Cool cities theory rebutted? Cleveland and Detroit

[texorama]

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.

[Paddington]

"Cool cities" has got nothing to do with it. I'm surprised that anyone was dumb enough to believe Granholm on that.

The fastest growing places aren't all that "cool", except for the growth itself that's bringing in lots of new residents and developments.

The young people go where the jobs are. The employers set up jobs in places with friendly business climates, low taxes, etc. They are hardly concerned with "cool".

You can bring all the hipsters you want into Detroit and Cleveland, but if the economic policies don't change there will be no growth.

[Packman41]

The young people go where the jobs are. The employers set up jobs in places with friendly business climates, low taxes, etc. They are hardly concerned with "cool".

You can bring all the hipsters you want into Detroit and Cleveland, but if the economic policies don't change there will be no growth.

+1 with Paddington

[Fnemecek]

The young people go where the jobs are. The employers set up jobs in places with friendly business climates, low taxes, etc. They are hardly concerned with "cool".

If employers set up jobs in business friendly climates and low taxes, why did Pfizer move from Ann Arbor to California/

They moved from a place that gave them complete immunity from law suits to what the American Manufacturers Association described as "the most anti-business place in America."

And they're paying higher taxes for the privilege of doing so.

[wolverine]

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.

Basically what you said, is what I've heard EVERYONE say from Michigan who has visited Cleveland. They are making all the right moves to improve things....actions that are completely unimaginable in Detroit.

Of course many poor neighborhoods struggling badly...but it's a situation many neighborhoods face. What's important is boosting their downtown to attract more business that will keep the city running.

[evergreen]

Oh, I don't know. I'm one of those folks who when driving, I really don't notice too much other than traffic [[very important these days when it seems that one-half of drivers are using cellphones). But I was in the passenger seat earlier this week for a ride through the WSU/midtown area at midday and was impressed with the amount of construction going on in midtown. Went to good girls go to paris and couldn't get a seat.

The midtown situation is definitely getting better. But out here, where I lay my head down to sleep, it's getting worse and folks are continuing to move out. And everything, absolutely everything, hinges on the economy getting better.

[Danny]

Cleveland and Detroit are quite similar in size, population and industry:

1. Cleveland has 60% black 30% white and 5% Hispanic.

2. Detroit has 83% black 8% white and 6% Hispanic.

1. Cleveland's Downtown is been revitalized since the mide 1990s.

2. Detroit's Downtown revitalization has been very slow since the mid 1990s.

1.Cleveland has tis neighborhood ghetto like, but their housing is well kept up.

2.Detroit's housing its neighborhood ghetto like, but their housing are mostly vacant, abandoned and turning to instant urban praries.

[Paddington]

And yet despite all this "coolness" and "right moves" that Cleveland is making, the city and in fact the metro as a whole have continued to lose enormous numbers of people.

[royce]

Evergreen, where is "out" here for you?

[Gistok]

Interestingly enough Columbus is now Ohio's largest city... but with a listed population of over 700,000... there's likely some annexation involved...

[DetroitPlanner]

Dick Florida was all about the Creative Class. Cool Cities is a tool of the Granholm adminstration. Cleveland was never a 'Cool City' and does not have anywhere near the crative talent that Detroit does.

Points made by other posters are spot on. No one is staying in Detroit OR Cleveland if they cannot find work.

[Corktown Mark]

Of course development downtown is too slow, you are right about that. But the success is still astonishing in view of the national economy. Detroit with the efforts of Penske and others is making more progress then you give it credit for. for example this week
GM marketing chief leads effort to bring companies to Detroit


http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...te=fullarticle

[skyl4rk]

The property taxes in the City of Cleveland are 2.08% of the market value of the home.

The property taxes in the City of Detroit for a homestead property are 65.79 mills on the taxable value of the home. When newly purchased, the taxable value is one half of the market value, so you could say that the City of Detroit taxes are 32.9 mills on the market value, or 3.29%.

For non-homestead properties, the millage rate is 83.8 on taxable value, 41.9 mills on the "market" value when new, which is 4.19%.

http://auditor.cuyahogacounty.us/realprop/calculate.htm
https://treas-secure.state.mi.us/pte...TEStimator.asp

[fryar]

The young people move to where they want to be, and then find a job there.

[Novine]

"The young people go where the jobs are. The employers set up jobs in places with friendly business climates, low taxes, etc. They are hardly concerned with "cool"."

It must explain why no businesses are located in New York City or Seattle or any other place that doesn't fit your preconceived notion of what motivates business location decisions. If low taxes and friendly business climate drives business location decisions, why is South Carolina's unemployment rate almost as bad as Michigan's?

[BShea]

Cleveland's rebirth actually began in the 1980s. The city was fortunate in that its mayor, George Voinovich, became governor and then a U.S. senator. He made sure money flowed back home. I haven't looked, but who was the last Detroit mayor to become gov? Hazen Pingree?

Cleveland was never as large as Detroit, and was at least somewhat less dependent on a single industry. Hence, it was a bit more shielded from economic shocks. However, it still fell apart as a city in the 1970s - defaulting on loans, the river and the mayor's hair catching on fire, etc. Plenty of epic reputational disasters. It had corrupt mayors and white flight and bad schools. It even had a major riot the year before Detroit did.

Also, Ohio has two other large cities [[Columbus and Cincinnati) which are staggered along the same highway across the state. Michigan doesn't have anything approaching that. Ohio's population is move evenly spread, as are major employers. Columbus hasn't grown from annexation but instead from state government, the insurance industry [[Nationwide) and from Ohio State being a massive university. It would be like having UM and MSU in downtown Detroit.

Cleveland got lucky and matched new downtown stadium construction with the rise of two of its sports teams [[and lured its NBA team back downtown from the 'burbs). That coincided with the general renaissance that the national media took note of in endless stories and profiles of the city.

Cleveland's rebirth has slowed and in some cases regressed. I'm told the much-vaunted Flats entertainment district is struggling mightily. Losing the Browns hurt, and they've unfortunately been bad since return to the NFL in 1999.

The Wikipedia has a decent entry on Cleveland, and it's surprising to see a lot of parallels with Detroit, albeit on a smaller scale. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland

And FYI, as many on here know, I'm a Cleveland native now living in downtown Detroit -- what a fate, eh? I love both cities.

[ghettopalmetto]

Cleveland's rebirth actually began in the 1980s. The city was fortunate in that its mayor, George Voinovich, became governor and then a U.S. senator. He made sure money flowed back home. I haven't looked, but who was the last Detroit mayor to become gov? Hazen Pingree?

Cleveland's rebirth has yet to begin. All they've done is create a lot of stand-alone Projects--Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, Tower City Center, Gateway, Browns Stadium, and now Medical Mart and Convention Center. It's the Monty Python Method of Economic Development. You build a Big Fucking Thing and wait for the magic to happen. When the magic doesn't happen, you build another Big Fucking Thing. Bang your head on the wall ad nauseum.

Also, Ohio has two other large cities [[Columbus and Cincinnati) which are staggered along the same highway across the state. Michigan doesn't have anything approaching that. Ohio's population is move evenly spread, as are major employers. Columbus hasn't grown from annexation but instead from state government, the insurance industry [[Nationwide) and from Ohio State being a massive university. It would be like having UM and MSU in downtown Detroit.

Cleveland also has to compete with Columbus, Cincinnati, and Toledo [[all of which are larger than Michigan's second largest city, Grand Rapids) for state dollars. And if you think that Columbus hasn't grown from annexation, then I know a certain journalist whose fact-checking is for shit. Columbus has pursued a policy of "growth" through annexation since the 1970s. Ohio State University is 55,000 students. U of M alone is 40,000. MSU is 45,000 or so. Do math much? Still, I don't see what Columbus has to do wth Cleveland, or Detroit for that matter.

Cleveland got lucky and matched new downtown stadium construction with the rise of two of its sports teams [[and lured its NBA team back downtown from the 'burbs). That coincided with the general renaissance that the national media took note of in endless stories and profiles of the city.

You should visit some time. While there are a lot of things about Cleveland I love, the stadiums in no way contributed to a "renaissance". Flight to the suburbs [[and beyond) continued, the population of the city declined--basically, the same shit that has been happening since the 1950s continued on its merry downward spiral. You can't build an economy on professional sports teams. And frankly, I'm shocked that someone who calls himself a "business" writer implies as much.

[BShea]

You can't build an economy on professional sports teams. And frankly, I'm shocked that someone who calls himself a "business" writer implies as much.

Where did I write that?

I did write this: That coincided with the general renaissance that the national media took note of in endless stories and profiles of the city.

Comprehend much? Keep it classy, GP.

[Detroitnerd]

Cleveland's rebirth actually began in the 1980s. The city was fortunate in that its mayor, George Voinovich, became governor and then a U.S. senator. He made sure money flowed back home. I haven't looked, but who was the last Detroit mayor to become gov? Hazen Pingree?

Frank Murphy, I think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Murphy

[DC48080]

Renaissance: a renewal of life, vigor, interest, etc.; rebirth

If you compare Cleveland during the 1960s and '70s to the Cleveland of the 1980s and '90s you will see that it was indeed a renaissance. The city transformed itself. It was no longer called "the armpit" of the midwest".

[iheartthed]

It was no longer called "the armpit" of the midwest".

Because Detroit took its place?

[Detroitnerd]

David Rusk groups Detroit and Cleveland together as cities that are unable to annex surrounding communities, and are therefore doomed to what he calls "inelasticity."

http://www.sprawlwatch.org/regionalannex.html

The following material is excerpted with written permission from How Smart Growth Can Stop Sprawl, a briefing guide for funders by David Bollier. [[Washington, D.C.: Essential Books), 1998.

David Rusk convincingly argues that the "real city" necessarily includes both the central city and suburbs. Unless political jurisdictions reflect this fact, the population and economic growth of most cities will suffer.

Through detailed historical statistics, Rusk shows in Cities Without Suburbs that the most economically robust cities have been "elastic cities" -- that is, they have been able to expand their borders through consolidation or annexation of suburbs and thus "capture" new growth in the metro area.

Cities that are "inelastic" tend to be older, more complacent and more racially segregated, as well as more impoverished. Examples include Detroit, Cleveland, Louisville and Milwaukee. Cities that are elastic tend to be newer and more ambitious, less segregated and more economically robust. Examples include Houston, Indianapolis, Albuquerque, Seattle and Austin. Rusk argues that elastic cities are more successful because they practice some form of regionalism.

Emphasis added ...

[DC48080]

David Rusk groups Detroit and Cleveland together as cities that are unable to annex surrounding communities, and are therefore doomed to what he calls "inelasticity."

http://www.sprawlwatch.org/regionalannex.html

The following material is excerpted with written permission from How Smart Growth Can Stop Sprawl, a briefing guide for funders by David Bollier. [[Washington, D.C.: Essential Books), 1998.

David Rusk convincingly argues that the "real city" necessarily includes both the central city and suburbs. Unless political jurisdictions reflect this fact, the population and economic growth of most cities will suffer.

Through detailed historical statistics, Rusk shows in Cities Without Suburbs that the most economically robust cities have been "elastic cities" -- that is, they have been able to expand their borders through consolidation or annexation of suburbs and thus "capture" new growth in the metro area.

Cities that are "inelastic" tend to be older, more complacent and more racially segregated, as well as more impoverished. Examples include Detroit, Cleveland, Louisville and Milwaukee. Cities that are elastic tend to be newer and more ambitious, less segregated and more economically robust. Examples include Houston, Indianapolis, Albuquerque, Seattle and Austin. Rusk argues that elastic cities are more successful because they practice some form of regionalism.

Emphasis added ...

In order for one city to annex another, consent must be given [[through an election) by the citizens of the municipality that is to be annexed. I seriously doubt that any suburban cities would choose to become part of the mess that is Detroit. This isn't the 1920s anymore. Detroit is not the be all and end all place to be.

[Detroitnerd]

In order for one city to annex another, consent must be given [[through an election) by the citizens of the municipality that is to be annexed. I seriously doubt that any suburban cities would choose to become part of the mess that is Detroit. This isn't the 1920s anymore. Detroit is not the be all and end all place to be.

Yeah ... um ... you totally missed the point. So what else is new ...

[DC48080]

Yeah ... um ... you totally missed the point. So what else is new ...

A bit arrogant, are we? What else is new