National Park (for national park collectors, of which that number is bigger than some might believe). I do think though, that the combination of amenities, for the price that is paid to live here, is nearly, if not fully, unmatched in the US. So, I do have to echo some other posters. "Visit Cleveland" is not a bad thing, but perhaps another portion of that website should be dedicated to why people and businesses should "Live in Cleveland".

Portland doesn't really consider itself as a hipster city any longer. You can find just as many hipsters there now pretty much as any other place. That's even been mentioned in the CD Portland forum.

What you have most of now in Portland is Yuppies. Many if not most of the hipsters have moved on because they can no longer afford to live there even those Trustafarians who flocked there during the 90's.

[theurbanfiles]

I don't disagree with you, however, I think that perception still remains, and will remain for quite some time, to outsiders.

[Minervah]

Originally Posted by cavsfan137

I don't disagree with you, however, I think that perception still remains, and will remain for quite some time, to outsiders.

I think it will too. Just as people often have a wrong impression of Cleveland. These things take forever to die if they ever do.

[october2007]

Originally Posted by Natural510

I agree, there are enough tourist cities out there and a more livable city should be a goal. Seattle did seem to be that in the mid-90s, a cleaner, roomier version of SF. If Cleveland (or any other rebound city) focuses on improving neighborhood connectedness and infrastructure, the rest will follow.

Yes, Seattle (and Portland, OR) were great places to live in the 90s....and I see Cleveland with potential to improve livability but hopefully not go the route of those two places.

[Minervah]

Originally Posted by october2007

Yes, Seattle (and Portland, OR) were great places to live in the 90s....and I see Cleveland with potential to improve livability but hopefully not go the route of those two places.

A big amen to that!