Akron Has a New Plan to Boost Its Shrinking Population

[pdxtex]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

While it's always good to plan for a sustainable future where the emphasis is on people and not cars I fear this, like many attempts in the US, will not bear much fruit.

The re-birth of American downtown areas has 2 very large problems to solve which are somewhat unique to US cities as opposed............high crime and poor schools. High crime can be tackled but even if a city is relatively safe many of the millennials they are hoping to attract will head back to the suburbs due to the deplorable state and standard of US inner city schools.

and that's the exact topic modern law makers and prolific activists don't actually want to address. well, except for volde-trump. so I give him credit for at least bringing it up. but id posit, the single greatest impediment to modern urban renewal is crime and poverty. we need to address economic disparities before we consider how the built environment might improve peoples' day to day lives. were the putting the cart before the horse.

[a very long weekend]

^ man, i feel like i'm living in another world every time this "the cities are hell" conversation comes up. i guess it must be really bad in indiana and ohio or wherever. sort of explains the giant exodus to california, maybe. anyway, it's really not like that, at all, in the west. i'm talking seattle, portland, SF, almost all of LA, SD, honolulu, denver, the desert areas, albuquerque/santa fe. i'm pretty sure it's also not an east coast thing. i think it's maybe a southern/midwest thing, as your economies continue to collapse.

edit: not even all the south, as texas is on fire.

[mhays]

As a great president said 8.5 years ago, a president has to be able to focus on more than one thing.

[pdxtex]

Originally Posted by a very long weekend

^ man, i feel like i'm living in another world every time this "the cities are hell" conversation comes up. i guess it must be really bad in indiana and ohio or wherever. sort of explains the giant exodus to california, maybe. anyway, it's really not like that, at all, in the west. i'm talking seattle, portland, SF, almost all of LA, SD, honolulu, denver, the desert areas, albuquerque/santa fe. i'm pretty sure it's also not an east coast thing. i think it's maybe a southern/midwest thing, as your economies continue to collapse.

edit: not even all the south, as texas is on fire.

this is where the conversation turns into a large can of worms. and notice how black lives mattered so much back around election time, and now? crickets....democrat leaders are just as weasely and opportunistic as republicans. lets just say, its legacy industrial cities, with large poor urban black populations, run by democrat which are in the worst shape. not in their entirety obviously, but entrenched poverty and crime just wont go away in a dozen cities we can all name of the top of our head. its time we reexamine the great society because even after the end of the recession. all races increased their household income under Obama except black americans, they lost money, nearly 6000 dollars a household. that's telling us perhaps some instances of democrat social policy and leadership is failing a large part of their constituency.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by a very long weekend

i'm pretty sure it's also not an east coast thing.

then i suggest you book a flight to baltimore or philly sometime soon.

you'll be surprised by how much you don't know.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by a very long weekend

^ man, i feel like i'm living in another world every time this "the cities are hell" conversation comes up. i guess it must be really bad in indiana and ohio or wherever. sort of explains the giant exodus to california, maybe. anyway, it's really not like that, at all, in the west. i'm talking seattle, portland, SF, almost all of LA, SD, honolulu, denver, the desert areas, albuquerque/santa fe. i'm pretty sure it's also not an east coast thing. i think it's maybe a southern/midwest thing, as your economies continue to collapse.

edit: not even all the south, as texas is on fire.

I'm in Texas, and many small Texas towns that are not in the orbits of the thriving major cities are economically depressed and are losing people.

Yes, the northeast is just as sad shape as the midwest and the reason why I ended up here in Texas...craptacular economy. The west and northwest do not have nearly as many small and medium sized cities as the midwest and northeast that were industrial centers and now are still finding their way.

...and judging by the amount of California plates I see everyday and loads of former Californians, there is an indeed an exodus from the west just a different kind.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by a very long weekend

^ man, i feel like i'm living in another world every time this "the cities are hell" conversation comes up. i guess it must be really bad in indiana and ohio or wherever. sort of explains the giant exodus to california, maybe. anyway, it's really not like that, at all, in the west. i'm talking seattle, portland, SF, almost all of LA, SD, honolulu, denver, the desert areas, albuquerque/santa fe. i'm pretty sure it's also not an east coast thing. i think it's maybe a southern/midwest thing, as your economies continue to collapse.

edit: not even all the south, as texas is on fire.

California has some of the highest outmigration in the U.S., worse than many of the rustiest Rust Belt states.

And inner-city schools are generally bad in CA too. LA schools are awful even for big city standards.

And the most troubled cities in the U.S. in terms of violence, bad economy, and lack of demand, are generally heavily black cities. The West Coast doesn't really have heavily black cities, so doesn't have abandoned zones. But if LA were 40% black like many cities back East, I don't doubt it would have derelict zones like the South Side of Chicago or West Baltimore.

[pdxtex]

California has not posted a positive in-migration rate since the middle of the 1990s....

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by pdxtex

California has not posted a positive in-migration rate since the middle of the 1990s....

That makes sense. Southern California was devastated by federal cutbacks and the recession in the 90's and 1994 is when housing costs started their unstoppable upwards trend.

[llamaorama]

. lets just say, its legacy industrial cities, with large poor urban black populations, run by democrat which are in the worst shape

Most big cities, including the most successful ones, have democratic city leadership. This is and always has been a poor argument.

Most of the cities with entrenched black poverty were industrial centers that attracted large numbers of poor uneducated migrants to fill their factories, then those factories all closed. Also anyone from the ghetto who makes it moves away, so it is hard to measure social progress at the local level.

all races increased their household income under Obama except black americans, they lost money, nearly 6000 dollars a household. that's telling us perhaps some instances of democrat social policy and leadership is failing a large part of their constituency.

What happens if you break things down by class? I bet poor people of all races saw fewer gains, and blacks are more likely to be poor.

[pdxtex]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

Most big cities, including the most successful ones, have democratic city leadership. This is and always has been a poor argument.

Most of the cities with entrenched black poverty were industrial centers that attracted large numbers of poor uneducated migrants to fill their factories, then those factories all closed. Also anyone from the ghetto who makes it moves away, so it is hard to measure social progress at the local level.



What happens if you break things down by class? I bet poor people of all races saw fewer gains, and blacks are more likely to be poor.

right, by why are they more likely? these are the deeper questions we need to address. we cant just keep blaming deindustrialization. arguably, city populations peaked 60 years ago, and oodles or other minorities have successfully climbed the American ladder since. why not black americans? their potential for success is no different than anybody else. but something happened to their family and social structure after the mid 1960s. it wasn't just deindustrialization, it was welfare, single motherhood, rockefellar drug laws, leaded gasoline...a myriad of things we as a nation need to all examine and address. actually the leaded gas thing is fascinating. everyone should read about it. basically leaded gas fumes have been implicated in the rise and fall of urban crime rates. as lead abatement happened, so did violent crime all across the world....

[a very long weekend]

Originally Posted by Crawford

California has some of the highest outmigration in the U.S., worse than many of the rustiest Rust Belt states.

And inner-city schools are generally bad in CA too. LA schools are awful even for big city standards.

And the most troubled cities in the U.S. in terms of violence, bad economy, and lack of demand, are generally heavily black cities. The West Coast doesn't really have heavily black cities, so doesn't have abandoned zones. But if LA were 40% black like many cities back East, I don't doubt it would have derelict zones like the South Side of Chicago or West Baltimore.

right, it's true that a historically large number of older people are cashing out and moving to cheaper states, and that the number of older and lower education people leaving is not quite being offset by the large numbers of highly educated people flooding in from everywhere else in the nation. but this would only tend to underline how alien the "cities are hell" line.

i guess it could be the percentage/concentration of black folks (as a proxy for low income, low skill, high felon cohort).

anyway, my point was just that the "cities are hell" line feels very alien to me because i've never had that experience or even really visited anywhere in which it felt true.

you know, with how it is in the west, these other legacy employment centers really should be pleased that we out here have been adopting building policies that really amp up the cost of living. if the western states had progressive building regimes that kept housing affordable, towns in ohio and indiana would have almost nothing to recommend them.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by a very long weekend

towns in ohio and indiana would have almost nothing to recommend them.

yes, legacy built environments like this clearly have no value what-so-ever in our current era of renewed interest in traditional american urbanism.


source: http://otrmatters.com/over-otr-with-nick-dewald/



hey everyone, ohio is now officially closed.

let's all go be arrogant cali douche bags!

fun in the sun, brah.....

[ColDayMan]

News to me!

[a very long weekend]

well, i just meant with the poor economies.

[Buckeye Native 001]

That city hosts the headquarters for Proctor & Gamble, Kroger and Macy's/Federated (and several other corporations I'm probably forgetting) as well as the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, all of which are downtown. Hardly what I'd call a poor economy.

Two hours up the road is Columbus, which, in addition to a gigantic public university as well having the distinction of being Ohio's capitol and largest city, hosts several corporate headquarters within its metropolitan area of nearly two million people.

Neither of which suffered from the Great Recession in quite the same way as much of Southern California, Arizona and Nevada.

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

That city hosts the headquarters for Proctor & Gamble, Kroger and Macy's/Federated (and several other corporations I'm probably forgetting) as well as the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, all of which are downtown. Hardly what I'd call a poor economy.

Two hours up the road is Columbus, which, in addition to a gigantic public university as well having the distinction of being Ohio's capitol and largest city, hosts several corporate headquarters within its metropolitan area of nearly two million people.

Neither of which suffered from the Great Recession in quite the same way as much of Southern California, Arizona and Nevada.

Most of the historically major cities east of the Mississippi and north of the Ohio are -- if not necessarily thriving -- at least on the up-and-up again. Not just Chicago and the Northeast's heavy hitters, but medium-sized cities like Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincy, Louisville, Indianapolis, and so forth are generally doing alright for themselves. Even particularly hard-hit cities like Detroit are seeing signs of life again.

There's an urban order in the Northeast and Midwest. Some cities have always been more important than others. Small industrial burgs like Lima, OH, or Fort Wayne, IN, are still not nice places to be ... but even at their peaks they were never as important as the alphas or betas.

I think I might call it "regionalized gentrification" or something like that. As an alpha city becomes increasingly unaffordable, its subordinate betas become increasingly viable. And it'll keep going down the chain ... there's a lot of undervalued urban supply in the Northeast and Midwest. It's not like the all-in vernaculars of the Far West, where you're either suburban like Phoenix, urban like Portland, or located in the middle of literally nowhere.

[Buckeye Native 001]

Yeah, Cincinnati and Columbus will never be Chicago (nor should they be, and Chicago is in no danger of becoming as unaffordable as LA or NYC), but both seem to be doing alright for themselves all things considered and hardly have what I (or most other people who've spent significant amounts of time east of the Rockies) would call "poor economies." Had I not left Ohio for health reasons (weather/mold) I'd consider moving back to Cincinnati or Columbus.

And for what it's worth, I moved from Southern California to Arizona (to be closer to family) at the start of the Great Recession. Trying to find a job in Phoenix at that time (or Las Vegas or Los Angeles/Orange County/Inland Empire) was damn-near impossible.

[ChargerCarl]

I love the idea of traditionally urban, midwest cities offering a lower cost alternative to people priced out coastal cities, but I worry that the demand just isn't there. In my mind Chicago should be growing gangbusters -- its a cheap large, urban city with good transit and amenities -- and yet that doesn't seem to be happening.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

I love the idea of traditionally urban, midwest cities offering a lower cost alternative to people priced out coastal cities, but I worry that the demand just isn't there. In my mind Chicago should be growing gangbusters -- its a cheap large, urban city with good transit and amenities -- and yet that doesn't seem to be happening.

People move where the jobs are dude. Unless it's Portland, then they move there even without having a job.