Cool cities theory rebutted? Cleveland and Detroit

[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.

[ghettopalmetto]

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.

Again, WHAT renaissance???

You can't rebuild a city through PR. People aren't stupid. After a while, they notice that the Emperor isn't wearing any clothes.

[BShea]

You're right. The Cleveland of 1975 was absolutely no different than the Cleveland of 1995 or 2005. </eye roll>

[ghettopalmetto]

You're right. The Cleveland of 1975 was absolutely no different than the Cleveland of 1995 or 2005. </eye roll>

The Cleveland of 1975 had a larger population, larger tax base, higher incomes, more stable neighborhoods.

So I guess it was well worth it to spend hundreds of millions of dollars of public money on Bread and Circuses, huh? I mean, Cleveland may have lost 300,000 residents since 1975, but at least they have a nice baseball stadium! We know that educated young professionals will only move to places with nice, publicly-funded baseball stadia that sell $7 beers.

A collection of Projects does not a city make and you know this, Bill. I'm very disappointed in the level of investigation and fact verification present in your "journalism". What you're writing about in this thread is no different than the M.O. of the City of Cleveland the past 30 years--"Oh, lookie what City X did! We should copy that idea! To hell if it actually works or not--we'll tell the taxpayers that it'll create JOBS, by golly, JOBS!"

[BShea]

The Cleveland of 1975 had a larger population, larger tax base, higher incomes, more stable neighborhoods.

This is a joke, right? You're trying to be funny?

Why don't you ask any Clevelander which city they'd rather live in, Cleveland of 1975 or 2005.

Sure, Goulardi, Big Chuck & Little John and Super Host were epically cool, but no one except delusional malcontents would possibly want to trade now for then -- even in the face of wonkish statistics employed by people that were never there.

I lived there in the 1970s. My family still is there. They were business owners there and politicians. We experienced it first hand. The crime, the nasty city buses, the slummy neighborhoods, being unable to walk to and from ballgames, the rotting hulks of ships along the river, etc. It was an absolute shithole.

Are you going to next tell me Ralph Perk and his flaming hair were great for the city? Or the Cuyahoga River smouldering didn't matter? Or the banks putting the city into receivership was nothing? Do you even know what you're talking about? Because it sure doesn't look like it.

And this isn't journalism. This is a message board. I honestly cannot believe I would have to explain that to someone, but I guess I shouldn't be, based on your posts today. Glad I can disappoint you.

[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