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.
Cleveland still goes for big magic bullet developments too much for my liking: so 80s/90s. And then in distressed neighborhoods like Kinsman the city's solution is to stripmall it. As far as connecting stations to business districts I recommended bike lanes and bike share stations: much more affordable than extending a station a half mile, which is what they're dong in Little Italy. With the comprehensive rail system that Cleveland has it's such a missed opportunity that is compounded each and every year the city chooses to lose out. Just for fun made a map showing what Cleveland could do with $1 million for bike lanes assuming that each mile is at the high end of the estimated cost (various city websites show the average cost is around $30,000 topping out at $50,000 for the total cost).
Now, if you consider that spread out over the past 5 years the city would have only had to have spent an estimated $200,000 annually to have that today. That really shows how far behind many Midwestern cities are and how inexcusable it is:Cleveland is in ranks with Omaha and St Louis in this regard and certainly not on par with Chicago let alone Milwaukee pound for pound.
Which leads into why the Twin Cities neighborhoods you listed are so much more accessible even without rail: they are all served by a continuous network of separated and on-street bikeways, bike share stations, and also high-frequency bus routes. Where rail is lacking the cities, Mpls in particular, picked up the slack by seriously investing in alternatives.
You're right that Old Brooklyn is nowhere on the gentrification radar, but that's because it doesn't need it, which begs the question of why a neighborhood that was so much worse offers so much more. Not to mention the fact that it's only as far removed from Downtown as Little Italy, it should really have more to show for itself to attract more visitors and new residents. And not only that, but unlike Little Italy or University Circle you don't need to make your way through the east side. I will say the Ugly Broad Tavern looks like a fun time, but there should be some more compelling reasons to head out there and unfortunately its business district is rather spread out with a compromised urban fabric that makes it pedestrian-unfriendly, which wouldn't be so bad if there were bikeways connecting it all together, but that's not the case so it's too car-oriented/off-putting/suburban.
Lakewood and Cleveland Heights are dense suburbs but they're not Cleveland: one suburb getting bike lanes at some point isn't going to mean much if surrounding communities don't get in on it. Even sprawling TC suburbs like Roseville have way more bikeways than Lakewood or Cleveland Heights and even Midwestern cities many times larger. I did visit Shaker Square though and I wonder how many visitors even know that area on the *gasp* east side of Cleveland even exists. It seems like more visitors to be made privy to it.
Good post and nice critique of the situation. One thing I will say though is that Cle Hts/Lakewood are great to bike in, even without tons of bike lanes, because there is just not as much car traffic. Also, I think it's slightly unfair to dismiss them since they aren't Cleveland, because when you add up their populations, it equals 100,000 people- 8% of Cuyahoga county. If you were walking around Coventry, or Cedar-Lee, or Cedar-Fairmount and didn't know you were in a suburb, you would really just assume you were still in Cleveland proper.
Totally agree about Shaker Square- it is my favorite area of Cleveland. Though I am glad it doesn't get some of the (at times) obnoxious hype of Tremont or Ohio City, I do think more people need to consider living there. In general, more efforts need to be put into the east side- the nice areas and blighted areas. I see lots of potential there. I'd also love to see your map become reality.
Many of your points are certainly valid. Cleveland absolutely needs to make improvements in terms of streetscapes (including bake lanes) and is in need of infill development to fill in the gaps. Neighborhood connectivity is a major weakness of Cleveland; and neighborhoods like Tremont, Gordan Square, and Ohio City still need to reach critical mass and better connect to each other so they function more holistically rather than as nodes.
Fortunately I think this type of thing is finally being pushed in Cleveland; however, Cleveland is overcoming decades of decline and bad planning and needs to rebuild its tax base so that it has money for these type of investments. Cleveland could also do a better job of pushing transit oriented development around its rail stations, so I hope that is something that is addressed sooner rather than later since Cleveland has the second best rail system in the Midwest.
Some of your points are kind of out there though. Building train lines that directly serve Gordan Square and Tremont would be big money projects that would be hard to justify under the current conditions. The walk from the 65th station to Gordan Sq is not too bad, but as you mentioned the major problem is that 65th Street needs more development so that it's a more of a pleasant walking experience.
Furthermore, the Twin Cities' best neighborhoods are hardly well served by rail. Whittier/Lowry Hill, Uptown, and the Summit area are nowhere close to being served by rail and won't be anytime soon despite the current rail initiatives in the Twin Cities.
Also, how can you compare OTR with Old Brooklyn. This makes me think that you really don't know all that much about Cleveland. They're not even close to being comparable. Old Brooklyn is an outer city neighborhood that has always been fairly stable but is hardly on the gentrification radar and likely never will be.
Have you ever been to Cleveland Heights or Lakewood? These inner "suburbs" contain Cleveland's healthiest urban districts. I actually think the rail expansion that would make the most sense in Cleveland would be through Lakewood.
As small lurker on Urban Ohio, this Minneapolis guy sounds a lot like a guy on that site that kind of puts down everything Ohio. If this is really the case, I wouldn't expect much of a change and a constant putting down of anything in this state.
Is this guy originally from Cleveland? He talks about it like he thinks he knows it. Cleveland has absolutely failed because it doesn't have the proper bike lanes? Please! I think Milwaukee is great, the most overlooked city in the nation. I would kill for their lakefront, but I still think Cleveland has more to offer. Cleveland has more neighborhoods, and a better downtown, not to mention rail. So yes, Milwaukee is a better bike city and has the best lakefront out there, but in no way shape or form should it be a model for Cleveland in every aspect of what a city should be. I am all for bicyclist rights, and I remember being in St. Louis this past summer and telling the locals to shut up because they had no clue about how bikes had just as much of a right as cars did to be on the road. So many people do not know how it works, and it is frustrating.
Not from Cleveland, but have visited and I like some of the neighborhoods and the rail and would visit again.
Bike lanes are important for someone who is carless and mainly rides a bike. It's also important to the large number of people using those lanes that I see on daily basis. I merely said that they were indicative of Midwestern cities, I did name others aside from Cleveland, that are not really trying to improve daily urban living conditions. Cleveland is not alone and just about every other large city in the region shares this fault. When something, and it doesn't have to be bike lanes by any means, but anything that is cheap and easy to do you have to ask why isn't it already done. Even suburbs like Eagan have tons more bike lanes (separated) than several much larger cities in the Midwest, but I have no idea why that's the case.
I'm surprised by the comment about Cleveland having "more neighborhoods" when compared to Milwaukee, good ones I'd assume are insinuated in the remark. Looking at the ones in Milwaukee there seems to be a decent number more. Only a few come to mind on Cleveland's west side and east side that one would enjoy visiting along with Downtown. As for downtowns Milwaukee does have a riverwalk and everything is concentrated in one area with lots blocks full of historic buildings and even more if you include Third Ward which extends south. Downtown Cleveland I found to be more pocket-oriented where you have some bustling areas with rather quiet areas separating them. I don't think Milwaukee serves as a model in all aspects, but there are some that should be followed. I mean, I would never say that Cleveland needs to look at NW Milwaukee for how to address rough spots on Cleveland's east side.
Not from Cleveland, but have visited and I like some of the neighborhoods and the rail and would visit again.
Bike lanes are important for someone who is carless and mainly rides a bike. It's also important to the large number of people using those lanes that I see on daily basis. I merely said that they were indicative of Midwestern cities, I did name others aside from Cleveland, that are not really trying to improve daily urban living conditions. Cleveland is not alone and just about every other large city in the region shares this fault. When something, and it doesn't have to be bike lanes by any means, but anything that is cheap and easy to do you have to ask why isn't it already done. Even suburbs like Eagan have tons more bike lanes (separated) than several much larger cities in the Midwest, but I have no idea why that's the case.
I'm surprised by the comment about Cleveland having "more neighborhoods" when compared to Milwaukee, good ones I'd assume are insinuated in the remark. Looking at the ones in Milwaukee there seems to be a decent number more. Only a few come to mind on Cleveland's west side and east side that one would enjoy visiting along with Downtown. As for downtowns Milwaukee does have a riverwalk and everything is concentrated in one area with lots blocks full of historic buildings and even more if you include Third Ward which extends south. Downtown Cleveland I found to be more pocket-oriented where you have some bustling areas with rather quiet areas separating them. I don't think Milwaukee serves as a model in all aspects, but there are some that should be followed. I mean, I would never say that Cleveland needs to look at NW Milwaukee for how to address rough spots on Cleveland's east side.
I just think you shouldn't over-criticize a city that you don't actually know all that well, though I do agree on some points. The neighborhoods is where I think you lose some credibility. But I'm here to help! Next time you're here: You've got Downtown, Asiatown, University Circle, Little Italy, Shaker Square/Larchmere, Coventry, Cedar-Lee, Cedar-Fairmount, North Collinwood, (all on the east side, by the way) and then Ohio City, Tremont, Gordon Square/Detroit Shoreway, Edgewater, Kamm's Corners, Gold Coast on the west side all have a lot going for them as well. There are other neighborhoods that I think have bad reputations or are really underrated but do offer some nice things, such as Forest Hills, the Slovenian and Croatian areas of Euclid, Slavic Village, and Ukrainian Village in Parma. That's a lot of neighborhoods!
I just think you shouldn't over-criticize a city that you don't actually know all that well, though I do agree on some points. The neighborhoods is where I think you lose some credibility. But I'm here to help! Next time you're here: You've got Downtown, Asiatown, University Circle, Little Italy, Shaker Square/Larchmere, Coventry, Cedar-Lee, Cedar-Fairmount, North Collinwood, (all on the east side, by the way) and then Ohio City, Tremont, Gordon Square/Detroit Shoreway, Edgewater, Kamm's Corners, Gold Coast on the west side all have a lot going for them as well. There are other neighborhoods that I think have bad reputations or are really underrated but do offer some nice things, such as Forest Hills, the Slovenian and Croatian areas of Euclid, Slavic Village, and Ukrainian Village in Parma. That's a lot of neighborhoods!
Trust me, the dude has a stick up his butt about anything Ohio. He likes to subtlely trash everything about it while making it seem like he's really trying to give fair criticism. Don't be fooled.
Not fair? You make it sound like I'm responsible for anything and everything negative about Ohio as though it didn't exist until I pointed it out. In the end, who is responsible? Me or the empty pro-Ohio boosterism that does nothing to improve the quality of day-to-day living in Ohio's cities.
I didn't demolish Cleveland to the point that you're very lucky to have three intact blocks of destinations to walk to and cause the city to lose more people in the 2011 population estimate. Sorry, but I've been to Downtown, the West Side and East Side and everything is just too disjointed: especially for carfree folk. In Columbus I didn't kill rail, hold back funding for urban revitalization in several neighborhoods, or halt the 2008 bikeways master plan so that even today there's no bike infrastructure from Downtown to any surrounding neighborhood or even around Downtown itself. Nor did I stall the Cincinnati streetcar til 2016 (seriously now!?) or cause it to only add a mere "additional 5 miles of bike lanes and sharrows on six streets in 2012".
Not everyone is leaving Ohio because of sub-standard urbanism, but judging by widespread population decline in urban areas we can see that the status quo is doing much more harm than good and that years of boosterism have not reversed or even stabilized these figures. Ohio's cities continue to lose out to coastal cities and Chicago along with other more progressive inland cities among city lovers because talking about being a real city is not the same as being a real city. We already told you that the mass transit sucks, that not enough is being to done make areas walkable/bikeable and that there needs to be more great urban neighborhoods. Otherwise you'll simply have more people making my point better than I ever could by voting with their two feet, just like I did to be somewhere where it's not a pain in the ass to ride a bus, a bike, and walk to everything you need, not to mention offer lots of variety where you can do all of the above.
2) Why do you want to leave or have left?: Snowy, gloomy, ghetto
3) Where outside of Ohio and why: San Diego, I love the Mediterranean climate
4) 2nd and 3rd Place Choices: Texas or Nashville
5) What’s currently holding you back from moving if you haven't already left?: Financial situation
6) Anything else you want to say? I have very mixed views of this state, I don't like it here, but it will always be home, and I'd rather be here than a lot of other states.
Not everybody in Ohio is in love with it, so I am starting this post for those who want to leave, or have left to tell us why.
TELL IT LIKE IT IS
1) Current or former Ohio location:
2) Why do you want to leave or have left?:
3) Where outside of Ohio and why:
4) 2nd and 3rd Place Choices:
5) What’s currently holding you back from moving if you haven't already left?:
6) Anything else you want to say?
Former first Akron, OH, then Dayton, OH.
Left because the jobs in Dayton weren't paying much.
Norfolk, VA; best option in Hampton Roads IMHO tried other cities around here didn't care for them much. Too suburban for me. Norfolk is a "real" city, or the norm back in Ohio.
Washington DC and New York City.
I can't afford either city, struggling to make ends meet here.
Ohio isn't quite as bad as it seemed when I lived there. On the other hand, Ohio has the potential to be greater than it was back in the glory days of the 50s; some denser, downtown areas already are, the rest has been left behind.
2) Why do you want to leave or have left?: Snowy, gloomy, rust belt, lack of culture, flat economy, nepotism is rampant in companies, half of the year everything is dead, freezing cold and icy. Not a lot of scenic mountains, lakes and oceans like other states. Half of your life is stuck inside all winter.
3) Where outside of Ohio and why: Warmer climate, North Carolina region.
4) 2nd and 3rd Place Choices: Knoxville or South Carolina
5) What’s currently holding you back from moving if you haven't already left?: Selling home and business, followed by job search in new city.
6) Anything else you want to say? This state is geared more toward people staying for family ties, and blue collar mini van families with kids, strip malls. Cleveland is a gloomy large city. Columbus is bit more vibrant, but still cold...Ohio.
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.
