Spent a great fall day in Cleveland yesterday and was struck by the comparisons between Clevo and Detroit. They're close comparisons: the two cities have suffered similar employment and population losses, and I heard that the county auditor, reflecting on rampant foreclosures, suggested that the 2010 census might reveal a city with 325,000 residents, down from almost 900,000 in 1960. Budget crises are similar, apparently.

The difference is that Cleveland could be put forth as one of Richard Florida's cool cities. They got five to ten years past where we did with redevelopment, and it scored some real successes. Tremont, their Corktown, is a happening place. Other areas near downtown have large, successful loft developments, with retail and nightlife to match. They have a nifty Little Italy [[Greektown is sort of comparable, or once was), a farmers' market area that draws folks from far and wide, a vibrant cultural center/university/health care district, a Ferndale-like inner suburb ... all comparable to areas in Detroit, and all a bit farther along and very attractive.

And they have mass transit, which has absolutely played a key role in making these things work. It is seriously struggling financially, though.

But none of it seems to be stopping the city from hollowing out. On the other hand, they would be better positioned to benefit quickly from an economic turnaround that provided a new jobs engine.

And maybe they have less of an exodus of talented young people than we do. Florida's idea is that the cool cities themselves become jobs engines, but I'm just not sure it's true. Austin is his exhibit A, but it has industry to go with its cool neighborhoods. Still, keeping good young people has to be key.

Just musing aloud.